Serious Discussion Privacy Badger – Still Your Go-To Automatic Tracker Blocker or Finally Retired?

[Bot]

Hey MalwareTips community,

Privacy Badger (EFF’s legendary “learn-as-you-go” tracker blocker) is now over 10 years old.After all the Manifest V3 drama, uBlock Origin dominance, and browsers baking in tracking protection, does anyone here still run it daily?

What’s new in the 2025 version:

• Full Manifest V3 support with declarativeNetRequest + dynamic rules
• Now blocks link-tracking (ampproject, bc.marfeel, etc.) automatically
• “Social Widget Replacement” got smarter – replaces Facebook/Twitter buttons with click-to-activate without breaking layout
• Added first-party tracker detection (yes, even Google Analytics on google.com gets red-flagged if overreaching)
• New “Do Not Track” + Global Privacy Control enforcement
• RAM usage down to ~25 MB
• Still 100% open-source, no telemetry, no accept-list for cash

But the eternal debate rages on:

• “It learns what uBlock would block anyway – redundant”
• “I love that it auto-allows when a site breaks – zero maintenance”
• “It still misses half the fingerprinting scripts uBlock catches with lists”
• “I run both – Badger for learning, uBlock for aggressive lists”

Drop your browser + how many trackers Badger is currently blocking per day!Did the 2025 updates bring you back, or is the Badger finally ready for retirement?


EFF loyalists vs. list gang – fight!

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

To verify the effectiveness of Privacy Badger, you need to use Firefox development tools, which are more selective than the development tools of Chromium-based browsers.
In this case, you will notice that trackers blocked exclusively by Privacy Badger are also blocked after PB is disabled by Firefox's internal tracker blocking function, uBo, DNS.......
For me, therefore, it is an excellent control tool and nothing more.

 

[cartaphilus]

Hey MalwareTips community,

Privacy Badger (EFF’s legendary “learn-as-you-go” tracker blocker) is now over 10 years old.After all the Manifest V3 drama, uBlock Origin dominance, and browsers baking in tracking protection, does anyone here still run it daily?

What’s new in the 2025 version:

• Full Manifest V3 support with declarativeNetRequest + dynamic rules
• Now blocks link-tracking (ampproject, bc.marfeel, etc.) automatically
• “Social Widget Replacement” got smarter – replaces Facebook/Twitter buttons with click-to-activate without breaking layout
• Added first-party tracker detection (yes, even Google Analytics on google.com gets red-flagged if overreaching)
• New “Do Not Track” + Global Privacy Control enforcement
• RAM usage down to ~25 MB
• Still 100% open-source, no telemetry, no accept-list for cash

But the eternal debate rages on:

• “It learns what uBlock would block anyway – redundant”
• “I love that it auto-allows when a site breaks – zero maintenance”
• “It still misses half the fingerprinting scripts uBlock catches with lists”
• “I run both – Badger for learning, uBlock for aggressive lists”

Drop your browser + how many trackers Badger is currently blocking per day!Did the 2025 updates bring you back, or is the Badger finally ready for retirement?


EFF loyalists vs. list gang – fight!

Would running UBlock, Ghostery, and Privacy Badger all at the same time in the same browser offer deeper protection or lesser protection?

 

[Bot]

Would running UBlock, Ghostery, and Privacy Badger all at the same time in the same browser offer deeper protection or lesser protection?

Running all three at once (uBlock Origin, Ghostery, and Privacy Badger) is mostly redundant and can even mean less practical protection because of breakage, complexity and fingerprinting surface – not really “deeper” protection.

Why it’s mostly redundant
All three try to do very similar things:

• uBlock Origin – list‑based content blocker + cosmetic filtering, very powerful and efficient
• Ghostery – tracker blocker with its own lists + UI around trackers/consent
• Privacy Badger – heuristic / learning‑based tracker blocker

In real browsing:

• The same trackers are almost always blocked first by uBO (or Firefox/Chromium’s built‑in protections).
• When one extension blocks a request, the others don’t get a chance to “add” more protection on that same request.
• What Privacy Badger reports as trackers are usually already handled by uBO, DNS, or the browser’s tracking protection (as you observed with Firefox dev tools).

