An update on uBlock(ublock.org)
ublock.org
An update on uBlock
https://www.ublock.org/announcement/
88 comments
Was a user of "Adblock plus". They partnered with ad agencies and started to whitelist ads. That defeted the whole purpose and also it became clear the for profit organizations can not fight against the ad agencies as they have to partner if they want to make profit.
Ublock origin is so much awesome.Its free software and also very easy to use and its actually much more than adblocker.
Ublock origin is so much awesome.Its free software and also very easy to use and its actually much more than adblocker.
Cue the YouTube video of Michael Scott saying "No God, please no. Noooo!"
uBlock was the AdBlock when AdBlock sold out. Now who will be the uBlock now that uBlock has sold out? And this is separate to uBlock Origin, right?
uBlock was the AdBlock when AdBlock sold out. Now who will be the uBlock now that uBlock has sold out? And this is separate to uBlock Origin, right?
uBlock Origin is the uBlock.
A few years ago, back when uBlock Origin was just uBlock, gorhill (it's sole developer at the time) entrusted the uBlock development to what was supposed to be a community effort. Instead a single developer took over and essentially did nothing with the extension except place donation links to himself in the extension and on the website.
It didn't take long until gorhill himself noticed and decided to pick development back up - under the new name of uBlock Origin. To this date uBlock has barely seen any development while uBlock Origin is actively maintained.
You can find gorhill's reaction on Twitter https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1019975271443771392
A few years ago, back when uBlock Origin was just uBlock, gorhill (it's sole developer at the time) entrusted the uBlock development to what was supposed to be a community effort. Instead a single developer took over and essentially did nothing with the extension except place donation links to himself in the extension and on the website.
It didn't take long until gorhill himself noticed and decided to pick development back up - under the new name of uBlock Origin. To this date uBlock has barely seen any development while uBlock Origin is actively maintained.
You can find gorhill's reaction on Twitter https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1019975271443771392
uBlock Origin will continue being uBlock Origin, there's no real issue from that standpoint, no one should have been using uBlock anyway.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ublock/comments/32mos6/ublock_vs_ub...
https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/issues/1706
Basically what AdBlock bought is the technical right to say "this extension is the original uBlock project" which is a part of narrative on https://www.ublock.org/announcement/ https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock/epcnnfbjfcg... but as far as community is concerned it died when it was transferred over and resurrected shortly after under a new repo on Gorhils account
Basically what AdBlock bought is the technical right to say "this extension is the original uBlock project" which is a part of narrative on https://www.ublock.org/announcement/ https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock/epcnnfbjfcg... but as far as community is concerned it died when it was transferred over and resurrected shortly after under a new repo on Gorhils account
Correct, uBlock is separate from uBlock Origin.
uBlock origin also blocks the article site
Oh wow, I knew they weren't on good terms but placing the domain on the badware list is harsh.
Why doesn't ublock origin change its name to something else to avoid this confusion?
uBlock Origin shouldn’t change its name just because someone made a scammy website off its name. The issue is the website, not uBlock Origin.
That's not what happened. uBlock Origin was originally (heh) uBlock. Gorhill, the developer, got sick of endless hordes of people posting github issues about unblocked ads (an issue which should be directed at blocklist maintainers), so he gave the uBlock project away to some teenager.
It turned out that the kid didn't have the skills to continue the project. He basically ported the addon to Safari and put a donation beg message up on the website. Gorhill soon returned to the project, but was unable to get the rights to it back, so forked it as uBlock Origin. IIRC this was in 2015 or so. Ever since, Origin has been the only adblocker worth using.
It turned out that the kid didn't have the skills to continue the project. He basically ported the addon to Safari and put a donation beg message up on the website. Gorhill soon returned to the project, but was unable to get the rights to it back, so forked it as uBlock Origin. IIRC this was in 2015 or so. Ever since, Origin has been the only adblocker worth using.
> He basically ported the addon to Safari and put a donation beg message up on the website.
No, he _created_ the website. That’s why I wrote “scammy website”. The domain name was registrated on April 18, 2015 [1]. The homepage has since changed, but at that time, it was begging for donations [2]. It had a donorbox campain, since taken down, that asked for ridiculous amounts such as "$25: Covers hosting the uBlock website for one week".
[1]: http://www.whois-raynette.fr/whois/ublock.org
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002655/https://www.ubloc...
[3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002729/https://donorbox....
