HarborFront

Level 54
Verified
Content Creator
Anyone can remove the AdBlock Detected warning on this page?


I thought this is a thing of the past now....

I tried Nano Defender, uBO Extra and Fxck Fxckadblock (replace x by u) also cannot remove the message
 
Last edited:

oldschool

Level 54
Verified
Anyone can remove the AdBlock Detected warning on this page?


I thought this is a thing of the past now....

I tried Nano Defender, uBO Extra and Fxck Fxckadblock (replace x by u) also cannot remove the message
Am I missing something? I don't see one using medium mode.
 

HarborFront

Level 54
Verified
Content Creator
Am I missing something? I don't see one using medium mode.
I'm using uBO advanced mode in Kiwi Browser

Interesting

When I went to FF for android and key in

hxxps://www.receivesms.co

it changes to

hxxps://receive-smss.com

and there's no AdBlock Detected warning message. I then copied hxxps://receive-smss.com back to Kiwi Browser and true enough there's also no AdBlock Detected warning message.

See below images. Top was in Kiwi Browser with hxxps://www.receivesms.co

Bottom is with FF for android with hxxps://receive-smss.com. I also got this when I copied back to Kiwi Browser
 

Attachments

Last edited:

cryogent

Level 5
Verified
Hello guys, there will be a conflict/overlap with current settings if i add this filters list in uBlock/My filter:
* I know that maybe some of you consider that what I asked is silly but don't shoot me...
!
! Block Google result page advertisements (and image tags/beacons)
!
google.*##.fbar
google.*###.fbar
google.*###taw
||pagead2.googlesyndication.com
||adservice.google.*/adsid/*$image
||google.*/gen_204*$image,other
||id.google.*$image
||ssl.gstatic.com/gb/images/*$image
||metric.gstatic.com$image
!
! Block Startpage result page advertisements
!
||adservice.startpage.com
||startpage.com/js/abp.js^$script
||startpage.com/gp/wg/afs/ads^$subdocument
||startpage.com/adsense/search/async-ads.js^$script
!
! Block search engines I don't use (so only block third-party)
!
||bing.com$third-party
||yandex.com$third-party
||yahoo.com$third-party
!
@@www.google.com/recaptcha*
@@www.gstatic.com/recaptcha*
!
!
*$font,third-party
!
HTTP://*^$third-party,~image,~stylesheet
!
||*.country^$all,~document,~css,~image,~media
!
||*.stream^$all,~document,~css,~image,~media
!
||*.TLD^
!

--------------------------------------------
My current settings:
My Rules:
no-cosmetic-filtering: * true
no-csp-reports: * true
no-large-media: behind-the-scene false
* * 3p block
* * 3p-frame block
* * 3p-script block
* com * noop
* net * noop
* org * noop
* ro * noop
behind-the-scene * * noop
behind-the-scene * 1p-script noop
behind-the-scene * 3p noop
behind-the-scene * 3p-frame noop
behind-the-scene * 3p-script noop
behind-the-scene * image noop
behind-the-scene * inline-script noop
uBlock filter list.jpg
 
Last edited:

Lenny_Fox

Level 13
Verified
oldschool said:
Am I missing something? I don't see one using medium mode.
Not medium mode, but very easy medium mode ;)

In the Netherlands all active business websites of any importance have migrated to HTTPS. When your country also has a high HTTPS adoption, you can add 1 block rule to disarm insecure (HTTP) websites.The $all is not ABP syntax, as far as I know it is only implemented by uBlockOrigin. The HTTP://*$all,~documents,~stylesheet,~image,~media also blocks inline-scripts and first-party, making it safer than the ABP HTTP://*^$third-arty,~stylesheet,~image,~media mentioned by Windows_Security in Discuss - uBlock0rigin in Medium mode for Lighter and Stronger Protection, with Less websites breakage and hassle


1579534218529.png

Is there anyone using an adblocker with less rules (236 in total)? ;) less is more (y)
 
Last edited:

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
Those who are using Adguard Mobile Ads filter, I would say it's not necessary in your browser for the PC so better disable it.

Putting anyone's personal preference of using less filter rules aside, many users probably think less filter rules in your adblocker means faster browsing experience but this is absolutely wrong and if you notice any difference then it's likely a placebo effect. Even if you use a huge list it won't slow your browser because your PC and uBlock Origin is capable enough to deal with such thing without any issue at all. If you have any doubt try testing by yourself with a massive host for example try either Energized Basic/Ultimate/Unified which is maintained and daily updated by a fellow compatriot of mine: EnergizedProtection
So, I would say feel free to use filter lists according to your requirements without worrying about the total number of rules (y)
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 13
Verified
When it gives you a good feeling, feel free to use loads of block rules from loads of block lists. Security is emotion.

