Taking a break from Adblock Plus development(palant.de)
palant.de
Taking a break from Adblock Plus development
https://palant.de/2017/12/20/taking-a-break-from-adblock-plus-development
123 comments
Come on, as if ABP innovated so much? ABP wasn't the first. I remember using an adblocker native in Firefox back around 2004 (and IIRC I even used on on Mozilla milestones). Back then, there were already /etc/hosts based alternatives (which also have always worked in Windows btw) as well, and a so-called personal firewall could also block ads. These existed for Windows 9x. We're talking end of '90s here.
As for the current direct comparison: uBlock yields better performance and doesn't have a shady track record [1]. Other than "I've always used this" or "I benefit if other people use this" (ie. am affiliated which you're not) I just do not see your point. So could you explain us why you pick ABP over uBlock?
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-effic...
As for the current direct comparison: uBlock yields better performance and doesn't have a shady track record [1]. Other than "I've always used this" or "I benefit if other people use this" (ie. am affiliated which you're not) I just do not see your point. So could you explain us why you pick ABP over uBlock?
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-effic...
> ABP wasn't the first
Sure, and the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone either, but it did bring the concept to mainstream attention. Same goes for ABP
Sure, and the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone either, but it did bring the concept to mainstream attention. Same goes for ABP
We're discussing innovation versus invention.
You're sure that wasn't adblock? ABP is from 2006, and installing it wasn't easier or harder than adblock.
As for iPhone, that innovated the touchscreen, specifically it was the first (US-)mainstream application of a mobile device using a capacitive touchscreen. I wonder if we should also claim it innovated the removal of the user replaceable battery or the 3.5 mm jacket.
Furthermore, popularity isn't a good measurement of quality but that goes without saying.
You're sure that wasn't adblock? ABP is from 2006, and installing it wasn't easier or harder than adblock.
As for iPhone, that innovated the touchscreen, specifically it was the first (US-)mainstream application of a mobile device using a capacitive touchscreen. I wonder if we should also claim it innovated the removal of the user replaceable battery or the 3.5 mm jacket.
Furthermore, popularity isn't a good measurement of quality but that goes without saying.
> So could you explain us why you pick ABP over uBlock?
He's not asking you to explain why you appreciate ABP.
He's asking you why you still use it.
He's not asking you to explain why you appreciate ABP.
He's asking you why you still use it.
You replied to wrong comment.
No I think the Palm Pilot did that.
Maybe into your attention, but the majority of people probably have no idea what a Palm Pilot even is…
Sure they did. They were on TV for years. It was a sign of being important to carry some form of palm / blackberry device around. Just like when car phones first came out..
I'd agree about Blackberry, or even the Motorola RAZR–those were phones that people knew about. Palm? Not so much.
Blackberry and Nokia also deserve mention wrt smartphone. This is the smartphone I've ever used: Nokia Communicator [1]. Though I didn't own one smile
Need to see products in their zeitgeist. Not easy for everyone. Nostalgia comes into play, some people just weren't there or were too young (or have passed away).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Communicator
Need to see products in their zeitgeist. Not easy for everyone. Nostalgia comes into play, some people just weren't there or were too young (or have passed away).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Communicator
> "So could you explain us why you pick ABP over uBlock?"
On a philosophical level: I support the ABP strategy of "acceptable ads". I think it's a good way to legitimize the development of adblocking extensions. They also make it easy to disable those ads.
Technically: For a long time, ABP blocked more ads than uBlock. Maybe this is not as true today. For example: some adblockers didn't block ads in videos. I also appreciated the "Element Hiding Helper" extension (which has not been ported to webextensions). ABP was usually one step ahead of everyone else.
On performance: Firefox had ups and downs with regards to performance, and ABP was part of the problem. I remember reading a few blog posts from Firefox about the work they did to improve that. These days, I don't notice any difference, especially with Quantum/webextensions.
On a philosophical level: I support the ABP strategy of "acceptable ads". I think it's a good way to legitimize the development of adblocking extensions. They also make it easy to disable those ads.
Technically: For a long time, ABP blocked more ads than uBlock. Maybe this is not as true today. For example: some adblockers didn't block ads in videos. I also appreciated the "Element Hiding Helper" extension (which has not been ported to webextensions). ABP was usually one step ahead of everyone else.
On performance: Firefox had ups and downs with regards to performance, and ABP was part of the problem. I remember reading a few blog posts from Firefox about the work they did to improve that. These days, I don't notice any difference, especially with Quantum/webextensions.
Every major ad network has been caught distributing malware at one time or another. How do you weigh the risk of exposing yourself through acceptable ads?
I wonder if that has happened from ABP's approved networks. From what I recall, their criteria are rather strict, and I would expect a network to get banned if that happens.
To be honest, pretty much the only ads I notice are sponsored results from Google (static text). I also use uMatrix for untrusted sites.
To be honest, pretty much the only ads I notice are sponsored results from Google (static text). I also use uMatrix for untrusted sites.
> I notice are sponsored results from Google (static text).
Google's AdSense has delivered malware in the past. And nobody is about to ban them.
It doesn't matter if it's just a "text ad" either. They allow a script, which means a malware payload can get delivered.
Google do a fair effort stopping malware, something like 400,000 malware ads try and host themselves through their network every day. But some do get through.
Google's AdSense has delivered malware in the past. And nobody is about to ban them.
It doesn't matter if it's just a "text ad" either. They allow a script, which means a malware payload can get delivered.
Google do a fair effort stopping malware, something like 400,000 malware ads try and host themselves through their network every day. But some do get through.
I remember using the Internet Junkbuster[1] and Privoxy[2] to block ads in the browser long before ABP. The novelty was embedding the functionality directly in the browser through the extensions.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/19980210082938/http://internet.j...
[2] http://www.privoxy.org/
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/19980210082938/http://internet.j...
