Thread 106360383

so, this is now acceptable?

>>106360383 (OP)
ublock origin had 32 million users.
ublock origin lite only has 9 million users.
so for the majority (72%) it doesn't seem acceptable, no.

>>106360440
correct, but I believe UBOL will reach the top, in time

>>106360640
Is this legit?
desu I've only ever trusted UBO and gorhill for countless years now.
I have no idea what the ecosystem is like. I actually have a bias to think everything else is on the 'scam spectrum' in someway, but I could be wrong.

>>106362031
They've had whitelisted ads and other shit so no. It used to be good more than a decade ago. Iirc ubo was formed when the controversy started as a reaction.

>>106362031
ublock origin massively extended filter rules:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax
adblock plus is missing all of this. so the same filter lists will work a lot worse.
for example lots of modern ads like on instagram can only be caught by procedural filters:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Procedural-cosmetic-filters
ublock origin can do this. adblock plus cannot.

>>106362031
i've been using adblock plus before ubo even existed but it's kinda lacking these days compared to ubo
have to use ABP in my wagie cagie job because we can only install preapproved addons
it blocks most stuff and even works on youtube but it just doesn't feel as fast or good as ubo

>>106362283
>t just doesn't feel as fast
wait what? isn't it mv3 now?
for mv3 it should be like ubol, i.e.
"""
uBOL is entirely declarative, meaning there is no need for a permanent uBOL process for the filtering to occur, and CSS/JS injection-based content filtering is performed reliably by the browser itself rather than by the extension. This means that uBOL itself does not consume CPU/memory resources while content blocking is ongoing -- uBOL's service worker process is required _only_ when you interact with the popup panel or the option pages.
"""

>>106362256
with uBO I got rid of chan culture and american culture here on 4chan

>>106362031
They take bribes and the main reason uBlock Origins was even made. Also resource hungry. There's really no reason not to use uBlock Origins.

>>106362998
this, adblock used to block 100% of ads, but then they started accepting money to let ads through their service. that said, ubo's architecture will literally prevent ads requests from being made in the first place, thus making browsing a lot faster, instead of traditional cosmetic filters like abp

>>106360383 (OP)
most of uBO's limitations are imposed by gorhill, not MV3. Switch to adguard you'll never even notice uBlock is gone.
>>106362031
>I've only ever trusted UBO and gorhill
I have bad news for you about adblockers, uBO and ABP and adguard all share filters and syntax.
>>106362256
>https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax
All of that except scriptlets is just compatibility with adguard syntax.
>>106363387
You have it backwards, traditional adblocking is only blocking network requests, cosmetic filters are newer only going back to 2012 or so.

>>106360383 (OP)
So what do ppl use with the Full version of Unblock Origin?
Can't use chrome anymore.
Firefox is shit
Unblock Origin Lite is shit and can't even block a redirect.

>>106360383 (OP)
I'm more wondering why retards on /g/, who should know better, still use a chromium based browser. That shouldn't be acceptable, but sadly it seems to be.

>>106365708
>chromium based browser
Everything else it shit.

>>106365708
>chromium based browser
Everything else is shit.

>>106365708
I use firefox for 99% of things.
Unfortunately the occasional badly made site just doesn't work right on anything but chromium.

>>106365708
lol

>>106363945
>most of uBO's limitations are imposed by gorhill
For good reason.
>... not MV3.
Check the commits. That's not even a concern anymore.
>uBO and ABP and adguard all share filters and syntax.
This is true. I believe uBO also took some ideas from AdGuard.

>>106366026
>For good reason.
Not really. He's gimping the ability for it to have a quick fixes filter because if it did it might sometimes not work because of a theoretical race condition that's never been observed to occur. Throwing out the idea altogether makes the adblocking strictly less reliable, not more.

>>106363945
>All of that except scriptlets is just compatibility with adguard syntax.
the question was about adblock plus. why are you now shilling adguard?