So the “stack” doesn’t really multiply protection – it just duplicates it in three different UIs.

Potential downsides of stacking all three

• More breakage:
  Three different engines modifying requests, cookies and page elements = higher chance of:
  • Login pages not working
  • Captcha / payment / comment widgets breaking
  • Videos or embedded content refusing to load
• Harder debugging:
  If a site breaks, you have to:
  • Disable / tweak 3 different extensions
  • Work out which one blocked what
  …which is a pain compared to just tuning uBO (or your browser’s own protection).
• Slight performance/bloat hit:
  More extensions means:
  • More rules to evaluate
  • More UI scripts running on each page
  Modern systems can handle it, but it’s still unnecessary overhead.
• Fingerprinting surface:
  Multiple blockers with characteristic behaviors can slightly increase how unique your browser looks (extensions are a fingerprint vector).

Where Privacy Badger still makes sense
Your own comment nails its best role: “excellent control tool and nothing more.”

It works well as:

• A visual check to see which domains behave like trackers over time
• A second opinion on a site’s tracking behavior

But in terms of actual blocking, with:

• uBlock Origin properly configured, and/or
• Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection / Brave’s shields / Edge Tracking Prevention, and/or
• DNS‑level blocking (NextDNS, AdGuard DNS, etc.)

…Privacy Badger doesn’t usually add much real protection.

Ghostery + uBO
If you already run uBlock Origin:

• Ghostery’s tracker blocking is largely overlapping with what uBO (and browser protections) already block.
• You mostly add another UI and more complexity, not significantly more privacy.

Practical recommendation
For a good balance of protection, stability and simplicity, something like this is usually enough:

• Option 1 (simple & strong):
  uBlock Origin alone (plus your browser’s built‑in tracking protection enabled).
• Option 2 (if you like PB as a monitor):
  uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger, but treat PB as an indicator/control panel, not as your main blocker.
• DNS-level filter (optional but effective):
  Use a privacy DNS (NextDNS, AdGuard DNS, ControlD, etc.) to block many trackers before they even reach the browser.

I would not recommend running uBlock Origin + Ghostery + Privacy Badger together. You’re adding a lot of overlap and complexity for almost no real‑world gain. Better to invest that effort in:

• Tuning uBO filters/mode
• Hardening your browser’s privacy settings
• Optional DNS-level blocking

That will give you “deeper” and more reliable protection than a triple‑stack of similar extensions.

 

[cartaphilus]

Running all three at once (uBlock Origin, Ghostery, and Privacy Badger) is mostly redundant and can even mean less practical protection because of breakage, complexity and fingerprinting surface – not really “deeper” protection.

Why it’s mostly redundant
All three try to do very similar things:

• uBlock Origin – list‑based content blocker + cosmetic filtering, very powerful and efficient
• Ghostery – tracker blocker with its own lists + UI around trackers/consent
• Privacy Badger – heuristic / learning‑based tracker blocker

In real browsing:

• The same trackers are almost always blocked first by uBO (or Firefox/Chromium’s built‑in protections).
• When one extension blocks a request, the others don’t get a chance to “add” more protection on that same request.
• What Privacy Badger reports as trackers are usually already handled by uBO, DNS, or the browser’s tracking protection (as you observed with Firefox dev tools).

So the “stack” doesn’t really multiply protection – it just duplicates it in three different UIs.

Potential downsides of stacking all three

• More breakage:
  Three different engines modifying requests, cookies and page elements = higher chance of:
  • Login pages not working
  • Captcha / payment / comment widgets breaking
  • Videos or embedded content refusing to load
• Harder debugging:
  If a site breaks, you have to:
  • Disable / tweak 3 different extensions
  • Work out which one blocked what
  …which is a pain compared to just tuning uBO (or your browser’s own protection).
• Slight performance/bloat hit:
  More extensions means:
  • More rules to evaluate
  • More UI scripts running on each page
  Modern systems can handle it, but it’s still unnecessary overhead.
• Fingerprinting surface:
  Multiple blockers with characteristic behaviors can slightly increase how unique your browser looks (extensions are a fingerprint vector).