[2] http://www.privoxy.org/
Netscape had an ad blocking plugin called Internet Fast Forward in the mid 90s.
https://youtu.be/pvzR_bON9qM?t=3m46s
https://youtu.be/pvzR_bON9qM?t=3m46s
Comments like this is why us developers can't have good things. Just like we hated dropbox because it's oh so trivial to replicate the functionality [1]. ABP took ab blocking mainstream to the level where many non-technical friends started adding ABP as the first addon when they installed Firefox/Chrome, and that's saying a lot.
Is uBlock better? Yes, but uBlock probably wouldn't exist if ABP had not established the market and highlighted the need for ad blocking extensions.
Happy uBlock user (and happy former ABP user).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
Is uBlock better? Yes, but uBlock probably wouldn't exist if ABP had not established the market and highlighted the need for ad blocking extensions.
Happy uBlock user (and happy former ABP user).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
Not sure what you're on about.
Dropbox innovated online storage, sure (my ISP already provided telent & SSH access in 90s and I could mount my homedir with SSHFS and WebDAV but sure, relatively small ISP in small country who didn't popularize it just like tons of other efforts did not). Dropbox caught the momentum. Who's to applaud for that?
Plus, first of all in order for the masses to use it securely it needs some kind of encryption for its storage. Other than that it was just a good UI for tools already in existence. WebDAV, SSHFS, rsync, or Coda (which you can see mentioned and ignored multiple times throughout the thread). For the encrypted content part, one could use GPG, but many other solutions exist as well. Now, if I was the NSA back in 2006, I'd invest in Dropbox via a proxy. Gives me free data to plow through which people otherwise store locally. And its data they want to save. Hah, I'll save it too! I knew about those risks before, so I wasn't raving about "the cloud" back in the days. Heck, I'm still skeptical.
What a lot of innovation has in common is that it succeeded to market itself. No, that's not something I have a lot of respect for indeed because I don't have a whole lot with things like marketing, sales, and popularity. Sue me. I'd like to look at the technical side of things and peek at the less popular gems (though on say Kickstarter I'm wary as well).
Parallel to that, it is often some kind of GUI which gets popular while it uses techniques from more abstract developments: libraries, smaller software research projects which got bought, CLI.
Which important features did ABP innovate? Seeing what it added to original adblock is lackluster. And even that original adblock isn't the first browser-based adblocker.
We're also talking about a time where the browser was the way to read the WWW and there wasn't a way to embed the browser in "an app" (an app? what?). Well, thinking a bit more about it, it was there (MSHTML for example). But it wasn't high quality. And you could block those ads via /etc/hosts
> Yes, but uBlock probably wouldn't exist if ABP had not established the market and highlighted the need for ad blocking extensions.
You mistakenly neglect to take into account that if ABP didn't exist, adblock wouldn't have been continued (ie. forked) by someone else. Parallel to that, if Linux didn't exist, the BSD lawsuit would've set that source code free, and it would've caught on from there. Its easy to say, in hindsight, "well that worked out well" but its equally easy to say "well if that didn't work out alternatively something else could've worked out". Without an in depth analysis on why that was so unique (we are talking about inventions then and patents more likely I am not going to buy your argument, sorry.
Dropbox innovated online storage, sure (my ISP already provided telent & SSH access in 90s and I could mount my homedir with SSHFS and WebDAV but sure, relatively small ISP in small country who didn't popularize it just like tons of other efforts did not). Dropbox caught the momentum. Who's to applaud for that?
Plus, first of all in order for the masses to use it securely it needs some kind of encryption for its storage. Other than that it was just a good UI for tools already in existence. WebDAV, SSHFS, rsync, or Coda (which you can see mentioned and ignored multiple times throughout the thread). For the encrypted content part, one could use GPG, but many other solutions exist as well. Now, if I was the NSA back in 2006, I'd invest in Dropbox via a proxy. Gives me free data to plow through which people otherwise store locally. And its data they want to save. Hah, I'll save it too! I knew about those risks before, so I wasn't raving about "the cloud" back in the days. Heck, I'm still skeptical.
What a lot of innovation has in common is that it succeeded to market itself. No, that's not something I have a lot of respect for indeed because I don't have a whole lot with things like marketing, sales, and popularity. Sue me. I'd like to look at the technical side of things and peek at the less popular gems (though on say Kickstarter I'm wary as well).
Parallel to that, it is often some kind of GUI which gets popular while it uses techniques from more abstract developments: libraries, smaller software research projects which got bought, CLI.
Which important features did ABP innovate? Seeing what it added to original adblock is lackluster. And even that original adblock isn't the first browser-based adblocker.
We're also talking about a time where the browser was the way to read the WWW and there wasn't a way to embed the browser in "an app" (an app? what?). Well, thinking a bit more about it, it was there (MSHTML for example). But it wasn't high quality. And you could block those ads via /etc/hosts
> Yes, but uBlock probably wouldn't exist if ABP had not established the market and highlighted the need for ad blocking extensions.
You mistakenly neglect to take into account that if ABP didn't exist, adblock wouldn't have been continued (ie. forked) by someone else. Parallel to that, if Linux didn't exist, the BSD lawsuit would've set that source code free, and it would've caught on from there. Its easy to say, in hindsight, "well that worked out well" but its equally easy to say "well if that didn't work out alternatively something else could've worked out". Without an in depth analysis on why that was so unique (we are talking about inventions then and patents more likely I am not going to buy your argument, sorry.
It was the first meaningful adblocker for me.
> doesn't have a shady track record
Care to expand on that?
Care to expand on that?
A couple years ago, on top of their acceptable ads program that was more or less pay-to-bypass, Eeyo announced that it was going to start an ad exchange to let people buy placements on spots that ABP blocked.
In effect ABP was forcing itself in as a middle man and taking a fee from both the site owner and the advertiser. As an example, if I, your local newspaper, sell a placement to your local car dealership, ABP comes in and says "people won't see the car ads, but if you split the revenue you were going to get with me, I'll sell those placements to someone else for you." So let's say 10% of my visitors use ABP. I can now either lose it or get back some smaller percentage of it by paying ABP.
That's one DDoS short of a digital protection racket.
In addition, when Eeyo made that announcement, they also announced that they were working with AppNexus and Google on the new exchange, which just wasn't true. Though I believe Google does pay to get some ads into the acceptable ads program.
