From the horses mouth [1]:<p>Main reason I published on AMO is because a feature which I think is important was removed from uBlock (per-site switches). That both versions diverged significantly enough so soon is not in my control.<p>When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened. When uBlock removed the
per-site switches, a demand was created for a version of uBlock with the per-site switches.<p>This is the reality of GPL: anybody can fork and create their own flavor if they disagree with the pre-fork version. This should not be seen as wrong when it happens, it's expected. In the big picture, users win.<p>As far as trust is concerned, both versions can be trusted -- that should not be an issue in either case: the development and source code is public in both cases (every single code change can be easily browsed on github).<p>Edit: Notice that I still contribute fixes to uBlock since the fork, and also try to deal with filed issues (those issues which are relevant to both versions), so it's not like I am ignoring uBlock to the advantage of uBlock Origin -- I also want uBlock to work fine for whoever uses it, I just strongly disagree with the removal of the per-site switches feature.<p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-96618444" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-966...</a>
Is there a good ad blocker that can be set to NOT block by default, and that provides an easy, one button or so, interface to turn blocking on for the site currently being viewed? I want to operate under a policy of giving new sites I visit a chance to show me that they can advertise responsibly and blacklist them if they show that the cannot.<p>All the ones I've tried so far (AB, ABP, uBlock) are strongly oriented toward blocking everywhere by default and whitelisting sites that you do not want to block on.<p>I suspect that most people who use an ad blocker do so not because of some moral objection to the very concept of advertising to pay the bills so that a site can provide free content to the general public. They use an ad blocker because they got tired of sites whose ads do obnoxious things like block the content, move the content around [1], make noise, put distracting animation in your peripheral vision, and so on.<p>By blocking all ads by default, the current ad blockers break the feedback loop that should be pushing sites toward ads that don't have the problems mentioned in the previous paragraph.<p>[1] moving the content around is what got me to install an ad blocker. Gocomics.com started doing ads that slide in from the left side, pushing the comic you are reading to the right. If you have zoomed in to make the comic more readable, this could push the right panel of the comic off the screen. Since the slide in ads did not run on every page (and when they did run, it was with a delay of a few seconds), you could not anticipate them and position the zoomed comic appropriately.
Honest question - what business model for free content do you see other than ads? I understand all the privacy and distraction issues related, but increasingly many news sites I read feature only paid content. I suppose it's connected to the rise of ad blocking.<p>At the moment I'm not hosting any content of such kind myself, but I wanted to publish a game and I'm facing the same question. Should I sell my soul to the devil and work on freemium, coins, exploit OCD and rich-parents kids, or host ads and risk not earning a dime because every single gamer I know is tech savvy enough to have an ad blocker?
You should all check out umatrix if you have 15 minutes to spare.<p>Made by the same guy, it's adblocking and noscript done exactly how you want it done. Block pulled-in third-party sites by default, accept all on the primary domain you're looking at, and especially block from domains on a blacklist.<p>It breaks on a few sites, but it's not in my way as much as noscript and it's a 5 second job to get most any website to work. If you don't know how the web works, you'll be frustrated. If you understand how the modern web works, you'll wonder how you ever did without.
How is this different from the normal / existing uBlock?<p><a href="https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases</a>
I've tried uBlock a few times, but it's always been inferior to Ghostery. I want to choose what I block on each page, e.g. sometimes I want to load Disqus, sometimes I don't, etc. uBlock doesn't allow me to do any of that, does anyone know a lighter alternative to Ghostery that will still have sane lists and allow me to unblock elements on a per-page basis?
Yes, it's great and I have been using it for quite a while (on Chrome as well), but it's nothing new, unless I am missing something.<p>It would be helpful if the submitter also wrote a comment about the reasons of the submission, when they are not immediately apparent.
uMatrix for Firefox seems to be released as well: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/</a><p>Policeman was the closest thing —that I know of— to uMatrix for Firefox users, but —at least for me— Firefox is always complaining that Policeman is slowing down the browser. And also, it's nice that you can easily import your Chrome uMatrix rules to Firefox.
If people who made ad blockers were ethical, they would make their software easily detectable by the websites, so those websites could choose not to service those users.
It's better to download ublock from their source repo here: <a href="https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/releases</a><p>> Due to Mozilla's review process, the version of uBlock available from the Add-ons homepage is currently often outdated. This isn't in our control.
The eff released their own ad blocker type tool available here <a href="https://www.eff.org/privacybadger" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/privacybadger</a> and it's great. It doesn't come with a singular list of sites to block, but instead blocks domains that are seen across many domains.
Why it removing the youtube logo on the top left corner? Just because it's showing that youtube is streaming E3? :/<p>How do I let the extension know that some adds are part of the page?
I've seen comments on reddit saying that often legitimate "Pay Now" buttons etc. are blocked by this add-on. Can anyone with recent experience weigh in? I don't really feel like switching from ABP which I'm perfectly happy with unless this is 99% kink-free.
Another option for Firefox is the built-in "tracking protection". It is off by default, but can be enabled via about:config (set privacy.trackingprotection.enabled to true). Works on Android, too.