No, he _created_ the website. That’s why I wrote “scammy website”. The domain name was registrated on April 18, 2015 [1]. The homepage has since changed, but at that time, it was begging for donations [2]. It had a donorbox campain, since taken down, that asked for ridiculous amounts such as "$25: Covers hosting the uBlock website for one week".
[1]: http://www.whois-raynette.fr/whois/ublock.org
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002655/https://www.ubloc...
[3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601002729/https://donorbox....
Well, isn't that moot since UBlock (not origin) will probably now be called AdBlock?
I rather doubt that, as much of uBlock non-Origin's userbase is comprised of people who installed it by accident instead of uBlock Origin. Its only real value is in its name.
"as much of uBlock non-Origin's userbase is comprised of people who installed it by accident instead of uBlock Origin"
How do you know this? Is there a source?
How do you know this? Is there a source?
[deleted]
Heh:
uBlock Origin has prevented the following page from loading:
https://www.ublock.org/announcement/
Because of the following filter
||ublock.org^$document
uBlock Origin has prevented the following page from loading:
https://www.ublock.org/announcement/
Because of the following filter
||ublock.org^$document
I'm using uBlock Origin and get
uBlock Origin has prevented the following page from loading:
https://www.ublock.org/announcement/
Because of the following filter
||ublock.org^$document
Found in: uBlock filters – Badware risksThere seems to be lots of confusion around this topic.
gorhill is the original author of uBlock, but when he handed the project off to someone else, he found that they didn't live up to ethical standards, which is why gorhill started uBlock Origin. That other person owns ublock.org, so it makes sense to filter that domain.
gorhill is the original author of uBlock, but when he handed the project off to someone else, he found that they didn't live up to ethical standards, which is why gorhill started uBlock Origin. That other person owns ublock.org, so it makes sense to filter that domain.
Thanks for the background. The relevant Wikipedia page doesn't provide detail beyond "a fork happened" and I was curious how the project creator ended up on the side of the fork with a different name and no access to the original domain.
I saw this too. I imagine the intention here is to drive away any interest in the non-good uBlock, i.e the uBlock that is not uBlock Origin.
I think it's more to protect people like me who use uBlock Origin and clicked the link thinking it was on the site that makes my blocker.
Confirmed. I non longer use uBlock Origin.
I thought it was a bit amusing.
[deleted]
A good solution I've found for ad blocking is using the following hosts file:
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Which sinkholes every known ad/malicious domain. It's been pretty useful, and it hasn't broken nothing important yet.
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Which sinkholes every known ad/malicious domain. It's been pretty useful, and it hasn't broken nothing important yet.
I've been using http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm anyone know how they compare?
(reading github description, seems it includes this as a source, but also others)
(reading github description, seems it includes this as a source, but also others)
A quick line count shows that the file from your link has 14354 entries, while the one on the github repo has 65357.
Wasn't this the same asshole who hijacked gorhill's work 4 years ago and even asked for money for others' work? now he sold others' work? what a scumbag!
From Ublock Origin's github(https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock): uBlock Origin is (and has always been) COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the web site ublock.org.
edit: and here is a commit blocking the site ublock.org - https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/82067d1ef3370...
edit: and here is a commit blocking the site ublock.org - https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/82067d1ef3370...
deleted
Your phrasing is a bit awkward. Just to avoid confusion, Raymond Hill is the original developer, some other fellow took over the uBlock project.
chris aljoudi, to be exact. he's also the author of the Purify adblocker on iOS.
It's uBlock Origin. Adblock Origin (the phrase you footnoted) doesn't exist.
Self-hosted DNS solution with an easy setup and a nice web GUI to manage it.
https://pi-hole.net/
https://github.com/pi-hole/pi-hole
https://pi-hole.net/
https://github.com/pi-hole/pi-hole
pi-hole is worse at adblocking than browser based adblockers (ublock origin, abp, etc.) because they can only block on domains. so it can't block ads such as
somesite.example/ads/banner1.jpg
somecdn.example/adcompany/ads.js
Exactly. DNS-based blocking is basically using an oversize hammer to drive nails. It works in some cases, but eventually you're going to run in to either false positives or false negatives depending on how it's configured.
It's basically only actually useful for locked down platforms like certain fruit-flavored mobile devices that don't allow their users to install a proper ad blocker. If you use platforms that respect their users' choices of software you don't need it.
It's basically only actually useful for locked down platforms like certain fruit-flavored mobile devices that don't allow their users to install a proper ad blocker. If you use platforms that respect their users' choices of software you don't need it.
