gorhill

27 ms·

241.
by gorhill 9y ago
uBO understands ABP filter syntax -- with a few exceptions. For more details, I created a feature comparison table in the wiki: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/About-%22uBlock-is-in...
242.
by gorhill 9y ago
Sites do this. For example, see Instart Logic: https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra/wiki/Sites-on-which-uBO...
243.
by gorhill 9y ago
> Don't collect URLs, but only top-level+1 domains (e.g. images.google.com), and associate information with that. Using "images.google.com" as an example is too convenient. That would be great if you could also add whatev
244.
by gorhill 9y ago
If like me you wondered where was the encryption key... It's the fragment identifier of the URL, i.e. not sent as part of the request to the remote server, it a client-side only value.
245.
by gorhill 9y ago
> Had they given it enough thought, they'd have I find unfortunate to see such trivialization of dev work from outside. They had to deal with years of legacy code piling up, and this was seriously impeding the modernization of Firef
246.
by gorhill 9y ago
> If the browser says "You can't do that", I can't do that. Consider WebExtensions Experiments: https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io/en/latest/w...
247.
by gorhill 9y ago
> Long story short, eval is still a very useful feature. And yet this is Mozilla's stance regarding extensions pulling code from outside the extension's own package[1]: > extensions with 'unsafe-eval', 'unsafe
248.
by gorhill 9y ago
> it actually hides the malware in a .jpg file that appears benign at first (promo.jpg for anyone who wants to analyze) but when loaded in a canvas element and decoded in some manner I am guessing the extensions had a "content_secur
249.
by gorhill 9y ago
Yes, I was assuming a known blocker. I know none that removes DOM elements.
250.
by gorhill 9y ago
> Some adblocker decided to remove that div. The script then failed to grab that div for the reminder of the animation. Blockers do not remove DOM elements, they just apply a `display: none;` style property to them.
251.
by gorhill 9y ago
> more sites that only work with Chrome (where they literally throw up a page that blocks access and says go download Chrome). Any specific examples of this? A URL, or a couple of them? When making such an assertion, it would be nice to
252.
by gorhill 9y ago
> There's a page on the wiki aboit various forms of data collections [1]. The page you linked to starts with "Firefox sends various data back to Mozilla". Nowhere does it say "Firefox sends various data back to Google
253.
by gorhill 9y ago
I'm puzzled. Content blocking extensions can't interfere with your extension's internals, and can't interfere with network requests made by another extension. If your extension injects resources in the DOM, than a conten
254.
by gorhill 9y ago
> This article is all about Facebook, but I have also scaled back my use of other big services like Google The issue is with whatever 3rd parties which are ubiquitous enough. The difficulty is, how do we find which 3rd parties are ubiqui
255.
by gorhill 9y ago
> wasn't granular enough to actually block the things I wanted to without breaking sites I don't understand the criticism: it's no less granular than NoScript. If considering only the dynamic filtering panel[1], it can be
256.
by gorhill 9y ago
> implies that matter—including galaxies, stars, and even humans—should have been annihilated by the equal amounts of anti-matter. That is an odd sentence: "Even humans" after enumerating "galaxies, stars".
257.
by gorhill 9y ago
> The Intercept got a story published and is enjoying great attention (and ad revenue) There is no ad revenue at The Intercept.
258.
by gorhill 9y ago
To add to your comment, Firefox people are working to support anti-fingerprinting protection in the browser.[1] [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1329996
259.
by gorhill 9y ago
I wrote an example of how to reduce privacy exposure by blocking ubiquitous domains using uBO's point-and-click "firewall" pane, and used Facebook as an example: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wik
260.
by gorhill 9y ago
If "Zero Day: The story of MS17-010" is meant to be an accurate report of facts regarding MS17-010, then there is at least one inaccuracy in it: > someone calling themselves "the Shadow Brokers" leaks a huge trove of
261.
by gorhill 9y ago
> at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free All blockers allow you to whitelist whatever site you want -- if allowing a site to fund itself through advertising is fine with you. I personally prefer the "user decides&quo
262.
by gorhill 9y ago
Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should inst
263.
by gorhill 9y ago
> all it takes is somebody submitting a new rule in uBlock's or AdBlock's repository and then that revenue will be lost, with no discrimination. Anybody is free to disable their blocker on any site. If you want a site to be fun
264.
by gorhill 10y ago
> It's not a dubious claim The claim: > still see some ads using Origin, where with ABP I don't ... is definitely dubious. I still have to see such vague claims to be substantiated, with actual examples of where this happens
265.
by gorhill 10y ago
> I still see some ads using Origin, where with ABP I don't Given that both Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin ("uBO") uses EasyList to block ads, this is a dubious claim, requiring at least some evidences. Now add to this tha
266.
by gorhill 10y ago
There is no shortsightedness involved, it's just a false positive from one of the filter lists. When false positives are reported, they get fixed. This fixes the false positive: @@||decknetwork.net^$first-party
267.
by gorhill 10y ago
> How long until the ABP guys stop their generosity EasyList is not owned neither maintained by Adblock Plus.[1] Adblock Plus ("ABP"), like other blockers benefits from the work put into EasyList by volunteers. [1] https:&#x2F
268.
by gorhill 10y ago
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has been at work since 1986 -- see their archives for 2003[1]. "Fake news" is not a new issue, this has always existed, and the real antidote is the same now as it has always been: crit
269.
by gorhill 10y ago
Another solution is to use uBO's "firewall" to block disqus.com everywhere, and to enable (temporarily or permanently) on a per-site basis where needed with a mere point-and-click interface.[1] [1] An example using facebook.c
270.
by gorhill 10y ago
uBlock Origin can block self-hosted ads. If you see non-blocked ads somewhere, just report the details to filter list maintainers. The tens of thousands of filters in those filter lists are the result of users reporting instances of non-blo

More ›