If you're going to be in the business of blocking ads, stay out of the business of selling ads.
In effect ABP was forcing itself in as a middle man and taking a fee from both the site owner and the advertiser. As an example, if I, your local newspaper, sell a placement to your local car dealership, ABP comes in and says "people won't see the car ads, but if you split the revenue you were going to get with me, I'll sell those placements to someone else for you." So let's say 10% of my visitors use ABP. I can now either lose it or get back some smaller percentage of it by paying ABP.
That's one DDoS short of a digital protection racket.
In addition, when Eeyo made that announcement, they also announced that they were working with AppNexus and Google on the new exchange, which just wasn't true. Though I believe Google does pay to get some ads into the acceptable ads program.
If you're going to be in the business of blocking ads, stay out of the business of selling ads.
> That's one DDoS short of a digital protection racket.
Your specific condemnation rests on this tired narrative that "ad spots" are something belonging to the site owner. In the reality of the web, it's all the user's display area - the user agent decides what and how to render.
The real critique is that the software is working against the user's interest for its own gain. This is par for the course of proprietary software, but generally seen as unsustainable poor taste in the Free world. Fortunately, having achieved the activation energy of installing extensions for one's self, switching is not hard.
Your specific condemnation rests on this tired narrative that "ad spots" are something belonging to the site owner. In the reality of the web, it's all the user's display area - the user agent decides what and how to render.
The real critique is that the software is working against the user's interest for its own gain. This is par for the course of proprietary software, but generally seen as unsustainable poor taste in the Free world. Fortunately, having achieved the activation energy of installing extensions for one's self, switching is not hard.
> In the reality of the web
I'm willing to concede that I assume a specific view of the nature of ad spots, but you're going to have to reeeeeeaaaaally stretch your argument to claim that this is the reality of the web. For the vast majority of people the browser is the renderer that happens to be customizable, not the arbiter of what is rendered, regardless of the browser's capability to decide.
Regardless, you don't have to accept the online advertising business model, even at a moral level, to acknowledge the shadiness of the other aspects of the practice that I pointed out.
I'm willing to concede that I assume a specific view of the nature of ad spots, but you're going to have to reeeeeeaaaaally stretch your argument to claim that this is the reality of the web. For the vast majority of people the browser is the renderer that happens to be customizable, not the arbiter of what is rendered, regardless of the browser's capability to decide.
Regardless, you don't have to accept the online advertising business model, even at a moral level, to acknowledge the shadiness of the other aspects of the practice that I pointed out.
The eventual setup of their acceptable ads policy ended up being seen as pay-to-whitelist by users and advertisers.
It felt that way to advertisers especially when the fee was 30% of ad revenue rather than say, a processing fee for time spent verifying it met the criteria. A lot of them were more ok to ignore ad blocking before they were held to ransom.
Users were unhappy at an adblocker's default config allowing ads.
It felt that way to advertisers especially when the fee was 30% of ad revenue rather than say, a processing fee for time spent verifying it met the criteria. A lot of them were more ok to ignore ad blocking before they were held to ransom.
Users were unhappy at an adblocker's default config allowing ads.
I can see why people would be upset, but it doesn't seem especially shady to me - they were upfront about what they are doing and why. I do remember that multiple forks appeared immediately, but I don't see how trusting someone else in addition to the ABP developers is an improvement... until UBO there was nothing to switch to, and UBO had other advantages.
So as long as I tell you I'm screwing you over, it's okay?
And it can be turned off. It's not a big deal at all. People are making mountains out of molehills.
Ah, so opt-out is suddenly totally OK.
A feature being able to be turned off is a plus, but default features not in the interest of the user are a minus. Especially not when users don't have an easy way to opt-out.
If users reasonably want to only opt-in such a feature, you as developer should implement it as such.
A feature being able to be turned off is a plus, but default features not in the interest of the user are a minus. Especially not when users don't have an easy way to opt-out.
If users reasonably want to only opt-in such a feature, you as developer should implement it as such.
> Especially not when users don't have an easy way to opt-out.
When I first heard about it took me like 35 seconds to opt-out -- open options and unclick the little clicky box, easy peasy.
When I first heard about it took me like 35 seconds to opt-out -- open options and unclick the little clicky box, easy peasy.
Good for you. If I need to be happy every time I opt-out "when I hear about it" which is often "when I already used the software" and get USDs for every hour I didn't opt-out even though I'd have loved to opt-out right away, then I'd be one hell of a happy Richie Rich.
Having to go through settings in software when you install it, to get the software to work the way the average user wants it to, is annoying. An example could be removing a bitcoin miner from the software, or disabling ads in uTorrent, or disabling telemetry in Windows 10. Firefox as well, but at least they tell you about it right away, and they started doing it later. Not good, but less bad.
Why do software developers get away treating their customers like stupid sheep either wasting their time or getting their data? Ah well, at least in Europe we're getting GDPR.
Having to go through settings in software when you install it, to get the software to work the way the average user wants it to, is annoying. An example could be removing a bitcoin miner from the software, or disabling ads in uTorrent, or disabling telemetry in Windows 10. Firefox as well, but at least they tell you about it right away, and they started doing it later. Not good, but less bad.
Why do software developers get away treating their customers like stupid sheep either wasting their time or getting their data? Ah well, at least in Europe we're getting GDPR.
> Good for you. If I need to be happy every time I opt-out "when I hear about it" which is often "when I already used the software" and get USDs for every hour I didn't opt-out even though I'd have loved to opt-out right away, then I'd be one hell of a happy Richie Rich.
It's not like they owe me anything, I downloaded their software for free and use it for free with absolutely no expectation other than "I'll use it as long as it works for me."
If it gets annoying I'll replace it with something that isn't just in this particular case it was a lot easier to click a box than search out a new adblocker.
> Why do software developers get away treating their customers like stupid sheep either wasting their time or getting their data?
Because they want to use Windows 10 or uTorrent or something with a bitcoin miner instead of searching out alternatives. Personally, other than ABP, I can think of no other cases of this happening on my stock (other than the chrome repo) Fedora box.