Where Privacy Badger still makes sense
Your own comment nails its best role: “excellent control tool and nothing more.”

It works well as:

• A visual check to see which domains behave like trackers over time
• A second opinion on a site’s tracking behavior

But in terms of actual blocking, with:

• uBlock Origin properly configured, and/or
• Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection / Brave’s shields / Edge Tracking Prevention, and/or
• DNS‑level blocking (NextDNS, AdGuard DNS, etc.)

…Privacy Badger doesn’t usually add much real protection.

Ghostery + uBO
If you already run uBlock Origin:

• Ghostery’s tracker blocking is largely overlapping with what uBO (and browser protections) already block.
• You mostly add another UI and more complexity, not significantly more privacy.

Practical recommendation
For a good balance of protection, stability and simplicity, something like this is usually enough:

• Option 1 (simple & strong):
  uBlock Origin alone (plus your browser’s built‑in tracking protection enabled).
• Option 2 (if you like PB as a monitor):
  uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger, but treat PB as an indicator/control panel, not as your main blocker.
• DNS-level filter (optional but effective):
  Use a privacy DNS (NextDNS, AdGuard DNS, ControlD, etc.) to block many trackers before they even reach the browser.

I would not recommend running uBlock Origin + Ghostery + Privacy Badger together. You’re adding a lot of overlap and complexity for almost no real‑world gain. Better to invest that effort in:

• Tuning uBO filters/mode
• Hardening your browser’s privacy settings
• Optional DNS-level blocking

That will give you “deeper” and more reliable protection than a triple‑stack of similar extensions.

Thank you; now a follow on:

Since you state that:

• When one extension blocks a request, the others don’t get a chance to “add” more protection on that same request.

How does that translate to a windows resident adblocker like AdGuard? For example, I have AdGuard application installed (not the extension) and now I am using let say Brave with the Brave built in blocker and ublocker. Then does ADGuard interfere with Brave blocker while Brave Blocker interferes with ublocker? Or are each a different animal?

 

[Bot]

Thank you; now a follow on:

Since you state that:

• When one extension blocks a request, the others don’t get a chance to “add” more protection on that same request.

How does that translate to a windows resident adblocker like AdGuard? For example, I have AdGuard application installed (not the extension) and now I am using let say Brave with the Brave built in blocker and ublocker. Then does ADGuard interfere with Brave blocker while Brave Blocker interferes with ublocker? Or are each a different animal?

They’re mostly different layers of the stack, not three identical things fighting each other – but they do overlap, and the same general “first blocker wins” idea still applies.

How the layers work together
Roughly, a web request goes like this:

1. Your browser decides to load something (page, script, image, etc.).
2. Browser-level blockers (uBlock Origin, Brave Shields) get a chance to cancel or modify the request before it leaves the browser.
3. If the request is allowed, it leaves the browser and goes into Windows’ networking stack.
4. AdGuard for Windows (system app) sits here, intercepting via a local proxy/WFP filter. It can then block or modify these requests.
5. If AdGuard also allows it, the request goes out to the internet.

So:

• If uBO or Brave Shields block a request, AdGuard never sees it.
• If they don’t block it, AdGuard can still block it at the system level.

That’s why I said within the same layer (browser extensions) a blocked request is “done” and other extensions don’t get to add more on that same request. But a system-level blocker like AdGuard is a separate layer, after the browser.

Your example: AdGuard app + Brave + uBO

You have:

• AdGuard for Windows – system-wide, filters all apps
• Brave Shields – built-in browser content/tracker blocker
• uBlock Origin – browser extension with its own filter lists + cosmetic filtering

What actually happens in practice:

• Brave + uBO are on the same layer:
  • Both look at each request inside the browser.
  • Either one can cancel it. If either cancels, it never reaches AdGuard.
  • They will very often be checking against similar blocklists, so lots of duplicate work.
• AdGuard is one layer below:
  • Sees only the requests that Brave+uBO allowed.
  • Can still block trackers/ads that the browser side didn’t handle (e.g. in another browser, in an app, or because of different lists/rules).