>>106366051
>He's gimping the ability for it to have a quick fixes filter
that's ubol not ubo.

also adguard tried to have quick fixes with mv3, almost got banned by google and now doesn't have it either.
https://adguard.com/en/blog/review-issues-in-chrome-web-store.html
"To comply with Chrome’s strict remote execution policy under Manifest V3, we’ve had to make some tough decisions. Custom filters are temporarily unavailable, and the Quick Fixes filter has been removed for good."
so ubol was right all along.

>>106365692
>Can't use chrome anymore.
you still can if you aren't tech illiterate

>>106360383 (OP)
unironically i switched to brave and it seems to be working okay

>>106366328
brave's adblock doesn't have parity with ubo:
https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20ubo%20label%3AuBO-parity

>>106360383 (OP)
Seems like it. I don't see why they'd remove ublock origin but keep the lite version if they're against adblocking. There's still other adblocking alternatives in the chrome store too.

Maybe their excuse that the updated chrome browser now is incompatible with the older ublock extension was true? The lite version isn't perfect but im pleasantly surprised by how good it still is.

>>106366570
>I don't see why they'd remove ublock origin
Google removed it retard

>>106366570
>I don't see why they'd remove ublock origin but keep the lite version if they're against adblocking.
Because the things that Manifest V3 specifically blocks are all geared towards a particular subsection of ad-blocking and ad-wall circumvention that Google was most concerned with: YouTube ads.

>>106365692
I use firefox for 99% of things and keep a chrome browser with as much blocking as I can for a few normie shit that I can't use FF with.

>>106363945
>Switch to adguard you'll never even notice uBlock is gone
Adguard doesn't seem to block google analytics, at least when I unblock the domain on uBO in 4chan it doesn't pop up in the blocked queries in Adguard Home

>>106365692
I dropped Chrome for librewolf and haven't looked back since. The odd site that breaks it's because of resist-fingerprinting or limit-origin-referrers, I just turn it off temporarily and shit immediately starts working.

Do you guys not run adblock on a network level?

>>106366328
it's not even close, brave's blocker needs a domain matrix menu like uBO/uMatrix to even be considered a contender

>>106369566
it's not endgame see >>106369489

>>106368628
You should boycott sites you can't use FF with.
It's the browser that best complies with the published web standards. If a website can't be used with FF, it's defective.

>>106369590
Have you tried using the correct blocklist?
I use unboundDNS through my router and it can do that and it's easy to setup and read what each filter list does

>>106360383 (OP)
No. I was only using Chrome for work, but I dropped it entirely for that purpose as well. I replaced it with Edge since it's like the same shit and was already installed. I do my own personal browsing on Firefox.

>>106369628
you're right it was a fuck up on my part

>>106369628
if your blocklist is blocking google-analytics.com wholesale it's willingly breaking many sites. using such a blocklist on the dns level where you cannot easily temporally unbreak a site is retarded.

it blocks youtube ads

He fucked up with the naming, subhumans keep thinking "Lite" implies it's less capable at ad blocking, which it's not

>>106360383 (OP)
No.

>>106370205
this entire argument rests on a sheer incredulity to privity of contract

I think with the way things are going, Adguard's approach by blocking on the network level is going to be the only viable way to block ads eventually. I won't be surprised if one day google outright bans adblock extensions, so installing an adblocking application will be the only way left to block ads after that.

>>106360383 (OP)
It's not acceptable but chromecucks have no other choice
>but they could change browsers
I already said they're cucks who aren't willingly to change

>>106360383 (OP)
just install firefox buddy

>>106370379
/g/ anons should be using both

>>106370437
based GLiNet openWRT chad

>>106370205
piracy = copyright infringement = illegal
adblocking = tos violation = not illegal
stop being retarded Linus

>>106370437
you fucked up.
ubo is at 400k blocked ads out of 9k total dns queries.