It's not like they owe me anything, I downloaded their software for free and use it for free with absolutely no expectation other than "I'll use it as long as it works for me."
If it gets annoying I'll replace it with something that isn't just in this particular case it was a lot easier to click a box than search out a new adblocker.
> Why do software developers get away treating their customers like stupid sheep either wasting their time or getting their data?
Because they want to use Windows 10 or uTorrent or something with a bitcoin miner instead of searching out alternatives. Personally, other than ABP, I can think of no other cases of this happening on my stock (other than the chrome repo) Fedora box.
I know its strange in 2017 and for youngsters in general (and that's NOFI; its a general observation and zeitgeist; I don't know your age nor am I interested in such) but it is important to note that "for free" doesn't equal "go use my PII for profit" or "go help others receive my PII" or "I will allow you to use my computer as part of your cloud without my consent".
Glad we're getting GDPR in EU. I hope other countries like USA will follow suit. US citizens deserve such protection just as much as EU citizens. Not to mention the rest of the world. We'll have to see how it works out in practice though.
As for the owing and such regarding FOSS, that's related to warranty and such. That doesn't mean its cool to deliver the software crippled. Especially not without mentioning it is crippled beforehand. We got a word for that in the physical world: dishonesty.
Glad we're getting GDPR in EU. I hope other countries like USA will follow suit. US citizens deserve such protection just as much as EU citizens. Not to mention the rest of the world. We'll have to see how it works out in practice though.
As for the owing and such regarding FOSS, that's related to warranty and such. That doesn't mean its cool to deliver the software crippled. Especially not without mentioning it is crippled beforehand. We got a word for that in the physical world: dishonesty.
> I know its strange in 2017 and for youngsters in general (and that's NOFI; its a general observation and zeitgeist; I don't know your age nor am I interested in such) but it is important to note that "for free" doesn't equal "go use my PII for profit" or "go help others receive my PII" or "I will allow you to use my computer as part of your cloud without my consent".
Which is why you should use some due diligence before (and after) choosing which products you use. It's not like anyone's forcing you to sell your soul so you can find out your best friend's dog Fluffy just went to the groomers and here's the pictures.
I see this like those people who go and buy a house next to an airport then go crazy complaining to the city about airplane noise, they benefit from cheaper prices (because most people don't actually want to live next to an airport) but then feel entitled enough to feel everyone else should bend over backwards for their personal preferences.
> Glad we're getting GDPR in EU...We'll have to see how it works out in practice though.
Produce a digital wasteland IMHO...like the tariff wars that (partly) led up to the Great Depression.
Which is why you should use some due diligence before (and after) choosing which products you use. It's not like anyone's forcing you to sell your soul so you can find out your best friend's dog Fluffy just went to the groomers and here's the pictures.
I see this like those people who go and buy a house next to an airport then go crazy complaining to the city about airplane noise, they benefit from cheaper prices (because most people don't actually want to live next to an airport) but then feel entitled enough to feel everyone else should bend over backwards for their personal preferences.
> Glad we're getting GDPR in EU...We'll have to see how it works out in practice though.
Produce a digital wasteland IMHO...like the tariff wars that (partly) led up to the Great Depression.
Lets draw an analogy with the physical world to see how it works there (often terrible, cringe worthy analogies, I admit!). If I buy a product, I should have to read the manual, sure. Afterwards, before using it. If some tool has a dangerous side effect or important feature I should take into account the salesman would have to tell me about it. Beforehand. If I buy a CD, but I can only play it on computers and not on discman or CD player, it has to be advertised as such. Well, at least it was that way in the 90s in my jurisdiction.
In the previous century I did not expect any tool to send back data about usage (including my private data). Back then it was called phoning home [1]. It was very much frowned upon. Although, as the internet took off, it started to become more rampant as a way to verify software. For example, I remember a personal firewall trying to phone home to verify it was licensed which you could block with... itself. Later they fixed that, but you could just use a hex editor to fix that.
Nowadays we've migrated from pay to use model (proprietary software) to service for your privacy model (SaaS). We get disillusioned that things are free when in reality they're not. In the physical world, but more so in the digital world. We don't know how we are paying, and that's a problem. [2]
> I see this like those people who go and buy a house next to an airport then go crazy complaining to the city about airplane noise, they benefit from cheaper prices (because most people don't actually want to live next to an airport) but then feel entitled enough to feel everyone else should bend over backwards for their personal preferences.
No, those people knew beforehand what they were buying. We don't, else we'd change those settings right away. Claiming that people consent to their privacy being discarded is dishonest. They don't fully understand the effect of their actions. The developers do know, but they don't care, maybe cause they're aspies who can keep distance from that --I'm not sure.
As for people who live near an airport, I happen to know a tad bit more about that with regards to the airport near Amsterdam (I live near Amsterdam). It all depends on the flight routes (the lanes for landing and take off). For example, I don't hear any airplanes except in the summer because then that specific route is used more. Not every 15 minutes though like my aunt who lives a few km from one lane in the Green Heart on a boat with a beautiful land. With, during the summer (winter etc less), planes going over. Low. Every. 15. Minutes. It would drive me nuts.
> Produce a digital wasteland IMHO...like the tariff wars that (partly) led up to the Great Depression.
How so? Look back at what I wrote here [2]. Don't you think the GDPR will make it very transparent to users because they have to give their consent?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoning_home
[2] See other [2]
In the previous century I did not expect any tool to send back data about usage (including my private data). Back then it was called phoning home [1]. It was very much frowned upon. Although, as the internet took off, it started to become more rampant as a way to verify software. For example, I remember a personal firewall trying to phone home to verify it was licensed which you could block with... itself. Later they fixed that, but you could just use a hex editor to fix that.
Nowadays we've migrated from pay to use model (proprietary software) to service for your privacy model (SaaS). We get disillusioned that things are free when in reality they're not. In the physical world, but more so in the digital world. We don't know how we are paying, and that's a problem. [2]
> I see this like those people who go and buy a house next to an airport then go crazy complaining to the city about airplane noise, they benefit from cheaper prices (because most people don't actually want to live next to an airport) but then feel entitled enough to feel everyone else should bend over backwards for their personal preferences.