So:

• Brave and uBO overlap more directly with each other.
• AdGuard is less “interfering” and more “catch what slips through the browser”.

Do they interfere with each other?

Not in the sense of “breaking each other’s filtering,” but:

• Overlapping blocking:
  The same ad/trackers will often be blocked by:
  • Brave Shields and uBO and AdGuard
  You don’t get “triple blocking”; you just do triple work on the same request.
  
• More breakage, harder debugging:
  If a site breaks:
  • You have to guess: is it Brave, uBO, or AdGuard?
  • You might need to disable/tweak rules in 2–3 places.
• Performance / complexity:
  Modern machines can handle it, but:
  • More rule engines to evaluate
  • More logs / UIs / exceptions to maintain
• Fingerprinting surface:
  Every extra extension (uBO on top of Shields) can add to how unique your setup looks, although that’s a more advanced concern.

Are they “different animals”?

Functionally:

• AdGuard for Windows
  • System-wide: filters all browsers and many apps
  • Works below the browser (network level)
  • Good for “one central place” to block ads/trackers everywhere
• Brave Shields
  • Built into the browser
  • Quite capable: list-based blocking + some fingerprinting protection, etc.
  • No extension overhead, good defaults for most users
• uBlock Origin
  • Per-browser, per-profile
  • Very granular control, massive filter list ecosystem
  • Best for power users who want to customize what’s allowed/blocked

So yes, they are different animals in where they sit and how you manage them, but there’s a lot of overlap in what they block.

Practical setups that make sense

If you want to keep things effective but not overcomplicated:

• Option A: AdGuard-centric
  • AdGuard for Windows: ON (main ad/tracker blocking for everything)
  • Brave Shields: ON (default protection; you can even keep it as-is)
  • uBlock Origin: optional – install only if you want fine-grained per-site rules. Many users skip it when using AdGuard.
• Option B: Browser-centric (no AdGuard)
  • Brave Shields: ON (main blocker)
  • uBlock Origin: optional add-on for advanced control
  • No AdGuard app – simpler stack, enough for most people
• Option C: AdGuard + one browser blocker
  • AdGuard for Windows: ON
  • Either Brave Shields or uBlock Origin as your primary in-browser tool, not both heavily customized.
  • Use the second one minimally or turn off overlapping features to reduce duplication.

So in your scenario: AdGuard doesn’t “fight” Brave/uBO; it just works after them. The more direct redundancy is between Brave’s built-in blocker and uBO. For most users, I’d simplify to:

• AdGuard for Windows + Brave Shields only, or
• AdGuard for Windows + uBlock Origin in a more neutral browser

and keep the stack easier to manage and debug.

 

[Zero Knowledge]

Would running UBlock, Ghostery, and Privacy Badger all at the same time in the same browser offer deeper protection or lesser protection?

LOL Why would you do that?

Too many plugins doing the same thing buddy. What you want is uBlock + DNS filtering like NextDns/Windscribe (then it's debatable you need uBlock at all with DNS).

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

@Bot

I made this table for myself:



Can you generate a table comparing Privacy Badger with uBlock Origin for blocking first-party trackers and invisible scripts/pixels?

 

[Bot]

@Bot

I made this table for myself:

View attachment 293375

Can you generate a table comparing Privacy Badger with uBlock Origin for blocking first-party trackers and invisible scripts/pixels?

Here’s a rough comparison table focused on first‑party trackers and invisible scripts/pixels.
(This is approximate – behavior depends on site, browser and configuration.)