Chasing the ads on each and any website is putting the horse behind the cart, just block the (third-party) advertising networks those networks are using and you are good to go. Google and Facebook together have 50 percent of the market. The top 100 advertising networks serve 80 percent of the traffic, the top 200 around 90%.

Read this research: less is as more is as effective as big is beautiful: https://publications.sba-research.org/publications/block_me_if_you_can.pdf
 
Last edited:

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
There's no such thing as less is more and more is less without context. Both can be true or false depending on the matter on hand. If an ad domain is not included in a "less" list then that won't be blocked, simple. Beside different people has different requirements. My main point was to say that more filters doesn't mean slower browsing experience and less doesn't mean faster because your PC is capable enough so use according to your requirements.
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 13
Verified
My main point was to say that more filters doesn't mean slower browsing experience
Depends on the power of your CPU. Most people won't notice the difference between 100K or 500K rules. Performance is not the issue. Most block rules in the community based blocklists are not cleaned. Easylist is the best maintained community filter available. Adguard measures which rules are used (when the user allows it). Based on this feedback the Adguard optimized filters are 1/4 of the size of the Easylist filters. This implies that 75% of the Easylist rules are rarely or never used.

If an ad domain is not included in a "less" list then that won't be blocked, simple.
It is not about advertisement on a website (or domain), it is about blocking the advertising (and analysis and tag management) networks serving those websites with ads and trackers.
 
Last edited:

HarborFront

Level 54
Verified
Content Creator
Here's mine. I don't use much host based list except the default Peter Lowe's list and abuse.ch URLhaus Online Malicious URL Blocklist because I've a huge host list imported in SimpleDnsCrypt containing over 680K domains which I update twice a week.
View attachment 232289View attachment 232290
Your EasyList, EasyPrivacy List, Fanboy Enhanced Tracking List and Fanboy Annoyances List are covered by

Fanboy's Ultimate List - one list for the above lists
 

HarborFront

Level 54
Verified
Content Creator
Hello guys, there will be a conflict/overlap with current settings if i add this filters list in uBlock/My filter:
* I know that maybe some of you consider that what I asked is silly but don't shoot me...
!
! Block Google result page advertisements (and image tags/beacons)
!
google.*##.fbar
google.*###.fbar
google.*###taw
||pagead2.googlesyndication.com
||adservice.google.*/adsid/*$image
||google.*/gen_204*$image,other
||id.google.*$image
||ssl.gstatic.com/gb/images/*$image
||metric.gstatic.com$image
!
! Block Startpage result page advertisements
!
||adservice.startpage.com
||startpage.com/js/abp.js^$script
||startpage.com/gp/wg/afs/ads^$subdocument
||startpage.com/adsense/search/async-ads.js^$script
!
! Block search engines I don't use (so only block third-party)
!
||bing.com$third-party
||yandex.com$third-party
||yahoo.com$third-party
!
@@www.google.com/recaptcha*
@@www.gstatic.com/recaptcha*
!
!
*$font,third-party
!
HTTP://*^$third-party,~image,~stylesheet
!
||*.country^$all,~document,~css,~image,~media
!
||*.stream^$all,~document,~css,~image,~media
!
||*.TLD^
!

--------------------------------------------
My current settings:

View attachment 232531
Your custom filter


is good enough for


IMO, the above 4x Orwell custom filters are not required.

Read here

 
Last edited:

Protomartyr

Level 6
Verified
Just for fun:
  • Enabled all filters included in uBlock Origin (except for Easy and Fanboy filters since they are included in Fanboy's Ultimate)
  • Imported EnergizedProtection Unified (compiled from 121 sources; 1,314,058 entries)
  • Imported Fanboy's Ultimate List (includes EasyList, EasyPrivacy, and Enhanced Trackers List; 157,810 entries)
With how many entries EnergizedProtection Unified and Fanboy's Ultimate List had in them, I was surprised that the other lists still had entries that were used. Didn't really test for performance, though I did notice lag when purging/updating the lists in the extension. Browsing web pages seemed a little slower on my laptop but that might be placebo. On my desktop with better specs, I didn't notice any slowdowns whatsoever.