No, those people knew beforehand what they were buying. We don't, else we'd change those settings right away. Claiming that people consent to their privacy being discarded is dishonest. They don't fully understand the effect of their actions. The developers do know, but they don't care, maybe cause they're aspies who can keep distance from that --I'm not sure.
As for people who live near an airport, I happen to know a tad bit more about that with regards to the airport near Amsterdam (I live near Amsterdam). It all depends on the flight routes (the lanes for landing and take off). For example, I don't hear any airplanes except in the summer because then that specific route is used more. Not every 15 minutes though like my aunt who lives a few km from one lane in the Green Heart on a boat with a beautiful land. With, during the summer (winter etc less), planes going over. Low. Every. 15. Minutes. It would drive me nuts.
> Produce a digital wasteland IMHO...like the tariff wars that (partly) led up to the Great Depression.
How so? Look back at what I wrote here [2]. Don't you think the GDPR will make it very transparent to users because they have to give their consent?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoning_home
[2] See other [2]
"Why do software developers get away treating their customers like stupid sheep"
Not only the software developers and to why? Well because it works, because most act like sheep.
I wonder how much of that comes from having been dominated for century's by a religion who literally told (and tell) all the people that they are sheep, needings them as shepherds ...
Not only the software developers and to why? Well because it works, because most act like sheep.
I wonder how much of that comes from having been dominated for century's by a religion who literally told (and tell) all the people that they are sheep, needings them as shepherds ...
[deleted]
As is frequently the case, I would give credit to Opera. They didn't have a central list but the browser had an easy-to-use element blocker that was suitable for blocking many obnoxious ads of the era. The central list ideas I've seen come out of projects built on squid proxies with known-advertiser black holes.
ABP may have packaged things up nicely, I dont remember that evolution of history. And they may have other good will now to balance out the "acceptable ads" monetization. But the tools to "fight back against abusive advertising" should be credited elsewhere, IMHO.
ABP may have packaged things up nicely, I dont remember that evolution of history. And they may have other good will now to balance out the "acceptable ads" monetization. But the tools to "fight back against abusive advertising" should be credited elsewhere, IMHO.
Interestingly, Opera was proprietary with its own rendering engine (Presto) and you could buy a license or you could run it for free with an ad showing (back then, ads were more profitable as well). Bummer they never open sourced Presto. Maybe that inspired Brave. Though you can't "buy" Brave.
There is also Vivaldi, funded by the same guy that formed co-founded Opera back in the day.
https://vivaldi.com/
Sadly it is not much more than a reskinned Chrome, same with current Opera and Brave.
BTW, Opera offered "tabs" before it was a thing by making use of MDI. And it carried forward until they scrapped Presto.
Similarly Vivaldi right now offers to split the viewport into multiple areas to show tabs side by side.
https://vivaldi.com/
Sadly it is not much more than a reskinned Chrome, same with current Opera and Brave.
BTW, Opera offered "tabs" before it was a thing by making use of MDI. And it carried forward until they scrapped Presto.
Similarly Vivaldi right now offers to split the viewport into multiple areas to show tabs side by side.
Vivaldi is much more than a reskin of Chrome though. It has customisable UI (with color themes), vertical tabs, tree style tabs, tiled tabs, tab stacks, mouse gestures, tab hibernation, session saving for later, reader mode (and a bunch of others) builtin, speed dial, custom history page, web panels (a docked website on the side of the browser). Haven't used Chrome in a while though so not sure if some of those have been added there.
Cons are that it's slower (not that noticeable for me anymore since latest stable) and doesn't have sync (is coming in next version).
Cons are that it's slower (not that noticeable for me anymore since latest stable) and doesn't have sync (is coming in next version).
I call them reskins because they can't really affect anything beyond the UI.
For example Google has implemented a more restrictive policy regarding Flash in recent Chrome releases, and it has found its way into said browsers basically unmodified.
For example Google has implemented a more restrictive policy regarding Flash in recent Chrome releases, and it has found its way into said browsers basically unmodified.
Yep. On paper we have a LOT of different browsers.
In reality everything relies more or less on Chrome and Firefox.
In reality everything relies more or less on Chrome and Firefox.
MDI was awesome, and split view was innovative. Especially once you mastered the shortcuts. You can compare it to splitting windows in Screen or Tmux.
Nowadays, we're in a different world though. Multiple monitors is pretty much default for web development on PCs (not laptops/ultrabooks/tablets/smartphones though). Although newer Android versions also contain splitview.
Nowadays, we're in a different world though. Multiple monitors is pretty much default for web development on PCs (not laptops/ultrabooks/tablets/smartphones though). Although newer Android versions also contain splitview.
Someone did it for them and published last Opera 12.x snapshot
https://blogs.opera.com/security/2017/01/legacy-opera-presto...
there are people on Russian Opera fan forums still developing patches and improvements to that code base.
there are people on Russian Opera fan forums still developing patches and improvements to that code base.
ABP’s filter list syntax is underspecified with vague, conversational English; some members of the community have tried to formally document the more common pieces of syntax but it’s far from complete. Instead of using a simple-to-parse CFG or regular expressions, ABP appears to have arbitrarily added new bits of syntax as they please. I’d encourage you to attempt to make an ABP filter list decoder before calling ABP alternatives “easy”.
Pretty sure ABP wasn't the first adblocker. Just the one that made it to mainstream popularity.
You're right, we owe them a debt for starting this thing. But there are lines you don't cross - they crossed them, and lost all credibility as a result.
I have very strong feelings WRT the creator of ABP.
---
The creator of ABP ("Wladimir"?) is a scammer, con man, and malware distributor.
He created an adblocking extension.
He then used the auto-update feature to update his extension to include "acceptable ads".
I was not warned about this. I discovered this accidentally after going into ABP settings.