>It's basically only actually useful for locked down platforms like certain fruit-flavored mobile devices that don't allow their users to install a proper ad blocker
not even.
https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aitunes.apple.com+adbl...
not even.
https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aitunes.apple.com+adbl...
Doesn't work in apps, and how much time do you spend in your mobile browser these days? I don't think most people use it much if at all.
Pi-hole has made some pretty poor blocking choices in the past, so use at your own risk.
For instance, they randomly decided to block *.microsoft.com - you can imagine the chaos that caused.
For instance, they randomly decided to block *.microsoft.com - you can imagine the chaos that caused.
Sure, it would be chaos if you expect everything to just work out OK. But if you defang Windows 10 properly, it doesn't need to reach Microsoft servers. That is, blocking is a supplementary measure.
When I last used Windows, you could host updates locally. And I believe that Microsoft actually recommended that for large firms.
When I last used Windows, you could host updates locally. And I believe that Microsoft actually recommended that for large firms.
> But if you defang Windows 10 properly, it doesn't need to reach Microsoft servers.
Something has to get the updates in the first place, even with the local P2P sharing.
If you're one of those "I never update my Windows install" people at this point you're beyond hope..
Something has to get the updates in the first place, even with the local P2P sharing.
If you're one of those "I never update my Windows install" people at this point you're beyond hope..
Yes, but the server that gets and shares those updates need contain no PII.
I do not trust Microsoft. And so, when I need to use Windows 10, I do it in a very careful way. I start with an anonymously obtained installer. I install and update in a VM, with Internet connectivity through a nested VPN chain. Then I clone the VM, and work in the clone, with *.microsoft.com blocked.
When necessary, I update another fresh clone. Then I clone that, and securely transfer files from the first clone. That way, Microsoft never sees anything except for a clean install, and has no PII to track.
I do not trust Microsoft. And so, when I need to use Windows 10, I do it in a very careful way. I start with an anonymously obtained installer. I install and update in a VM, with Internet connectivity through a nested VPN chain. Then I clone the VM, and work in the clone, with *.microsoft.com blocked.
When necessary, I update another fresh clone. Then I clone that, and securely transfer files from the first clone. That way, Microsoft never sees anything except for a clean install, and has no PII to track.
[deleted]
Don't assume everyone uses windows.
IME DNS based blocking on the router works great.
And yes, you do need a software rule based blocker to supplement IP blocking.
Most ads come from a few sources, that's why hosts based blocking has been effective since 2000s.
And yes, you do need a software rule based blocker to supplement IP blocking.
Most ads come from a few sources, that's why hosts based blocking has been effective since 2000s.
Only chaos if you run Windows. I wouldn't even notice if it was blocked.
>Only chaos if you run Windows
so breaking 80+% (being a bit conservative here) of people's computers is okay?
so breaking 80+% (being a bit conservative here) of people's computers is okay?
The relevant question is whether it's 80% of people who are using pihole; that number is probably still pretty high, but lower than the average population I expect.
> Only chaos if you run Windows
Or develop for Windows, or have a client who uses Windows, or neer to access any of the documentation on MSDN, or...
Or develop for Windows, or have a client who uses Windows, or neer to access any of the documentation on MSDN, or...
Right, so only chaos for 99%+ of the corporations in the US...
I just use UBlock to block third party frames which helps block malware:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Be...
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Be...
There appears to be so much confusion in this thread about whether or not this involves the open source uBlock Origin. uBlock Origin should seriously consider rebranding to distance itself from the commercial uBlock.
Anyone who wants a low overhead and trusted ad blocker should use uBlock Origin. The developer even refuses to take any donations (for some good reasons).
For those who want a lot more control and a content blocker, uMatrix would help.
Anything named as “Adblock” or “Adblock Plus” or similar is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be held hostage to such extensions.
For those who want a lot more control and a content blocker, uMatrix would help.
Anything named as “Adblock” or “Adblock Plus” or similar is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be held hostage to such extensions.
+1 to uBlock Origin
Amusingly, trying to load the uBlock website was initially blocked by uBlock Origin!
Amusingly, trying to load the uBlock website was initially blocked by uBlock Origin!
Was also blocked for me which confused me until I noticed the different shape of the logo
If only gorhill made uBlock Origin for Safari. Safari's got a lot of content blockers but none of them seem to block as much (and well) as uBlock Origin did in Chrome, sadly.
Have a look at: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari. Available for download in the Safari extensions gallery.
