15 ms·

> hence ABE happened Fun fact: ABE is now discontinued "in favor of uBlock" because the latter is just so much more efficient. [1] [1] https://addons.mozilla.

> hence ABE happened Fun fact: ABE is now discontinued "in favor of uBlock" because the latter is just so much more efficient. [1] [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-Us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-Us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/

izietto 11y ago
It has been discontinued too early; from an AdBlock Edge comment, titled "uBlock may be fast, but is rubbish": > I've been using uBlock now for a while and while it is light and fast, it's is rubbish to use. Exclusions are idiotic, context menu controls don't work, default filters selection is idiotic, it doesn't sync settings like Adblock Edge does, I'm just starting to hate it. > I'd too like to see AdBlock Edge continue its own development path even if it's not the fastest or lightest. It's still better than all other ad blockers...
- bhouston 11y ago
  And don't forget that uBlock blocks Google Analytics, breaks most popular travel sites if you try to actually purchase, and also error reporters like NewRelix. Most of this is the fault of the default inclusion of EasyPrivacy I believe.
  - onli 11y ago
    If I remember correctly, EasyPrivacy got removed from the default selection quite a while ago. But it was in it when that addon was first presented here, probably where that memory stems from.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      EasyPrivacy is enabled by default in current installs of uBlock on Firefox.
  - gpvos 11y ago
    Blocking Google Analytics is the main point of any blocker I would consider using.
    - andybak 11y ago
      Would you block any analytics tracker - even one that didn't share data with 3rd parties? (i.e. a tracker that was purely to enable to site owners to gain insight into their visitors)
      - gpvos 11y ago
        No, I'm mostly concerned about cross-site sharing of data.
        sp332 11y ago
        Me too. If I'm visiting a website, I don't mind the operator of the site knowing about my visit or getting some basic stats about usage. It's when they compare notes to make a larger map of my visits across the web that I start getting nervous. And when they use that data to target advertising to me, I start blocking them.
      - _ZeD_ 11y ago
        yes. I keep analytics only for websites that are not-functioning. Still, I despise them.
      - bcg1 11y ago
        Yes
      - wkw3 11y ago
        Radio Shack had that promise as well, until they went under.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc and blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance).
  - amalcon 11y ago
    Why is blocking Google Analytics bad? Isn't blocking spyware like GA the main purpose of ad blocking software?
    - sp332 11y ago
      Some people just use adblockers to reduce the annoyance of looking at ads.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      The vast majority of people use ad blockers to block ads. That's why almost no ad blockers block GA, etc by default. Plus, from my other comment: "Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc and blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance)."
      - glesica 11y ago
        > By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. They can still use server analytics to see me as a visitor. I even show up on Cloudflare. I don't want them tracking what I do on their site, it should be enough to know I showed up and asked for a specific page. If their business model relies on knowing more, then they chose a lousy business model. Why is there so much sympathy for ad-supported sites on HN but when other industries with obsolete business models are brought up (like record companies) it's all about "disrupting" them? Have we given up on finding better ways to support content online?
        piyush_soni 11y ago
        Yes, ads remain the major e-business model till date (and will probably remain for a long time to come). I guess one of the problems is, everyone needs money to maintain a website and to make a profit, but not everyone has content (or products) that could sell. It's a difficult problem to solve in theory. I think simple text based (or even small images based) ads should be fine .. it's the flashy ones or the ones that delay my workflow that I hate to the core.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I use it for default browsing, if anything doesn't work I open it in an incognito window. Can't complain.
    - mistermann 11y ago
      An incognito window doesn't use add-ins?
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        In chrome, no. Firefox does.
      - morganvachon 11y ago
        You can enable it per extension in Chrome, so if you want an ad blocker to work in an incognito window just go to chrome://extensions and check the box that says "Allow in incognito" (though allowing an ad blocker to work in incognito mode defeats the purpose of using that mode, at least in the context of this discussion).
  - JonLim 11y ago
    I enjoy how efficient Chrome has become as a result of uBlock, but it has a couple niggling issues. The most prominent of which is that embedded videos on a page (like those made on Reddit comment threads via RES) will display the ads, and there's nothing I can really do about it. Still spiffy fast, at least.
  - path411 11y ago
    Any script blocker should by default block any third-party script.
- Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
  I haven't been seeing those issues with uBlock.
  - tobylane 11y ago
    The one issue I've had with it is it won't hide the share feature on each link of Reddit.
    - tim333 11y ago
      try right clicking on the thing, click uBlock link, paste: ## .post-sharing-button[href="javascript: void 0;"] into the box (or delete the other text till you get that) and click create
      - tobylane 11y ago
        When I refresh the page none of them are hidden, even the one I used to get to the box. Chrome 44, all other extensions disabled.
        tim333 11y ago
        Odd. Works for me using Chrome 43.