"Acceptable ads" IS the antithesis of adblocking. Do you know the malware that masquerades as anti-virus software, etc., euphemistically called "potentially unwanted programs / PUP"? ABP is EXACTLY the same.
Vladimir gained my trust by providing an adblocking software. He then betrayed that trust.
He is a con man in my book.
/rant
---
The creator of ABP ("Wladimir"?) is a scammer, con man, and malware distributor.
He created an adblocking extension.
He then used the auto-update feature to update his extension to include "acceptable ads".
I was not warned about this. I discovered this accidentally after going into ABP settings.
"Acceptable ads" IS the antithesis of adblocking. Do you know the malware that masquerades as anti-virus software, etc., euphemistically called "potentially unwanted programs / PUP"? ABP is EXACTLY the same.
Vladimir gained my trust by providing an adblocking software. He then betrayed that trust.
He is a con man in my book.
/rant
Adblock Plus sold out a long time ago by taking money from big players to let their ads through. I've been using uBlock Origin for a while and haven't looked back. Plus it's way faster and less buggy.
The ads still have to satisfy the Acceptable Ads criteria and they only have to pay when they exceed a certain volume (as in everyone besides the big players doesn't have to pay a cent). There is an opt-out checkbox in the settings.
Opt-out didn't actually opt-out of certain features of the ad deal. For example, YouTube's Up Next list contained risqué Sponsored videos at the top of the list. Prior to the deal they could be blocked. After the deal they couldn't, not even with AdBlock Extensions.
Good to know. I can't remember the last time I've seen an ad on youtube that didn't go away after updating the block list. I've since switched to UBO for performance reasons, but as far as I can tell ABP always did exactly what it said on the tin.
Edit: I haven't actually spent enough time with the opt-out unchecked to come across one of these. I suppose it's the nature of the implementation - unless you have humans reviewing the ads or something of the sort, you'll never be able to filter them with 100% certainty.
Edit: I haven't actually spent enough time with the opt-out unchecked to come across one of these. I suppose it's the nature of the implementation - unless you have humans reviewing the ads or something of the sort, you'll never be able to filter them with 100% certainty.
>There is an opt-out checkbox in the settings.
Which should be opt-in. And if nobody wants to opt-in there is the problem; it's going against what the users want.
Most people never change default settings of software they install so "opt-in" may as well not have a way to "opt-out" except as a scapegoat to say you can.
Which should be opt-in. And if nobody wants to opt-in there is the problem; it's going against what the users want.
Most people never change default settings of software they install so "opt-in" may as well not have a way to "opt-out" except as a scapegoat to say you can.
> Most people never change default settings of software they install so "opt-in" may as well not have a way to "opt-out" except as a scapegoat to say you can.
You might as well just blame the browser vendor for not having a built-in ad blocker, URL rewriter (Google search results), not disabling 3rd party cookies or whatever else the flavour of the month in abusing-features-for-tracking is.
The people who never look into the settings probably didn't install the ad blocker themselves in the first place...
You might as well just blame the browser vendor for not having a built-in ad blocker, URL rewriter (Google search results), not disabling 3rd party cookies or whatever else the flavour of the month in abusing-features-for-tracking is.
The people who never look into the settings probably didn't install the ad blocker themselves in the first place...
>The people who never look into the settings probably didn't install the ad blocker themselves in the first place.
Not true. Even most people who install an AdBlocker will not change their settings. If you change your settings, you're part of a very small minority. Businesses often use this to increase tips.
Imagine two settings:
1) Enter your own amount (default of $0.00)
2) Four options: 15%, 20%, 25%, Other
If you use #1 you'll receive fewer tips. Many people will leave it to $0.00. If you use #2, most people will tip and of those tips most will be 15-20%.
[0] https://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/09/14/do-users-change-t...
[1] https://www.fastcodesign.com/3022182/how-square-registers-ui...
Not true. Even most people who install an AdBlocker will not change their settings. If you change your settings, you're part of a very small minority. Businesses often use this to increase tips.
Imagine two settings:
1) Enter your own amount (default of $0.00)
2) Four options: 15%, 20%, 25%, Other
If you use #1 you'll receive fewer tips. Many people will leave it to $0.00. If you use #2, most people will tip and of those tips most will be 15-20%.
[0] https://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/09/14/do-users-change-t...
[1] https://www.fastcodesign.com/3022182/how-square-registers-ui...
Interesting. However, AFAIK, the regional block lists are not enabled by default (not sure about ABP, but it's definitely the case with UBO), which makes it pretty useless without further setup for a sizeable part of the userbase, so I'd expect that most people who are capable of installing the extension are also capable of at least basic set up.
> the regional block lists are not enabled by default (not sure about ABP, but it's definitely the case with UBO)
uBO does select relevant regional list(s), if any, at first install according to the browser locale. I am pretty sure it's the same with ABP.
uBO does select relevant regional list(s), if any, at first install according to the browser locale. I am pretty sure it's the same with ABP.
I see. That's actually really neat. I was pretty sure that it didn't select them when I installed it on a machine couple months ago (Germany), but I suppose my memory might be playing tricks on me. Or perhaps the machine didn't have the locale set up properly (not my machine, so idk). I've never noticed this since my machines are usually set to either US or UK locales, but this is very nice for lots of people here...
Thanks for making uBO!
Thanks for making uBO!
This is also why I switched to uBO
Add in uMatrix for the ideal experience IMO.
Just not on Windows with Firefox. There's still a major rendering bug that makes uMatrix mostly unusable. You can't get to the XHR or frame columns, meaning things like reCAPTCHA aren't usable unless you simply turn off uMatrix for that site.
The current workaround is to open the log and allow/disallow from there. But you can't get to the log button 99% of the time because of the rendering bug.
Not sure if it only affects the Dev Edition of Firefox or not. It certainly doesn't affect the Linux versions, neither Dev or mainline.
Really wish they would fix it. Here's how it looks on reddit, notice how much of it is unreachable: https://i.imgur.com/UHN7AQD.png
I'd love to help, I just don't have the time right now.
The current workaround is to open the log and allow/disallow from there. But you can't get to the log button 99% of the time because of the rendering bug.