>>106370493
Anon, UBO is global lifetime
Adguard is report last 24hr

>>106370482
adblocking = cfaa = illegal
stop wanting to end up like the reddit guy

>>106370557
>fraud and abuse
I know, cant believe violation my privacy and forcing ads on me is legal

>>106370437
nice

>>106369566
>>106370379
>live with family
>can't use this because sponsored links on top of Google searches return a "cant connect" page and scrolling down to the non sponsored links is too much work apparently, and stupid normie bullshit like Words With Friends stops working because ads are served from the same domains the game runs on
life is pain

>>106370636
what shitty dns blocklist are you using?
oisd doesn't break any sites.

>>106370636
my dad sometimes complains about this and i just tell him its adware that has been blocked
he loves ad blockers, when he got a new 'puter he instantly complained about how the youtube videos had ads now

basically a non issue if you just tell them whats going on

>>106370482
piracy = nobody loses anything because person would not pay for it otherwise

>>106370437
Is it like pi-hole? but only for blocking ads?

>>106370784
>hey dad, i'm running a dns server now and can see all the sites you visit
>you little shit

>>106370636
I just tell them that "looks like our ISP blocking that shit, fuck, nothing I can do about it" its pointless trying to explain that all those links asking them to buy shit with 90% discount are all scam, it just does not compute in their brains

>>106370855
flash, bam, alakazam, i can see YOUTUBE.com and AMAZON.com
better me than the isp i suppose

>>106370894
a stub dns resolver still sends all the dns requests to an actual recursive dns resolver like your isp's

>>106370924
i run my own recursive dns

>>106370845
its all just dns based domain blocking

>>106370845
It's still a full featured DNS server but with Adguard's features built-in

>>106370932
all those recursive dns lookups are in cleartext and easy for an isp to inspect

Is Adguard Extra reliable, or is it a chinkbotnet?

>>106360383 (OP)
im using regular ublock origin what's the difference?

>>106370963
if your isp is inspecting your traffic you have bigger problems to worry about

>>106370987
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)

>>106370995
the premise was that your isp will inspect his dns server and that's why you don't use the isp's dns server. your isp going on step further and also inspecting any dns traffic isn't far fetched.

>>106371031
not really, instead of using the data they already have they'd have to spend resources on collecting data

>>106371002
very vague answers there. theyre suggesting that lite is just worse than normal so ill just keep the regular one

>>106371089
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#filtering-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3
how's that vague?

>>106370437
no, ubo dev doesn't recommend. only use ubo.

>>106371122
also literally people itt think it's normal for ad blockers to break sites >>106370784 >>106370877
ubo working alone can block any trackers while not breaking a site.

>>106371157
>people itt think it's normal for ad blockers to break sites
yeah bro I totally want scam.net to load correctly and not be blocked entirely

>>106365692
Brave

>>106371177
retarded gay nigger communist faggot post.

>>106371122
gorhill is referring to other extensions that operate at the browser level. It's only WHEN uBO lets something through that it gets blocked by the DNS filter. So using any block list at the DNS level does not interfere with uBO functionality.

>>106369708
Happens
>>106370636
I'm going to give you real advice.
>Get a router that can support vlans(High chance you already have one if you have that setup)
>Buy a managed switch get the cheapest you can find
>create a vlan
>give it the same credentials as your family used network
>put firewall rules that prevent them from touching the router itself or anything on your current network.
>Use the network with your desired blocks anyway you see fit
Some routers make vlans simple if you're using something like openwrt you'll need to read about appropriate setup, but it's really simple after the first time.

>>106360383 (OP)
the chrome://flags bypass is still working, soo...

>>106360383 (OP)
Just use UBO?

>>106365708
>chromium based browser
Everything else it shit.

