Adblocking innovation

[oldschool]

I'm trying Privacy Badger + Privacy Possum on one browser and I must say I'm impressed how ad-free my surfing is. One benefit is it doesn't trigger adblock warnings but the downside is there is no way to deal with annoyances like cookie notices. Still, very impressive if a user wants zero configuration and very little or no site breakage (none for me so far). Of course, YMMV!

Edit: Check that, Privacy Badger may trigger some anti-adblock warnings (1 so far here). In these cases Privacy Possum is the clear winner but you will see some ads.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

I'm trying Privacy Badger + Privacy Possum on one browser and I must say I'm impressed how ad-free my surfing is. One benefit is it doesn't trigger adblock warnings but the downside is there is no way to deal with annoyances like cookie notices. Still, very impressive if a user wants zero configuration and very little or no site breakage (none for me so far). Of course, YMMV!

Edit: Check that, Privacy Badger may trigger some anti-adblock warnings (1 so far here). In these cases Privacy Possum is the clear winner but you will see some ads.

And now a comparison with ghostery please

 

[oldschool]

And now a comparison with ghostery please

I tried it and simply couldn't tolerate the horrible GUI, which I found confusing. The new version was quickly uninstalled. It has to be one of the worst GUIs ever designed. Shameful!

Edit: OK,, I'm trying it again just to test.

 

[Outpost]

I'm trying Privacy Badger + Privacy Possum on one browser and I must say I'm impressed how ad-free my surfing is. One benefit is it doesn't trigger adblock warnings but the downside is there is no way to deal with annoyances like cookie notices. Still, very impressive if a user wants zero configuration and very little or no site breakage (none for me so far). Of course, YMMV!

Edit: Check that, Privacy Badger may trigger some anti-adblock warnings (1 so far here). In these cases Privacy Possum is the clear winner but you will see some ads.

You're right, the Badger + Possum pair is superior to Ghostery.

 

[oldschool]

You're right, the Badger + Possum pair is superior to Ghostery.

I don't know that it's superior but it's worth checking out. I just did a quick test on Edge opening my tech sites and Ghostery was OK but seemed sluggish. I still loathe all of its graphics! It also ran into a couple of adblock messages. Honestly, on Edge you can use PB + PP or built-in adblocking (on strict) + PP. You will get cookie notices but not (so many?) adblock warnings. Edge maybe has optimized its anti-adblock protection. (?) These options assume that you won't be making any custom rules like element blocking.

This is why I like Brave - because its Shields are well optimized while allowing element blocking and/or granular script blocking. I still pair it with PP for etag tracking, referer headers, etc. and for the very occasional site where I wish to allow adblocking.

 

[Outpost]

I still loathe all of its graphics! It also ran into a couple of adblock messages.

When I wrote that they are superior to Ghostery, I really meant this speech of yours. I also did some tests with the same result. Ghostery runs into Adblock warnings.

 

[codswollip]

For browsing, I use a mix of Brave and Edge (the former with Windscribe VPN). But I need a whole LAN solution that lives beyond the browser and manages all LAN devices. At present, I'm using Adguard Home. Privacy Badger has been largely quiet recently, so I am likely to disable that in the near future.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

thankfully, with some regional and cosmetic filters, I manage to view most websites like that without ads, or just a minimal amount of ads

I prefer adding filters which have many generic rules (work with all websites) rather than the ones with specific rules. I always search for small but effective filters instead of big ones.
for example, 1hosts mini only has around 38k rules but it's noticeably more effective than hphosts or energized

a lot of sites use some tricks to bypass ad blockers

 

[Lenny_Fox]

Closing words ....

First and most important, good to see Oldschool having his Frank Zappa 'blown in the wind' avatar again.

Secondly thank to all members contributing to this thread

Thirdly and most trival my own preferences are as follows: on Edge-chromium I use Microsoft anti-tracking, on Opera (which I use for dodgy browsing) I use Policy Control for third-party blocking (uMatrx does not see websocket connections) and on Chrome (which I keep for backup) I use uMatrix with Steven Black's host file as only blocklist and these rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------
matrix-off: about-scheme true
matrix-off: behind-the-scene true
matrix-off: chrome-extension-scheme true
matrix-off: chrome-scheme true
noscript-spoof: * true
* * * block
* * css allow
* * image allow
* * media allow
* 1st-party * allow
* com * allow
* de * allow
* inf * allow
* io * allow
* net * allow
* nl * allow
* org * allow
* uk * allow
nos.nl adcdn.ster.nl * block
nu.nl talpatvcdn.nl * block
____________________________________
In uMatrix settings I have eneabled 'block hyperlink auditing' and 'delete cookies and local storage of blocked domains'

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Oh, but hold on.... spies and spying are antithetical to our MT community values. We want to round up spies, and throw them in the river.***

Not my spies! My spies are for the greater good!

Edge maybe has optimized its anti-adblock protection. (?) These options assume that you won't be making any custom rules like element blocking.

Experience tells me that adblock warnings are a case-by-case basis. Edge could've bypassed it because it's obscure or it has no 'cosmetic filtering'. uBlock Origin is getting too popular, too.

Disclaimer: when you believe in large blocklists with 100.000 rules or more

To all the Pareto rule naysayers out there, I counter with Goodhart's law.