Not sure if it only affects the Dev Edition of Firefox or not. It certainly doesn't affect the Linux versions, neither Dev or mainline.
Really wish they would fix it. Here's how it looks on reddit, notice how much of it is unreachable: https://i.imgur.com/UHN7AQD.png
I'd love to help, I just don't have the time right now.
This is a Firefox issue, although uMatrix works fine on Windows for me.
Firefox limits the size of popups to 800x600 CSS pixels, which in theory should account for high DPI (are you using a high DPI display?).
Not sure what is going on here. What is your display resolution, zoom, and font size?
Firefox limits the size of popups to 800x600 CSS pixels, which in theory should account for high DPI (are you using a high DPI display?).
Not sure what is going on here. What is your display resolution, zoom, and font size?
If you can un-zoom (de-zoom?) the umatrix grid with ctrl/mousewheel does that fix it?
> Just not on Windows with Firefox.
I am pretty sure uMatrix works fine on Firefox/Windows: it's all HTML/CSS/JS code, and thus OS agnostic -- uMatrix does not care about OS.
Firefox is supposed to resize the popup panel according to the size of its content -- the resizing is Firefox's responsibility, it's out of reach of uMatrix.
I believe there are issues in Firefox with regards to using multiple monitors with different DPI. In any case, you should report your issue to buzgilla.mozilla.org.
I am pretty sure uMatrix works fine on Firefox/Windows: it's all HTML/CSS/JS code, and thus OS agnostic -- uMatrix does not care about OS.
Firefox is supposed to resize the popup panel according to the size of its content -- the resizing is Firefox's responsibility, it's out of reach of uMatrix.
I believe there are issues in Firefox with regards to using multiple monitors with different DPI. In any case, you should report your issue to buzgilla.mozilla.org.
They never sold out, stop spreading this misinformation.
Do you want to provide some facts to support your claim or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Because, from where I am sitting, it sure does look like they totally sold out.
What facts are there that they sold out? They added an optional 'show some ads' feature, only allowing those ads that followed a very strict and well-defined list of parameters. It's very much optional, and not hidden at all to turn it off.
> [ABP] makes no secret that it charges big companies for whitelisting services – it mentions it right in its FAQ.
From [1]. I'm not sure what better fits the definition of selling out.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/07/06/google-and-others-reported...
From [1]. I'm not sure what better fits the definition of selling out.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/07/06/google-and-others-reported...
A self-citing piece is not a credible source in the slightest.
Alright, check the AdBlock Plus FAQ that the article mentions: https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization
> We receive some donations from our users, but our main source of revenue comes as part of the Acceptable Ads initiative. As detailed below, larger entities pay a licensing fee for the whitelisting services requested and provided to them.
> We receive some donations from our users, but our main source of revenue comes as part of the Acceptable Ads initiative. As detailed below, larger entities pay a licensing fee for the whitelisting services requested and provided to them.
Most tech people now seem to use uBlock Origin. But I use uMatrix (from the same developer) and I am super happy with it. It took me a minute or so to understand the interface. But then it is super intuitive and exactly the way I would have designed it myself.
Since I only allow the hosts that I need, I almost never see advertising. And the web is blazingly fast.
Since I only allow the hosts that I need, I almost never see advertising. And the web is blazingly fast.
The matrix functionality is available in uBlock Origin, no need to install both. Simply enable advanced mode.
The matrix (and its corresponding rules syntax) in uBlock Origin is not as powerful as in uMatrix. In uBO, you can specify how to handle traffic between two origins. You can also choose which type(s) of content can be loaded from a particular origin. However, you cannot specify both at once. For example, you can't create a rule in uBO to allow only image requests from google.com to googleusercontent.com.
The uMatrix rule syntax can do this, and the matrix UI does provide this capability.
EDIT: formatting, typo
The uMatrix rule syntax can do this, and the matrix UI does provide this capability.
EDIT: formatting, typo
> For example, you can't create a rule in uBO to allow only image requests from google.com to googleusercontent.com.
Sure you can:
The only reason you'd use uMatrix is if you create rules that can't be done with the matrix frequently enough.
Sure you can:
google.com googleusercontent.com image block
The only reason you'd use uMatrix is if you create rules that can't be done with the matrix frequently enough.
That doesn't work for me. If I enter that rule into the "My rules" editor, and click the "Save" button, the rule is immediately deleted. Also, the documentation you link to entirely confirms my assertion that you cannot combine type-based and hostname-based rules. For example:
Note that with type-based rules, the destination hostname is always *, meaning "from anywhere".Oops. I was wrong.
thank you, i'm going to try it
Has it got an easy way to unblock elements? Going through the every request in the logger using uBlock is pretty tedious.
It's rare to enter a filter in rule by hand in uMatrix in the first place, so you just go to the matrix and switch the box from red to green.
I actually just switched from uMatrix back to uBlock Origin, because uBlock makes it easier to block individual JavaScript files, rather than blocking JS wholesale.
I actually just switched from uMatrix back to uBlock Origin, because uBlock makes it easier to block individual JavaScript files, rather than blocking JS wholesale.
What about Ghostery?
Depends on your opinion of this decision: https://adexchanger.com/data-exchanges/ghostery-sheds-ad-tra...
Sounds like getting acquired by a privacy focused browser makes them even more reliable now.
Thanks, I hadn't heard about this. Per https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406647 where Firefox is tying in with Cliqz:
> Cliqz is a well-known Adware from Germany[1] and it was a plague
Not sure what data Ghostery is collecting now, or how opt-in vs. opt-out has changed (if at all), but it looks like based on the reputation of the new owners I will no longer be using it.
Edit: the small HN discussion seems to cover this a bit more evenhandedly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13652126
> Cliqz is a well-known Adware from Germany[1] and it was a plague
Not sure what data Ghostery is collecting now, or how opt-in vs. opt-out has changed (if at all), but it looks like based on the reputation of the new owners I will no longer be using it.