>>106360383 (OP)
You could keep on using the original
Enjoy glitches and macroblocking every now and then, as keyframes will keep getting dropped

>>106365692
Edge won lol

>>106370828
agreed, but technically it is illegal, while adblocking definitely isnt. Linus trying to shove those into the same category is disingenuous af

>>106366298
no one tech literate uses chrome

this thread is a rare thread where it's clear multiple people actually know what they're talking about and that's based, ty

>>106363945
doesn't adguard mitm every connection and isn't it run by russians
i mean i use their dns lists on my openwrt router's adblocker, but i'd never install their software

>>106369566
yes, but only for one router

>>106370636
i solved this by just piggybacking a router with a dns adblocker installed off of my main router. i then put the iot and other devices that need an adblocker on the second router, and keep everything else on the main router. i researched having multiple dnsmasqs or whatever, which would make it possible to have some interfaces on the main router use the adblock and some not, but ultimately decided it was too cumbersome. i just wanted a simple, turn key path so updates and etc would go smoothly

>>106366339
>rust
ew

>>106370401
the only reason failfox still exists is because google keeps funding them
they only have to imply not removing manifest v2 support will close the money tap and you won't have it in failfox either
it's unironically over

>>106375951
>doesn't adguard mitm every connection and isn't it run by russians
yep, russian proprietary garbage

>people are now paying for adblockers
google has truly won. how did we let the ad situation on the internet get this bad?

>not using brave
you are missing out

Things that bump in the night

>>106376699
missing out on what? a shitty ad blocker written in (((rust)))? being cryptojacked by default? a non-functional TOR mode?

>>106371570
wrong.

dns blocking is crude. an aggressive blocklist will block whole domains no matter what.
ubo cannot unbreak sites that won't work without any trackers. the famous case is reuters.com not having any videos when you block googletagmanager.com.
the list of such sites is long:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/blob/master/filters/unbreak.txt

>>106376416
>they only have to imply not removing manifest v2 support will close the money tap and you won't have it in failfox either
mv2 support doesn't matter.
firefox still has blockingWebRequest in mv3.
only chrome removed blockingWebRequest and just offers declarativeNetRequest in mv3.

>keep catching this out of the corner of my eye
>brain keeps thinking it says "exposing the jew"
>irony

@Grok, can I make a filter that catches pozzed redditors who make ""deep dive"" videos lying about IQ because being truthful would dissolve their worldview?

guess I'll just... reset my cookies and not make the mistake of clicking on a verit*sium video

>>106377198
sed s/manifest v2 support/blockingWebRequest/g

>>106369566
>Do you guys not run adblock on a network level?
My "home router" is a fortinet fortigate 60f; i should be looking into this

>>106377198
>mv2 support doesn't matter.
>firefox still has blockingWebRequest in mv3.
>only chrome removed blockingWebRequest and just offers declarativeNetRequest in mv3.

i was under the impression that the bigger issue with mv3 is that you can't have as many filters as you'd like and you'll be limited to some 10-30k rules and a limited amount of filters and in order to update said filters you need to update the extension in the store

>>106375495
It's illegal distributing pirated copies, not using them.

>>106379080
>the bigger issue with mv3 is that you can't have as many filters
not an issue.
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#is-the-limit-on-maximum-number-of-dnr-rules-an-issue
>in order to update said filters you need to update the extension in the store
not an issue.
filter-only updates are automatically approved instantly:
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/skip-review

>>106379080
those alleged issues are only relevant for declarativeNetRequest but even there they are non-issues.
>the bigger issue with mv3 is that you can't have as many filters
non-issue
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions-(FAQ)#is-the-limit-on-maximum-number-of-dnr-rules-an-issue
>in order to update said filters you need to update the extension in the store
non-issue
filter-only updates are automatically approved instantly:
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/skip-review

>>106379991
>It's illegal distributing pirated copies, not using them.
false
Title 17 U.S. Code § 501: Defines infringement as violating any of the rights under § 106.
Using pirated software is illegal.

>>106362031
It's "legit" in that it blocks ads, sure. But the blocking is only if they don't get money from the ad sponsors.

ADP has been compromised for YEARS. It's the reason UBO got popular.

>>106365708
It's either Chrome (90% of browsers) or Firefox (10%).

You don't have a third option. You don't have any other options.

Chrome is a monopoly nearly and it's insane nobody has tried to crack down on it. Microsoft got a slap on the wrist for nearly the same shit.

>>106381137
Not in my country. Don't care about the US.