Ad blockers or not – your choice matters



  • @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 is

    spot 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.



  • @poopooracoocoo said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:

    filters were used in easylist

    Irrelevant. The irreplaceable strength of uM & to a lesser extent uBO is the granularity of user-specified dynamic rules. List-based protection is implicitly inferior. The Dev @gorhill has extensively rebutted the gargle propaganda re manifest v3. I trust him, not gargle... nor Brave.



  • @Steffie said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:

    @BoneTone uM & little sister uBO reign supreme. I hope so much that Gargle backs down.

    The final state of manifest v3 remains indefinite, and i think there's a reasonable chance that the necessary functionality for uBlock Origin & uMatrix will be included in some form when it does arrive. If not, my faith in Vivaldi to provide users what they want had yet to be unfulfilled. It may take time, during which we'll be reliant upon the native blocking or alternative browsers; using it on the mobile, though not as thorough as my configuration on the desktop, is at least comfortable. Pages load without annoying ads, and it's actually more convenient browsing when visiting a new page than my hardened setup. It's basically like using UBO only, with a less friendly interface. Since I've got all the filters I've created over years imported, the blocking is quite reasonable -- it's what someone for whom i manage their computer would get if they only used UBO. As a temporary situation, that's definitely acceptable. I browsed for months on my mobile without any blocking during the beta stage. That sucked, but it was a sacrifice I was willing to make to support Vivaldi. Though I still desperately want extension support, I'm very thankful for the native blocker; even though i was against implementing it, I understand the mountain of work that supporting extensions properly demands.



  • @BoneTone My remark was not intended to be critical of V per se nor its innovative blocker so far, but instead i intended my spleen-venting to be directed entirely upon gargle. We hates them, we hates them, my preccccccccccccccious.


    @BoneTone said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:

    Since I've got all the filters I've created over years imported, the blocking is quite reasonable -- it's what someone for whom i manage their computer would get if they only used UBO

    I know that some of you clever peeps have organised cunning ways to synthesise your own text file filters based on exporting them from uM/uBO, then importing said text file to V. I've not bothered trying this, primarily out of laziness, but secondarily coz it's my pooter not my phone that forms the very dominant proportion of my interwebz interaction, & as such ongoing use of uM remains unsurpassed, including of course every time i encounter a new site, for which i can quickly & efficiently tune uM, whereas the logistics of trying to do that solely in a list-based approach would just annoy me too much to be practical [OMZ that was one sentence; my ancient primary school English teachers would be mortified].



  • @poopooracoocoo Originally it was stated that there would be a limit of 30,000 filters. Google clearly didn't do their homework, as at the time there were ~42,000 filters in EasyList alone; in the default config of uBlock Origin there were over 90,000 filters at the time. The number is irrelevant, as other features require an arbitrary number of filters, uBlock Origin is capable of handling half a million, at least.

    More to the point, as @Steffie pointed out, it's the blocking functionality that is potentially going to be lost from the WebRequest API in the move to a declarative API. This would cripple both uBlock Origin and uMatrix, and gorhill rightly refuses to maintain such extensions. Beyond the public disservice it would do, it just wouldn't be fun for him anymore, and that's the whole reason they exist in the first place.

    There is no way to transpose either either dynamic filtering, dynamic URL filtering, per-site/per-scope switch logic (let's refer to all these as "dynamic filtering"), into static filters. Dynamic filtering logic requires an arbitrary amount of block/allow rules overriding other block/allow rules based on specificity. There is no concept of specificity in static filtering -- and even more, there is no concept of dynamic filtering rules relinquishing filtering to static filters (dynamic filtering's noop rules).

    Without the blocking listeners in the WebRequest API (onBeforeRequest, onBeforeSendHeaders, onHeadersReceived) uBO & uM as we know them will cease to exist.



  • @Steffie said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:

    I know that some of you clever peeps have organised cunning ways to synthesise your own text file filters based on exporting them from uM/uBO, then importing said text file to V

    There's not much cunning about it. The vast majority, overwhelming vast majority, like five-nines majority, of filters I use come from third-party lists. I simply opened them from the within the uBO dashboard, copied the URL and sent it to myself in a Signal message. Then on my phone I copied the URL from the message into Vivaldi's UI and all was done.

    For my own filters that I have personally created, uBO has an export feature. I just uploaded that to a webserver and used the URL... I think. It's been awhile, I may have copy & pasted into my text editor before saving it, but their basically the same thing.



  • @BoneTone You're simply far too modest. That IS cunning... & i am simply far too lazy.



  • @BoneTone What I meant was, someone from Brave (or wherever) said that the most commonly used filters in EasyList was below Google's limit.

    btw for some reason I didn't receive a notification on the vivaldi forum website. i must've only received an email 😕



  • @poopooracoocoo I don't want to block only the most commonly used ads & trackers from some static point in time, or even a rolling list of common ads & trackers. New filters are constantly being written in an ongoing effort to deal with the constant ongoing efforts by ad networks to make those filters obsolete. But it's irrelevant, beyond the fact that certain functionality is based on the use of an arbitrary number of filters (making any limit the wrong number), it's the removal of the web request API and the functionality that provides to extension authors that is the real issue that has yet to be addressed definitively by Google and has some people wondering if they'll be able to continue producing them.

    @poopooracoocoo said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:

    btw for some reason I didn't receive a notification on the vivaldi forum website. i must've only received an email

    Check your forum settings to make sure you're automatically subscribing to threads you post in.



  • @BoneTone said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:

    I don't want to block only the most commonly used ads & trackers from some static point in time, or even a rolling list of common ads & trackers.

    I remain puzzled why it seems many people can't understand the implicit weakness of this essential fact. Why people think that list-based methods are a solution... beats me.



  • @BoneTone

    I don't want to block only the most commonly used ads & trackers from some static point in time, or even a rolling list of common ads & trackers

    I agree. Was just clarifying my point. 🙂

    it's the removal of the web request API

    yeah it reminds me of the situation on iOS :((



  • It's users choice the ads required or not . Browser is required only for develop knowledge and teach the skills through web .

    Browser is not become ads marketing tool .



  • @knk040919 I disagree.
    Going by your logic advertising should be removed from the press and television.The web is a perfect place for new business to advertise and they should exercise that right.
    i choose to block some ads myself but that is my choice.



  • @Priest72 said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:

    advertising should be removed from the press and television

    One can dream. But don't give me false hope 😉



  • @Priest72 said in Ad blockers or not – your choice matters:

    advertising should be removed from television

    Funny, I do exactly that. The only time I see commercials on television is during live sports, even then typically only at bars. For live sports we typically delay watching, skip ads, and finish live.


  • Ambassador

    I lost count of the number of comments on YouTube videos about the number of ads. I never see any; I just click the skip ads button at the start of each video.

    What I need is a negative comment blocker. Now that would be really useful!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.