 

[oldschool]

To all the Pareto rule naysayers out there, I counter with Goodhart's law.

What?

 

[Stopspying]

And now a comparison with ghostery please

I did promise elsewhere to do one, but as of yet I've had no time to do it properly, will try asap.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

Privacy Possum looks unmaintained:

Is this project still maintained? · Issue #222 · cowlicks/privacypossum

I hope it doesn't sound rude. I'm just wondering if the author is still interested in this great extension or if the community should step in. We all have busy lives and life is short. There's noth...

github.com

One quote from:

The developer addressed this in the Firefox Extension release notes:

Release notes for 2019.7.18
First update in a while! Sorry, having a full-time job does that. I welcome all the help I can get at cowlicks/privacypossum
I'm always happy to help folk contribute at any skill level. There is always some way to help.
This is mostly a release that improves testing and developer workflow stuff, which should help me make more frequent releases in the future.
There are also several minor bugfixes and updates.

4 month's are a very long time for such a addon.

Privacy Badger is more active:

Commits · EFForg/privacybadger

Privacy Badger is a browser extension that automatically learns to block invisible trackers. - Commits · EFForg/privacybadger

github.com

I'm still don't trust Ghostery (from Cliqz)
Also they - for example, even track you on their own site:

Who is Evidon? - Ghostery

Now owned by and named after Crownpeak, Evidon, Inc. was a New York City-based tech company that provides Digital Governance solutions for Business. The Ghostery brand and products were owned by Evidon, Inc. from 2009 to 2017 (during which time it was called Ghostery, Inc.) before they were...

www.ghostery.com

If you remove the "utm" tracking stuff, the site still works. "?utm" is always used for tracking. Only.

So this say everthing about the addon and the company('s) behind for me. No Ghostery.

 

[oldschool]

Privacy Possum looks unmaintained:

Is this project still maintained? · Issue #222 · cowlicks/privacypossum

I hope it doesn't sound rude. I'm just wondering if the author is still interested in this great extension or if the community should step in. We all have busy lives and life is short. There's noth...

github.com

Possibly, but my guess is that it doesn't need frequent updating. Privacy Badger OTH breaks sites, etc. and requires more work with their AI or whatever they use. But this much is true: A one man operation (PP) vs. a group of developers (PB --> EFF).

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

ublock origin + adguard DNS + 1457 entries in hosts file
websites to watch streaming football loaded with tons of ad, mostly unpopular adservers, in my language or in russian

1 example:

Spoiler: link

Kèo Nhà Cái - Nhận Định Kèo - Trực Tiếp Bóng Đá

my ublock showed 82 blocks

Today i test this Keo site and this is my result:


AdGuard block 7 elements, uMatrix 10, Edge Anti-Tracking 1 and rest is blocked by browser settings & PiHole
Site loads also in 1 seconds.

 

[Lenny_Fox]

With 1 site permission rule (95% of all serious websites are HTTPS in West EU) and 1 My Filter/User rule this website also loads in 1 sec on my G4600 dual core celeron out of 2010

Site Permission: Javascript (block first party scripts on HTTP websites)

Adguard User rules (works with any ABP rules compatible blocker): block insecure (HTTP) third-party except stylesheets, image and media

I realize these two rules are of no use when your region still has many http websites (why http when the https certificates are free now?), but it shows how easily you can block 95% malware websites when living in North America/West Europe with just two settings.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

Site Permission: Javascript (block first party scripts on HTTP websites)
View attachment 237144

Are you sure only first party scripts are allowed? Last time i checked, all scripts on the allowed sites are allowed. Including 3th party

Adguard User rules (works with any ABP rules compatible blocker): block insecure (HTTP) third-party except stylesheets, image and media
View attachment 237145

Why only content and not (most important!) scripts and more? I prefer:

HTTP://*^$all

 

[rdsu]

Adguard User rules (works with any ABP rules compatible blocker): block insecure (HTTP) third-party except stylesheets, image and media
View attachment 237145

I realize these two rules are of no use when your region still has many http websites (why http when the https certificates are free now?), but it shows how easily you can block 95% malware websites when living in North America/West Europe with just two settings.

I'm using this:
http://*^$third-party,~image,~stylesheet,$domain=~*.com|~*.edu|~*.es|~*.eu|~*.gov|~*.io|~*.net|~*.pt|~*.uk

 

[rdsu]

I'm using this:
http://*^$third-party,~image,~stylesheet,$domain=~*.com|~*.edu|~*.es|~*.eu|~*.gov|~*.io|~*.net|~*.pt|~*.uk

Actually, by @Yuki2718 advice, this script could be greatly improved to:
|http://$third-party,~image,~stylesheet,domain=~com|~edu|~es|~eu|~gov|~io|~net|~pt|~uk

Remember that next to domain, you should set the TLD's that you want to avoid to be blocked.

 

[Lenny_Fox]

@rdsu good example of loosening this block third-party to domains not in the listed TLD's

@security123 good example of tightening the block-third-party to everything, but as far as I know $all only works with
uBlockOrigin

I may change my general block rules to
HTTP://*$third-party,~stylesheet,~image,~media
HTTPS://*$third-party,object,script,subdocument,websocket,webrtc,ping,domain=~nl|~eu|~uk|~io|~com|~inf|~org|~net|