Hot Take Evaluate your content blocker with Ad Block Tester

[lokamoka820]

you're pointing out that privacy badger did not add anything to my above test, good to know, but I like running privacy badger anyway.

I like privacy badger and if ad blockers disappeared privacy badger will be my 1st choice as a replacement, but with ad blockers I think it is redundant.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The developers of AdGuard and uBlock Origin find the test of d3ward pointless.
uBlock blocks the testing domain and thus always gives 100%

! Defuse pointless online tool too causing hardship to volunteers
!
*$3p,domain=d3ward.github.io
@@*$redirect-rule,domain=d3ward.github.io
d3ward.github.io##.textads

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/blob/master/filters/filters.txt#L14202-L14206

And AdGuard does the same:

AdguardFilters/SpywareFilter/sections/specific.txt at daba77058c72b983f2a46b97dca5b669710a7414 · AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters

AdGuard Content Blocking Filters. Contribute to AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[Jan Willy]

Privacy Badger isn't an adblocker. It's goal is to block trackers. It's pointless to use it besides a content blocker like uBO. Testing on d3ward has little to do with visiting real world tracking sites. On the FAQ page the site offers a small filterlist that offers a 100% score. On real world tracking sites this list does hardly anything. A nice overview of real world tracking sites: https://www.ghostery.com/whotracksme/websites

 

[simmerskool]

The developers of AdGuard and uBlock Origin find the test of d3ward pointless.
uBlock blocks the testing domain and thus always gives 100%

...not exactly, the test may be pointless (?) but running ublock orgin default I only got 99% -- it said 2 were not blocked. (the exception proves the rule??)

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

...not exactly, the test may be pointless (?) but running ublock orgin default I only got 99% -- it said 2 were not blocked. (the exception proves the rule??)

Ok, fair enough, but by blocking most with its own rules uBlock Origin makes the test pointless.

 

[simmerskool]

Privacy Badger isn't an adblocker. It's goal is to block trackers. It's pointless to use it besides a content blocker like uBO. Testing on d3ward has little to do with visiting real world tracking sites. On the FAQ page the site offers a small filterlist that offers a 100% score. On real world tracking sites this list does hardly anything. A nice overview of real world tracking sites: https://www.ghostery.com/whotracksme/websites

in some browsers & other VMs I use Ghostery. "Privacy Babger is an install-and-forget browser add-on that stops advertisers and trackers..." so sayeth EFF (emphasis added) -- I have not taken the time to review the content of ublock filter lists -- I just just use the default setup.

Privacy Badger

Privacy Badger is an install-and-forget browser add-on that stops advertisers and trackers from secretly tracking where you go and what pages you look at on the web. If an advertiser or other third party seems to be tracking you across multiple websites without your permission, Privacy Badger...

www.eff.org

EDIT -- @Jan Willy well I suppose how you parse the full sentence you are correct! -- I did not mean to quote it out of context.

 

[simmerskool]

Ok, fair enough, but by blocking most with its own rules uBlock Origin makes the test pointless.

ok agree

 

[simmerskool]

fwiw on this MT thread page Privacy Badger says it is blocking 2 potential trackers: static.cloudflareinsights.com & platform.twitter.com. The latter surprises me. (firefox is browser)

 

[lokamoka820]

fwiw on this MT thread page Privacy Badger says it is blocking 2 potential trackers: static.cloudflareinsights.com & platform.twitter.com. The latter surprises me. (firefox is browser)

What about trackers that uBlock Origin catch, is it catch those too?

 

[Jan Willy]

@simmerskool
Some more information about Privacy Badger (from its own site):

 

[simmerskool]

What about trackers that uBlock Origin catch, is it catch those too?

interesting now an hour or 2 later, but I updated the VM from fedora 40 to 41. Should be same version of firefox. ublock also sees static.cloudflareinsights.com and few that pd does not see AND now pd does NOT see platform.twitter.com. interesting...?

 

[simmerskool]

@simmerskool
Some more information about Privacy Badger (from its own site):
View attachment 286125

got it thanks.

 

[simmerskool]

@simmerskool
Some more information about Privacy Badger (from its own site):
View attachment 286125

(you saw above I edited and corrected myself before I saw yours... -- thanks!)

 

[lokamoka820]

interesting now an hour or 2 later, but I updated the VM from fedora 40 to 41. Should be same version of firefox. ublock also sees static.cloudflareinsights.com and few that pd does not see AND now pd does NOT see platform.twitter.com. interesting...?

Maybe the page was not loaded completely, sometimes you need to scroll to the end of the page to let all the content load and wait for seconds, the counter will then start to rise.

 

[oldschool]

Ok, fair enough, but by blocking most with its own rules uBlock Origin makes the test pointless.

This discussion has degenerated into one about which trackers uBO and Privacy Badger are blocking. @Gandalf_The_Grey has it right, and I think @Jan Willy would agree. First, PB is a tracker blocker which happens to block some ads which are trackers. uBO is designed to block both. Finally, the test is pointless.

Users should choose their extension based on their intention, either to block tracking or to block both ads and trackers. Word!

 

[RRlight]

Just tried it on macOS 15.1, with AdGuard for Mac, not the extension. Got 81% on both Edge and Safari. Thought could be higher.