My actual setup that I use for uBlock Origin (I posted two days ago in this thread) uses minimal filter lists. I didn't really see an immediate benefit from adding all those extra filters. Perhaps under the hood more trackers were blocked. I don't know how this adds in to the debate about "less is more" or "more is less". Just thought it would be a fun thing to try out.
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 13
Verified
People who optimize for shorter lists are over-optimizing for it.
This is not true, let me explain my point (start of rant ;) , not against Handsome recluse, but against "more is less, benefits of large block-list perception" in general)

There are nearly three billion websites, but in the Western world 2 (two!) companies serve half of the ads (Google and Facebook). The top 100 advertising networks have a market share of around 80%, the top 200 around 90%. Lists with 3000 to 4000 rules (Peter Low's, Disconnect, Ghostery) block 95% of the advertisements. With 40.000 rules (Adguard optimzed) you might block 97% and with 1.5 million 98%.

It is not about blocking individual ads on websites, but blocking third-party access of advertising networks on these websites. Visitors are tracked on websites. Those visitors are served (interest based) ads not by the website they are visiting, but by the advertising network which pushes ads to the website you are visiting. It costs money to build an ad-serving infrastructure. For displaying an advertisement (and more important a click through) websites get paid in cents, so you need a lot of traffic to earn money from it.

These two factors, the money involved to build an advertising network and the low payment per advertising display, is the reason that there are a limited number of advertising networks. In every market in the capitalistic world the market share is divided by a limited number of players. As a rule of thumb the higher the price of infrastructure or production of a product (e.g. 5G network providers or car manufacturers), the lower the number of market players. Same applies on market maturity, the older the market the lower the number of players involved (e.g. vendors of branded diary products).

It is the same with payment services (see post: Q&A - List of digital payment services per country ) In the Netherlands less than 10 players serve maybe 20 million websites. Simply because it takes money to build such an infrastructure. When you want to prevent your family members from buying online, you don't need a block list of 20.000.0000 rules, just block the 10 digital payment services servicing the Dutch websites. For the Netherlands a block-list of 40 third-party block rules (listing banks and payment services operating in the Netherlands) will probably be sufficient to prevent all your family members buying on-line on 95% of the 20 million Dutch websites. Hunting the last 5% down, would cost a lot more effort. It is the same with advertisements, the effort to catch the last 10 to 5 percent of the long tail is tremendous.

Normal market mechanism apply to the digital market as well. In most markets 20% of the players account for 80% of the turnover. The remaining 20% is divided between a lot of smaller players. Because of the low prevalence of those small players, those smaller ad-networks are not blocked by ad-blockers and serve a specific niche or language market. Only when you visit a lot of niche websites, large block list might be beneficial. But the odds such a niche player is included in a large block-list are still low (a block-list of 300.0000 website specific rules only covers 0,001 percent of the websites in the world). The reverse is true: people with large block-list over-optimize: they arm themselves against websites they never visit and not-curated dead ad-links (curation is a major problem of community based block-list).

My take on less is more versus more is less:
  1. W3Tech top 200 list is an example of a bare minimum (the bottom range and minimalist take of/on less is more)
  2. Peter Low's, Ghostery and Disconnect (with < 4000 rules) block without breaking (reason both Firefox and Edge-Chromium use Disconnect), These list are the representatives of the main stream (less is more) approach.
  3. Adguard's optimized filters (less than 40.000 rules) is the optimum where less is more and more is less meet. Adguard gets feedback about the (originally Easylist rules) which are really used, making Adguard's optimized filters currently the best in the market (highes blockrate with lowest functional breakage). The automated feedback mechanism skips/omits websites with low traffic and dead ad-links. A simular optimum can be achieved with uBlockOrigin using uBO's own filter plus Steven Black's hostlist (but you have to know how to add that) and everything else disabled.
  4. uBlock's with its own uB0-filters and only Peter Low's and Easylist ads plus trackers is probably the optimum for a more is less approach.
  5. uBlock's default without the malware protection is probably the maximum useful of more is less approach. Adding more is futile.

Hope people understand why less is more is 95% effective as more is less and chasing the last 5% is futile (end of rant :) )

P.S. with a block-list of under 250 rules, I never run into anti-ad-block walls, another advantage of a small block-list!
 
Last edited:

ErzCrz

Level 6
Verified
I'm enjoying exploring UBO in medium mode. I did ditch NoScript in favour of it but I'm curious to know which is more secure or is medium mode enough. I'm just using default filters at the moment. It's probably comparing apples and oranges but I'm just checking to see what's best.
 

ErzCrz

Level 6
Verified
I suppose there's always the option of disabling java globally but just curious what others recommend.
 
Top