When installed, under settings for that plugin Safari shows a warning saying, "This extension will slow down your web browsing." Other content blockers such as 1Blocker do not show that warning by Apple.
I’ve tried using it, but its just not that great. The UI is pretty terrible and its really hard to unblock needed sites.
But why donation is bad? Wikipedia also asks for donation but it doesn't mean that companies/people influence on it in a bad way.
The Adblock Plus ad policy seems to be somewhat different:
https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria
I mean, sure, uBlock origin is most often recommended around here. But let's not be misleading about products we don't like.
https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria
I mean, sure, uBlock origin is most often recommended around here. But let's not be misleading about products we don't like.
I don't think that description is misleading at all.
Adblock Plus does not block all ads and they control which ads are displayed and which aren't. If anything the name Adblock is miss leading.
Adblock Plus does not block all ads and they control which ads are displayed and which aren't. If anything the name Adblock is miss leading.
Yes, it's true that they don't block all ads by default; apparently this is a setting.
And in selective mode, they control the policy for which ads get displayed, which would be the whole point of installing a selective ad blocker. It's not inherently wrong to do that; if you more or less agree with their policy, maybe that's the setting you want?
And in selective mode, they control the policy for which ads get displayed, which would be the whole point of installing a selective ad blocker. It's not inherently wrong to do that; if you more or less agree with their policy, maybe that's the setting you want?
Taboola is one of the companies that paid Adblock Plus millions of dollars to not block their ads[0]. Taboola is the billion dollar company shoveling the "mom's $5 wrinkle tip, doctors hate her" trash[1].
Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"[2], but unfortunately they've handed over the whitelist to a completely, 100% independent committee. It's out of their hands now and they're "hopeful" that those people will remove Taboola soon. There's a thread from 2015 asking them to remove it[3]. Convenient.
We both know most people don't spend time reading the options page of their browser extensions. If you download an ad blocker it should block ads. Having to check a check box to get the functionality you paid for is unexpected. Adblock is able to make millions of dollars because most don't know to check it. Most people just want to not see ads, a "selective" ad blocker happens to be the most famous because it was the first popular ad blocker that pivoted into a lucrative rent-seeking operation after becoming a household name. I've heard the euphemism "default opt-in".
According to the author of uBlock Origin it uses less resources[4].
Unless you work for Adblock or Adblock Plus or the companies that paid the bribe there is no reason to recommend it.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-tabo...
[1] https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-intern...
[2] https://help.getadblock.com/support/solutions/articles/60000...
[3] https://adblockplus.org/forum/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&keyw...
[4] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#performance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"[2], but unfortunately they've handed over the whitelist to a completely, 100% independent committee. It's out of their hands now and they're "hopeful" that those people will remove Taboola soon. There's a thread from 2015 asking them to remove it[3]. Convenient.
We both know most people don't spend time reading the options page of their browser extensions. If you download an ad blocker it should block ads. Having to check a check box to get the functionality you paid for is unexpected. Adblock is able to make millions of dollars because most don't know to check it. Most people just want to not see ads, a "selective" ad blocker happens to be the most famous because it was the first popular ad blocker that pivoted into a lucrative rent-seeking operation after becoming a household name. I've heard the euphemism "default opt-in".
According to the author of uBlock Origin it uses less resources[4].
Unless you work for Adblock or Adblock Plus or the companies that paid the bribe there is no reason to recommend it.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-tabo...
[1] https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-intern...
[2] https://help.getadblock.com/support/solutions/articles/60000...
[3] https://adblockplus.org/forum/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&keyw...
[4] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#performance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Thanks but a minor correction:
re: "Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"
That link goes to Adblock's page, not Adblock Plus.
Their explanation of why they can't block it ("whitelists always override blacklists") is purely technical and is of course something that could be changed in the code - but maybe their contacts with advertisers say otherwise?
I don't see anything particularly wrong with Adblock or Adblock Plus making millions of dollars, but customers who aren't satisfied with this should of course switch to something else.
re: "Adblock Plus plainly acknowledge that those aren't "acceptable ads"
That link goes to Adblock's page, not Adblock Plus.
Their explanation of why they can't block it ("whitelists always override blacklists") is purely technical and is of course something that could be changed in the code - but maybe their contacts with advertisers say otherwise?
I don't see anything particularly wrong with Adblock or Adblock Plus making millions of dollars, but customers who aren't satisfied with this should of course switch to something else.