izietto 11y ago

It has been discontinued too early; from an AdBlock Edge comment, titled "uBlock may be fast, but is rubbish": > I've been using uBlock now for a while and while it is light and fast, it's is rubbish to use. Exclusions are idiotic, context menu controls don't work, default filters selection is idiotic, it doesn't sync settings like Adblock Edge does, I'm just starting to hate it. > I'd too like to see AdBlock Edge continue its own development path even if it's not the fastest or lightest. It's still better than all other ad blockers...

bhouston 11y ago
And don't forget that uBlock blocks Google Analytics, breaks most popular travel sites if you try to actually purchase, and also error reporters like NewRelix. Most of this is the fault of the default inclusion of EasyPrivacy I believe.
- onli 11y ago
  If I remember correctly, EasyPrivacy got removed from the default selection quite a while ago. But it was in it when that addon was first presented here, probably where that memory stems from.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    EasyPrivacy is enabled by default in current installs of uBlock on Firefox.
- gpvos 11y ago
  Blocking Google Analytics is the main point of any blocker I would consider using.
  - andybak 11y ago
    Would you block any analytics tracker - even one that didn't share data with 3rd parties? (i.e. a tracker that was purely to enable to site owners to gain insight into their visitors)
    - gpvos 11y ago
      No, I'm mostly concerned about cross-site sharing of data.
      - sp332 11y ago
        Me too. If I'm visiting a website, I don't mind the operator of the site knowing about my visit or getting some basic stats about usage. It's when they compare notes to make a larger map of my visits across the web that I start getting nervous. And when they use that data to target advertising to me, I start blocking them.
    - _ZeD_ 11y ago
      yes. I keep analytics only for websites that are not-functioning. Still, I despise them.
    - bcg1 11y ago
      Yes
    - wkw3 11y ago
      Radio Shack had that promise as well, until they went under.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc and blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance).
- amalcon 11y ago
  Why is blocking Google Analytics bad? Isn't blocking spyware like GA the main purpose of ad blocking software?
  - sp332 11y ago
    Some people just use adblockers to reduce the annoyance of looking at ads.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    The vast majority of people use ad blockers to block ads. That's why almost no ad blockers block GA, etc by default. Plus, from my other comment: "Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc and blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance)."
    - glesica 11y ago
      > By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. They can still use server analytics to see me as a visitor. I even show up on Cloudflare. I don't want them tracking what I do on their site, it should be enough to know I showed up and asked for a specific page. If their business model relies on knowing more, then they chose a lousy business model. Why is there so much sympathy for ad-supported sites on HN but when other industries with obsolete business models are brought up (like record companies) it's all about "disrupting" them? Have we given up on finding better ways to support content online?
      - piyush_soni 11y ago
        Yes, ads remain the major e-business model till date (and will probably remain for a long time to come). I guess one of the problems is, everyone needs money to maintain a website and to make a profit, but not everyone has content (or products) that could sell. It's a difficult problem to solve in theory. I think simple text based (or even small images based) ads should be fine .. it's the flashy ones or the ones that delay my workflow that I hate to the core.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I use it for default browsing, if anything doesn't work I open it in an incognito window. Can't complain.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    An incognito window doesn't use add-ins?
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      In chrome, no. Firefox does.
    - morganvachon 11y ago
      You can enable it per extension in Chrome, so if you want an ad blocker to work in an incognito window just go to chrome://extensions and check the box that says "Allow in incognito" (though allowing an ad blocker to work in incognito mode defeats the purpose of using that mode, at least in the context of this discussion).
- JonLim 11y ago
  I enjoy how efficient Chrome has become as a result of uBlock, but it has a couple niggling issues. The most prominent of which is that embedded videos on a page (like those made on Reddit comment threads via RES) will display the ads, and there's nothing I can really do about it. Still spiffy fast, at least.
- path411 11y ago
  Any script blocker should by default block any third-party script.
Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
I haven't been seeing those issues with uBlock.
- tobylane 11y ago
  The one issue I've had with it is it won't hide the share feature on each link of Reddit.
  - tim333 11y ago
    try right clicking on the thing, click uBlock link, paste: ## .post-sharing-button[href="javascript: void 0;"] into the box (or delete the other text till you get that) and click create
    - tobylane 11y ago
      When I refresh the page none of them are hidden, even the one I used to get to the box. Chrome 44, all other extensions disabled.
      - tim333 11y ago
        Odd. Works for me using Chrome 43.