Ultimate.Hosts.Blacklist VS uBlock

https://github.com/Ultimate-Hosts-Blacklist/Ultimate.Hosts.B...

Don't forget about hosts.deny (but you probably need it at your router if you are behind one).

I think the main source I use that doesn't seem to be in rethinkDNS is the Ultimate Hosts Blacklist's hosts and/or hosts.deny files.

So it presumably has the same function as a hosts file. You can find examples like this which is portable to any Linux (or Windows) installation.

Downloads and stores hosts blacklist as a part of the environment

One thing I can suggest that will ALWAYS work is blocking known ad websites on host file level: https://github.com/Ultimate-Hosts-Blacklist/Ultimate.Hosts.Blacklist (or equivalent, there's a lot of resources for it if you look it up)

that is way obsolete by now. you need to be using Brave with ublock origin, this dns service https://github.com/Ultimate-Hosts-Blacklist/Ultimate.Hosts.B... ClearURL's, HTTPS Everywhere, and Random User Agent. I also use whoogle for a local privacy enhancing filter of google data with all ad elements stripped out (and that is if I even use google I usually use ddg).

> can you detail what the possible issue is?

Why? Are you in a position to help everyone? (As you probably guessed while reading the comment you replied to, I don't really need help; more on that below).

"Occasional" is not universal; as you aren't getting the problem in a here-and-now sense you can probably play around with the "here" part by using Tor Browser to see if you can get to the article via the link in the fine press release from northwestern. Many times Tor (say if one wants to be sure one is not transmitting some credential to the publisher) works fine, sometimes you'll have to start a new Tor circuit (or maybe be more patient than me). Likewise, with uBlockOrigin on medium mode <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...> sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I waver between wondering if it's caching (seems to be more frequent on "cold" papers hosted at iop.org, during a trawl of a paper's references), sometimes location (in the IP range sense), sometimes defences triggered by "hug-of-death" on a very fresh paper.

When it happens it's usually very easy to find the preprint and start with that, so I haven't been minded to pursue anything like formal process with anyone's IT department.

To be clear, IOP is pretty good by learned society standards, and even the worst of those is much less annoying to use (and less likely to have annoying glitches) than by major for-profit academic publishers, even (sometimes especially) when the paper is open access. For that last set, for cold papers, one is more than tempted to start with sci-hub for the latter's greater reliability and better user interface. And of course, there's also https://unpaywall.org/ which is also tremendously useful.

Ublock origin: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/README.md

Thought it was curious that this was released 4 days ago, but a spot check of the Firefox Add-Ons downstream[1] still reflects 1.51.0 staged on the same day (2023-07-19) as its GitHub release[2].

Then I saw:

> Firefox: Review pending

Mozilla just seriously backlogged or is there a more nuanced story here?

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

[2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.51.0

From my search, it seems that the original default Korean filter for uBlock Origin was Youslist (https://github.com/yous/YousList/raw/master/youslist.txt) for a long time. However, I found that there was a change to List-KR as the default Korean filter for uBlock Origin in April of last year (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/ed0f7ae3ce1fbc9445e5c9bca0890fb86ab3d0b9). I'm also curious about the reason behind this change.

I don't think uBlock supports Brave? [1] The full set of features in uBlock isn't all supported by Chrome. For me, the web is near unusable without a combination of ad + annoyance filters and without that I would miss Firefox.

[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

>Conflating serverside generated code to native app restrictions is nonsensical, they are not the same thing > You did it first. Attestation has nothing to do with extentions.

First of all, extensions are not serverside code, so no. Second of all, attestation has a lot to do with extensions because extensions are based on browser functionality, and attestation impacts which software you can run.

And attestation has even more to do with extensions when extended to websites because if the point of this is to established "trusted" environments, then arbitrary extension access means an environment is not trusted. If you allow arbitrary extension access, you can't provide guarantees about whether someone is human or not, extension APIs allow for automation and scraping. And blocking that behavior is explicitly one of the use-cases listed in this proposal for the integrity API.

If this doesn't block extensions, then it's not a useful proposal for blocking bots.

> With attestation doesn't reveal what OS you are using, so it owned still be impossible to reliably block Linux.

Do you genuinely think that an Open Linux environment is going to support attestation? We're having a hard enough time getting Passkey to support Linux, there is zero chance that Arch Linux becomes a trusted attestation provider for the Web Environment Integrity API.

And if it did, this whole proposal would be useless, because I'd be able to use Headless Chromium on Arch Linux and just have Arch Linux say that my computing environment was secure. There is no definition of "trusted computing environment" for a website provider that doesn't involve blocking access to arbitrary user-controlled code execution at the OS and browser level.

Because if you couldn't block that access, you wouldn't have any security guarantees. The entire premise falls apart if fully user-controlled environments are supported. It would be a useless proposal.

> And there is a ton of evidence that attestation will be used for DRM and to prevent adblocking > Please share it.

https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity -- please do any amount of research into how this has played out.

> uBlock Origin already objectively runs worse on Chrome than Firefox > I use it just fine on Chrome and do not see any ads.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... -- this is not very difficult to look up, you should have been able to find this link yourself.

> FLOC is [another long explanation of why advertisers are the victim]

I have to say again, I don't know if you expect this to sway anyone reading these comments, but it's not going to. No one is going to read that paragraph and think, "you know what, this person probably does care about adblockers and probably is really committed to making sure they're not harmed."