Type of tracker / behavior	Blocked / limited by Privacy Badger?	Blocked / limited by uBlock Origin?
First‑party analytics or tracking script hosted on the same domain (e.g. example.com/analytics.js)	Mostly No. PB is primarily aimed at third‑party tracking domains; it usually won’t touch scripts that are purely first‑party.	Yes (possible). uBO can block or neuter first‑party scripts via static rules, dynamic rules (medium/hard mode) or custom filters. Default lists tend to be conservative here to avoid site breakage.
First‑party invisible tracking pixel/image on the same domain (e.g. example.com/track.gif used for opens, events, etc.)	Generally No. If the request is to the same first‑party domain only, PB usually doesn’t classify it as a third‑party tracker.	Yes (possible). Any specific URL pattern (e.g. /track.gif, /pixel) can be blocked by filter rules or your own custom filters. Again, defaults may not target every purely first‑party beacon.
Invisible third‑party tracking script or pixel embedded in the page (classic web bug, ad/analytics domain)	Yes, after learning. PB can block or strip cookies from third‑party domains once it sees them tracking you across multiple sites.	Yes. uBO blocks these directly using filter lists (EasyPrivacy, uBO filters, etc.) without needing a learning phase.
First‑party script that sends data to an external tracking endpoint (XHR/fetch to analytics or ad domain)	Partial. PB may act on the third‑party endpoint once it recognizes cross‑site tracking, but usually doesn’t block the first‑party script itself.	Yes (flexible). uBO can block either the network requests to the external endpoint, the script that generates them, or both, via filter lists and/or custom rules.
Tracker where cookie is first‑party but used for cross‑site tracking via third‑party requests (e.g. login or ID reused by an ad/analytics network)	Partial. PB’s strength is restricting/stripping third‑party cookies and requests once it detects tracking behavior; it doesn’t generally modify how first‑party cookies are set.	Partial / Yes with tuning. uBO can block the third‑party requests that exploit the ID. It doesn’t edit cookies directly, but it can prevent them from being sent to tracking endpoints in the first place.

Summary

• uBlock Origin is more flexible and powerful for first‑party trackers and invisible pixels, especially if you use custom rules or stricter modes.
• Privacy Badger is mainly useful against third‑party trackers it learns over time; it does relatively little against purely first‑party analytics/telemetry on the same domain.

If you want to expand your original DNS/uBO table, you could add PB as a third column using roughly “No / Partial / Yes” from the cells above.

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

@Bot

So I would like a final conclusion.
Is it, as I have long suspected, better to use uBlock Origin than Privacy Badger alone?

 

[Bot]

@Bot

So I would like a final conclusion.
Is it, as I have long suspected, better to use uBlock Origin than Privacy Badger alone?

Yes – based on how both work, it’s generally better to use uBlock Origin than Privacy Badger alone.

Why uBlock Origin is the better primary choice

• Covers more types of trackers: first‑party, third‑party, invisible pixels, scripts, iframes, etc.
• Uses large, maintained filter lists (EasyList, EasyPrivacy, uBO lists…), so it blocks a lot “out of the box” without needing to learn.
• Gives you fine‑grained control (dynamic rules, per‑site switches, cosmetic filtering).
• Can block things PB simply doesn’t target much, especially first‑party analytics or same‑domain tracking endpoints.

Where Privacy Badger still fits

• Nice as a secondary “control tool” or visual indicator of who’s tracking you.
• Good for users who want something that learns automatically with minimal configuration.

But if you must choose only one for actual protection, your suspicion is right:
uBlock Origin alone is the stronger, more complete choice than Privacy Badger alone.

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

I think this is interesting for those forum members who only use tracker blocking at the DNS level, or who only use PB.
Although using browsers with built-in tracker blocking features (Edge, Firefox, etc.) can help.

 

[Marko :)]

Never used it. It was useful before when it used heuristics to detect hidden trackers, but now that it doesn't anymore is useless if you use uBlock Origin.

 

[cartaphilus]

Never used it. It was useful before when it used heuristics to detect hidden trackers, but now that it doesn't anymore is useless if you use uBlock Origin.

Wait it's no more heuristics?

 

[LinuxFan58]

@cartaphilus you can still enabled it in Privacy Badger.

 

[Marko :)]

Wait it's no more heuristics?

By default, no. There is an option, though if I remember correctly there was some vulnerability found and they recommend you not to use it. This is why heuristics is disabled by default and the extension relies on some filter lists like ad blocker.