Adblock Plus is not Adblock's independently acting "friendly rival". Adblock was sold to a "mystery buyer" in 2015[0]. The first thing that buyer did was turn on "acceptable ads". Come on. It's the same people.
I call "Adblock" "Adblock Plus" to avoid ambiguity with ad blockers in general.
I'm not making value judgments, I'm explaining why saying Adblock and Adblock Plus "is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be held hostage to such extensions" is completely accurate and not "misleading". The site you linked that explains their policy is corporate propaganda.
There's no point in even acknowledging their "technical explanation". It's a <10 line change that calls String.prototype.replace() on instances of "taboola" in the whitelist before enabling it.
There are no "satisfied customers" of Adblock Plus. There are only people who heard about Adblock/Adblock Plus in the news or mentioned somewhere else or because it's the first google search result (the first mention of uBlock Origin for "block ads" is on page 11 and it's an unrelated reddit thread in the uBlock Origin subreddit) and don't know about these practices. If you showed them a screenshot of Taboola ads they would not think those are acceptable. That's is why everyone here recommends uBlock Origin.
[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/02/adblock_flogged_off...
I call "Adblock" "Adblock Plus" to avoid ambiguity with ad blockers in general.
I'm not making value judgments, I'm explaining why saying Adblock and Adblock Plus "is just a way for advertisers to decide what ads users see and don’t see, depending on how much they’re willing to pay and be held hostage to such extensions" is completely accurate and not "misleading". The site you linked that explains their policy is corporate propaganda.
There's no point in even acknowledging their "technical explanation". It's a <10 line change that calls String.prototype.replace() on instances of "taboola" in the whitelist before enabling it.
There are no "satisfied customers" of Adblock Plus. There are only people who heard about Adblock/Adblock Plus in the news or mentioned somewhere else or because it's the first google search result (the first mention of uBlock Origin for "block ads" is on page 11 and it's an unrelated reddit thread in the uBlock Origin subreddit) and don't know about these practices. If you showed them a screenshot of Taboola ads they would not think those are acceptable. That's is why everyone here recommends uBlock Origin.
[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/02/adblock_flogged_off...
a crowd-fundraising round to help uBlock's actual founder may help him fend off competition from AdBlock, using his own (uBlock) brand name
> If you’ve noticed recent updates to the product, that’s because uBlock has been acquired by the team responsible for AdBlock. We will be investing heavily into uBlock to help it deliver on the promise of being one of the best ad blockers available.
Why would they invest "heavily into uBlock" instead of improving AdBlock? It doesn’t make sense to maintain two different ad blockers.
Why would they invest "heavily into uBlock" instead of improving AdBlock? It doesn’t make sense to maintain two different ad blockers.
Because they are more interested in profits and more subscribers than blocking ads. Also, Adblock is more memory and CPU intensive, so perhaps they are looking to fix those issues in Adblock.
I think this Soylent News article summarizes the situation pretty well.
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/05/17/028245
tl;dr: the real one is Ublock Origin, get it here: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock
From the same author I would also suggest uMatrix, sort of a NoScript on steroids which allows a much finer filtering literally ripping pages of a great deal of their junk more selectively, but be aware that it requires "training" (telling it this can be loaded, that cannot) which for some non technical people could be annoying.
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/05/17/028245
tl;dr: the real one is Ublock Origin, get it here: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock
From the same author I would also suggest uMatrix, sort of a NoScript on steroids which allows a much finer filtering literally ripping pages of a great deal of their junk more selectively, but be aware that it requires "training" (telling it this can be loaded, that cannot) which for some non technical people could be annoying.
Nope.
Ublock & umatrix still don't block autoplaying videos. You should still use NoScript.
IMHO if you push small cosmetic changes in the UI in every update, like Gorhill does, there's a problem.
He has a poor attitide IMHO.
Ublock & umatrix still don't block autoplaying videos. You should still use NoScript.
IMHO if you push small cosmetic changes in the UI in every update, like Gorhill does, there's a problem.
He has a poor attitide IMHO.
So you’re saying that someone investing tons of free time in software that greatly benefits countless people, and then gives it away for free, has problems because of a minor update you don’t like and have absolutely zero right to complain about?
Firefox does block auto playing videos and asks the user to explicitly allow it, in the same way access to the webcam / mic / location / notifications is managed.
https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-users-finally-get-option-t...
https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-users-finally-get-option-t...
I wonder if this will cause legal troubles to the true uBlock Origin.
[0]: https://twitter.com/judemaier/status/1020034358558670848 [1]: https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/commits/master