Native Ad Block?



  • There has been more and more talk about a native ad block within browsers, personally I think this is a great idea, eliminating just one more extension while allowing pages to load that much faster. Hopefully with all the custom features and the great strides Vivaldi is making, that to will be an feature added within Vivaldi. :)



  • Opera introduced this feature today.

    http://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/03/native-ad-blocking-feature-opera-for-computers/

    I like it, but it is not that important for me.



  • I just started with Vivaldi a couple of days ago…

    The first extension I installed (from Google's appstore) is Ghostery. Works like a charm, just like it did on Chrome.

    It blocks ads and trackers. I used to visit a couple of sites (local free sales sites, owned by ebay) that I needed to whitelist to make all features work. Unfortunately, the ads they serve make my old Macbook Pro run hot, because of Flash. Recently, I removed the whitelisting and everything seems to function as it should. So I'm a very happy camper and those 2 sites no longer trigger the fans on my MB Pro.

    Short, I'm very happy with Vivaldi beta 3 and Ghostery.



  • I don't really use ad block, but I do use the Web Boost extension, for faster internet, and it also takes away those annoying YouTube ads, which is mostly all I need.

    But I would like ad blocking in general for speed, more data compression, and for a hassle-free browsing experience. I do wish they would implement Web Boost or that exact same function within Vivaldi. I think that would be awesome. Web Boost is right here: http://webboost.fse.guru . I would love to see Vivaldi implement Web Boost with their own ad blocker in a way that isn't redundant.



  • I just posted a similar post here:
    https://vivaldi.net/en-US/forum/all/8896-opera-adds-native-ad-blocker

    It's a sensitive subject. Some people hate it, some people love it. I understand both sides of the argument.

    Content providers and website owners that earn from ads, will never support a browser that by default interferes with their content. Its an aggressive move. But is it really their content?

    Ad blockers stop loading network ads. They block a list of popular domains and servers that serve ads. There is no way to separate a image, or a regular banner from an ad. At least there was none in the past, because an ad can be just that, a simple image. The problem is that website owners are not self hosting ads anymore. Even when there are great softwares which let you manage ads, rotate them, etc. They all use huge network ads. And this is where the problem begins.

    The website owner has no control on which ads are displayed on his website. Its absolutely not uncommon that malware was spread trough this ad networks, even on huge popular websites. So for some users using ad blockers its not about stopping annoying ads anymore but also security. And this networks are very abusive, and they also make the website load slower, since you are loading ads remotely. If a website owner hosts the ads locally from his own domain, an ad blocker would probably not work. And this is how it was done in the past. A local hosted ad is usually something the owner verified and designers and website owners tend to be more careful about where they put things and how heavy they are on the page experience. As opposed to ads that load from remote networks which you can't control.

    So on part of the argument, an ad blocker is not actually blocking their content, but third party content that is injected into that website and that is expensive for the users, hurts his speed experience, is annoying and can be even be insecure. There is no denial here, that ad blockers have a huge impact on the user experience. I was shocked to see how many Gigabytes a month I saved by using ad blockers. Websites load terrible fast with an ad blocker and you also save bandwidth. This is particular useful as well on metered connections. But I also can understand the argument some website owners make, that a software that taps into their content is an enemy for them. But again, when browsers started to block popup blockers, that was more or less the same thing. That is also blocking content from websites, and its was because site owners where abusing them. But all browsers have popup blockers today and enabled by default. The same is happening with ads today.

    I'm not sure if a browser should have this build in. Maybe yes, but probably disabled by default.



  • Your insight is well appreciated. Like Opera's current release of a Native AdBlock, there should be feature to turn it off and on. If not, most people will add a 3rd party extension regardless and I think the direction with Vivaldi, instead it appears they want to do as much possible in a native format, which I totally agree with in that regards.



  • I would like to see a full featured native blocker - blocking all trackers and all ads.

    Ghostery and others seem to do a good job, but ad blockers vary. Some blockers block the ads at the top of Mac Update, but Ad Guard will block the entire pane in which the ads appear. Much better!

    Vivaldi has a Page Action called Content Blocker, but at this point it does not seem to block anything.

    Opera's new native blocker is a step in the right direction, but only blocks some ads.

    So, please make this a priority (one of many, I know).


  • Moderator

    I'm using Vivaldi with uBlock Origin and that combination works really well. I don't get why developer resources, which are always limited, should be allocated to reinventing the wheel when there are perfectly fine existing solutions to the problems of user tracking and ads.

    In the Opera blog post, they talked about how much more efficient the new native blocking of Opera is than using Firefox or Chrome with Adblock Plus. But Adblock Plus is known to be a resource hog. I'm pretty sure if they had compared Opera's native blocking to that of uBlock Origin, they would have barely found any performance improvements.



  • @NSSynapse:

    I'm using Vivaldi with uBlock Origin and that combination works really well. I don't get why developer resources, which are always limited, should be allocated to reinventing the wheel when there are perfectly fine existing solutions to the problems of user tracking and ads.

    In the Opera blog post, they talked about how much more efficient the new native blocking of Opera is than using Firefox or Chrome with Adblock Plus. But Adblock Plus is known to be a resource hog. I'm pretty sure if they had compared Opera's native blocking to that of uBlock Origin, they would have barely found any performance improvements.

    True, and uBlock Origin is probably the only adblocker that doesn't take up more RAM compared to no adblocker at all from what they show on their graphs, but it does take up a little more CPU than no ad blocker would, so I would love to see a native adblocker because it would have the speed but without the inefficiency of resources that a third party ad blocker would.



  • I think a Native Ad Blocker would be great and I support the idea. And, it fits within Vivaldi's pledge to use native features instead of extensions. ;)



  • I use ublock too, works well on all chromium browsers. A native solution would only make sense if we had complete control over what filters are used, if we could add our own and if we had the option to whitelist sites. 3rd party solutions already do that. To me native adblocking is very low priority (/don't need it).


  • Moderator

    @terere:

    The website owner has no control on which ads are displayed on his website. Its absolutely not uncommon that malware was spread trough this ad networks, even on huge popular websites.

    Example of this in this week's news:

    _Big-name sites hit by rash of malicious ads spreading crypto ransomware [Updated]
    New malvertising campaign may have exposed tens of thousands in the past 24 hours.

    Mainstream websites, including those published by The New York Times, the BBC, MSN, and AOL, are falling victim to a new rash of malicious ads that attempt to surreptitiously install crypto ransomware and other malware on the computers of unsuspecting visitors, security firms warned.
    -Ars Technica
    http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/big-name-sites-hit-by-rash-of-malicious-ads-spreading-crypto-ransomware/

    In a perfect world, sites would go back to only allowing hyperlinked images. :/_


Log in to reply
 

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