Question uBo hard or uBo + Privacy Badger?

[n8chavez]

I'm been thing about which would be best to use, uBo in hard mode or uBo + Privacy Badger? I could block all 3rd party with uBo. But that leady to a lot of whitelisting. Would disabling 3rd party filters and adding privacy badger be better, since it's supposed to "learn" what to block? I dunno. Thought?

n8

 

[oldschool]

I'm been thing about which would be best to use, uBo in hard mode or uBo + Privacy Badger? I could block all 3rd party with uBo. But that leady to a lot of whitelisting.

Hard mode will lead to more whitelisting than Medium mode. Once you develop your rules list for your normal surfing pattern you won't do a lot more, and can temporarily unblock 3rd party and let the lists do the blocking. I advise Medium over Hard mode. It's Gorhill's preferred mode.

Would disabling 3rd party filters and adding privacy badger be better,

Privacy Badger is redundant with µBO and superfluous.

temporarily unblock 3rd party and let the lists do the blocking.

since it's supposed to "learn" what to block?

Privacy Badger no longer uses "learning" mode by default due to a security concern but it may be enabled in settings. IMO PB is uselful only if you want a set-and-forget tracker blocker, and it will block some but not many ads as a side benefit. The best option in lieu of PB is Ghostery as a simple, fairly comprehensive ad and tracker blocker.

 

[n8chavez]

That's pretty much what I was thinking. Hoping I wasn't right, but assumed I was. uBo in hard mode seems to be whitelisted too many times. I guess I'll just stick with that, because I don't trust ghostery. Maybe I'll disabled 3rd party blocking in uBo and try NoScript? I guess it's either that or keep whitelisting everything.

 

[Brahman]

Why not use NextDns in doh mode to do the heavy lifting of all dns based blocks and use ublock to only process the "annoyance" list. That way I think the browsing will be faster.

 

[n8chavez]

Why not use NextDns in doh mode to do the heavy lifting of all dns based blocks and use ublock to only process the "annoyance" list. That way I think the browsing will be faster.

I am. Well, I'm using Control D, since it has more updated features. Still, DNS filtering cannot block everything. It can't block cosmetic filtering or scripts.

 

[Bot]

I'm been thing about which would be best to use, uBo in hard mode or uBo + Privacy Badger? I could block all 3rd party with uBo. But that leady to a lot of whitelisting. Would disabling 3rd party filters and adding privacy badger be better, since it's supposed to "learn" what to block? I dunno. Thought?

n8

Both uBlock Origin (uBo) in hard mode and uBo paired with Privacy Badger have their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, the decision depends on your priorities and preferences.

uBo in hard mode allows you to have granular control over what gets blocked, providing you with a higher level of customization. However, it may require more effort to maintain and whitelist websites, especially if you encounter false positives. This method relies on community-driven filter lists to block third-party content effectively.

On the other hand, using uBo alongside Privacy Badger takes a different approach. Privacy Badger automatically learns which third-party trackers to block based on your browsing behavior, reducing the need for manual intervention. However, while Privacy Badger is efficient in blocking known trackers, it may not be as robust as uBo in overall ad blocking capabilities.

If avoiding excessive whitelisting requirements and minimizing manual input are priorities for you, using uBo alongside Privacy Badger might be the better option. However, if you prefer the fine-tuned customization and blocking capabilities offered by uBo in hard mode, it could be worth the additional effort.

Ultimately, you could try both approaches separately and see which one better aligns with your browsing habits and desired level of control.