Ad blockers or not – your choice matters
-
Time to break out the champagne as we all become executives
-
Yes, I think it would be highly appreciated by the current Vivaldi users if an official statement by Vivaldi on this matter were to be published.
I imagine that a browser crippled in such a way that e.g. R. Gorhill's extensions (uBlock Origin, uMatrix) could not function properly any more would resemble a car with two wheels removed and might lead to users switching to more or less the only truly viable alternative these days.
-
I freaking love Vivaldi! Thank you for your work.
-
If the lack of an adblocker in a desktop browser is already a real scourge, not only to avoid nuisance ads, but can also lead to security and privacy problems, worse still on the mobile, where ads and trackers are not only a risk for privacy and security, but they can also terribly slow down browsing on low-end smartphones (mine). I have this problem and I have to navigate with the help of Blokada, because if not, some pages open at the speed of the last century with a modem of 56.
-
I buyed the lifetime version of Adguard, since that time there is no ad on neither my devices.
-
I use ublock origin which blocks just about everything.From my understanding google is not actually blocking adblock extensions but merely putting a cap on the amount of filters which can be used in extensions like ublock for instance.
-
Bump
Since Firefox did a dive into liquid manure I need Vivaldi to be able to use Ublock origins. Come on guys a good addblock is all that is missing imho.
-
The only ad-blocke I miss is one for WebOS, since I made the mistake of buying a TV LG.
-
@Gwen-Dragon
with the built in Add block I still get served adds.
uBlock origin on the other hand is
- spot on
- always up to date
- 100% accurate (my experience)
Why reinvent the wheel? You built an awesome browser let others focus on addblock.
-
@m-e said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:
Why reinvent the wheel?
It was actually requested by many users.
-
@iAN-CooG I'm not sure that's a valid reason. I hope these things never come down to a popularity contest.
-
@rseiler You can't make everyone happy, apparently.
If a feature is asked and gets implemented, someone will rant they didn't need it.
If a feature is asked and not implemented, someone will rant they don't have their feature implemented.
If a feature nobody asked but from an idea by the coders is implemented, somebody will rant nobody asked for it!
And so on. You guys are never happy about anything. All you are able to do is ranting about a free software, ungrateful spoiled brats. -
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
-
@Pesala said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
And here's me always thinking that it was from RFC 1925
-
@iAN-CooG In any large group there will never be total agreement on anything. This isn't surprising or unique to here, and to expect otherwise isn't realistic.
-
@m-e said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:
with the built in Add block I still get served adds.
uBlock origin on the other hand isspot on
always up to date
100% accurate (my experience)You can see my reply to your duplicate post in the other thread for full details, but the short of it for anyone reading here is that uBlock Origin isn't doing anything special to block ads. That is driven by the filter lists you have configured in uBlock Origin. Simply add the same filter lists to the native ad blocker and it will also block those same ads.
-
@BoneTone Yes but ublock offers script blocking too and is not just an "adblocker".It can limit and null large media on websites too.
With ublock origin nulling the scripts too it makes noscript defunct.
Now if the built-in blocker can accomplish something similar which it really needs to be doing for users to even consider dumping UBO then i would dump UBO in a second,It is in my opinion the best all round content blocker in existence and chrome will lose milllions of users if they decide to block it's abilities. -
@Priest72 you can use site settings to block Javascript, it doesn't offer the granularity that UBO does but it is certainly something I use to good effect. I'm not here trying to persuade anyone to drop anything, I'm certainly not dropping my tools -- as I said, even if it could do everything UBO does, I'd still need extensions to be able to harden the browser to the level that I do.
UBO is the best general purpose blocker‡ in my opinion as well; uMatrix is better for blocking scripts though, it provides more granularity. Technically, I block scripts with both, but that's only because I manage many people's computers and this way I generate filters & rules for both extensions that I can import to their computers depending on what they prefer. If I had it configured properly for use together, only uMatrix would be blocking scripts.
‡ uBlock Origin blocks even more than scripts, trackers & ads. I use it to block remote fonts, that's one of its unique features that makes it good to use in combination with uMatrix. I don't use it block large media because I'm not concerned about bandwidth, also I block *all* images by default with uMatrix.
-
@BoneTone uM & little sister uBO reign supreme. I hope so much that Gargle backs down.
-
@Steffie I think someone at Brave, IIRC, said that only a small number of filters were used in easylist and that it would fit manifest v3's max number (or something like that). i wonder if it's true. still sucks.