Edit: the small HN discussion seems to cover this a bit more evenhandedly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13652126
Sold out same as ADB. Use EFFs Privacy Badger[1]
[1] https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
[1] https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
IIRC they have the same problem as ABP, i.e. selling out their users.
Not a thing! It's all you need.
Who is even using this anymore? ABP lost all its cred when it took money from ad business.
Just use uBlock Origin.
Just use uBlock Origin.
I used ABP until very recently; I was skeptical of the acceptable ads program but it has not really been abused and anyone could opt out at any time. The point of ad blockers was not to actually block every ad, it was to keep the web sane and stop the trend toward increasingly intrusive advertising. ABP accomplished that goal even with the acceptable ads program.
> Just use uBlock Origin.
Has there always been a uBlock extension for Safari? That was my last holdout for using ABP. I've now manually installed the downloadable extension but ABP is prominently displayed in Apple's Safari extension app store.
Has there always been a uBlock extension for Safari? That was my last holdout for using ABP. I've now manually installed the downloadable extension but ABP is prominently displayed in Apple's Safari extension app store.
The port seems to be in a separate repo until it's considered stable. The development of the port is quite a bit behind and doesn't seem to be actively maintained. I guess no one wants it badly enough to maintain it themself until it's stable.
It is even on Edge so it would be super-weird if it would not be on Safari.
Unfortunately more people are using ABP than uB. The common person googles "adblock", and ABP is usually the first result.
To be fair, that's because "adblock" basically defined the space. They are entitled to the name recognition, since they built it themselves. It's a bit like WinZip vs 7-Zip.
Good hypothesis, but I suspect it is because of the search algorithm matching words
Yes, but "adblock" wasn't a word before AdBlock appeared, that's my point.
However, "adblock" was a word before "AdBlock Plus" appeared.
Any idea if uBlock Origin protects against session-replay?:
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/11/15/no-boundaries-exfil...
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/11/15/no-boundaries-exfil...
What is even the point of Adblock Plus now? uBlock Origin seems so much better
It's better than nothing for the non-expert users who don't know it's worse than other options available right now. Pretty much the only worthy use case for it
Yep, it just has a much better name than uBlock Origin.
You're asking what the point in developing alternatives are?
Microsoft said the web was done at Internet Explorer 6.
It looks like it was also rewritten for webextensions from that blog post.
Microsoft said the web was done at Internet Explorer 6.
It looks like it was also rewritten for webextensions from that blog post.
But AB isn't an alternative with pros and cons so much as it's a worse version of uBO.
> Microsoft said the web was done at Internet Explorer 6.
Yeah? And this is like OP asking "Now that Edge exists, what's the point of IE 6?"
Yeah? And this is like OP asking "Now that Edge exists, what's the point of IE 6?"
The point is (as with so many things) money. If I remember right, ABP makes money by allowing "friendly" ads if they get payed for it.
I find it odd that I never see AdNauseum recommended. I switched from ABP a few months ago. Screws over trackers by making me appear interested in everything.
https://adnauseam.io/
https://adnauseam.io/
[deleted]
I've always been a control freak. Long before ABP I used ipfw to block ads at home. I remember having to use Opera on my poor laptop because Firefox was becoming too bloated to run.
And Opera at that time had ads in the INTERFACE of the browser. So blocking those at the router level left big blank spaces in the interfaces that were more satisfying to me than ads.
So I'll give this guy credit because I used his plugin, but not too much credit when you sell out to the people you've basically made a business model out of blocking.
Like many others I've switched to ublock and I'm a control freak so I also use noscript extensively.
For many years now the browser has been the number one threat to the average internet user so I firmly believe in noscript.
You should in fact take it even further and use qubes os.
And Opera at that time had ads in the INTERFACE of the browser. So blocking those at the router level left big blank spaces in the interfaces that were more satisfying to me than ads.
So I'll give this guy credit because I used his plugin, but not too much credit when you sell out to the people you've basically made a business model out of blocking.
Like many others I've switched to ublock and I'm a control freak so I also use noscript extensively.
For many years now the browser has been the number one threat to the average internet user so I firmly believe in noscript.
You should in fact take it even further and use qubes os.
A bit unrelated, but does anyone else think the new NoScript has an absolutely awful interface?
Here [1] is a post by the NoScript developer explaining how the new UI works and which buttons map to which legacy functions. After reading it and letting myself adjust for a few days, I'm perfectly comfortable with the new version.
[1] https://hackademix.net/2017/12/04/noscript-quantum-vs-legacy...
[1] https://hackademix.net/2017/12/04/noscript-quantum-vs-legacy...
It made me switch to uMatrix, which incidentally also gave me the cookie controls back that I had with the Cookie Monster extension pre-Quantum.
uMatrix is better than the new NoScript.
[deleted]
> I also want to spend more time doing security research again, which should help pay the bills as a side effect.
I would have thought he would have savings from Adblock Plus deals.
I would have thought he would have savings from Adblock Plus deals.
I'm confused as to what ABP does that is more useful than just adding a blocked list to your /etc/hosts file. Moreso, as to how someone could work on it for 12 years. Exactly what am I missing here?
1) There's a lot of cases where blocking an entire domain is either excessive or insufficient -- important assets can be located on the same domain as ads. Adblockers can target specific files and specific elements on the page. They also provide much better ease of use for the average user than updating a hosts file.
2) The list of ad domains, URLs, and elements has to be constantly updated. The plugin has to be kept up to date with changes in browsers. Advertisers occasionally come up with new techniques to bypass or detect adblockers, so those need to be worked around.
2) The list of ad domains, URLs, and elements has to be constantly updated. The plugin has to be kept up to date with changes in browsers. Advertisers occasionally come up with new techniques to bypass or detect adblockers, so those need to be worked around.
Easy. A quick google and couple of clicks led me to https://github.com/adblockplus/.
I don't know much about the specifics of ABP's history, but there's an obvious arms race component to ad blocking that could keep a developer busy indefinitely.
Today there are many alternatives to ABP. I am extremely grateful for his work. He's going on a well deserved vacation. I wish him success in his future projects.
(In case anyone wonders, I am not affiliated. Just a happy user of ABP.)