anti-adblock-killer VS uBlock

So, for most of the history of advertising, you didn't have a choice. Advertising was a part of someone else's property that would ambush[0] you before you could even ignore it. Internet advertising is an outlier in that it happens on your property. You ask for a web page, the web site sends back the page with a bunch of JavaScript that tries to run an ad auction on your computer, then your browser extensions delete the JavaScript, then another bit of JavaScript sent by the web site detects this and deletes the content, except no because your extension also defeated the antitamper script, except no because the web site legally threatened your ad blocker with billions of dollars in litigation for breaking the "don't rip DVDs" law.

I'm not kidding about that, BTW[1][2][3]. There is a silent and ongoing effort by everyone - including ad companies - to appropriate your physical property with their intellectual property[4]. You see, on the totem pole of capitalist legitimacy, physical ownership is actually really weak. There's all sorts of government-granted monopolies that can be traded like property[5], but let you bulldoze lesser ownership over physical objects. You might own your computer, but I own the content, so I own your computer for as long as my content is somewhere on it.

Talking about fundamental rights is interesting. Right now, at least in the US, people have a fundamental right to advertise - it's called the 1st Amendment. We can't even have functional campaign contribution laws because SCOTUS demands that billionaires have a god-given right to spend their billions shouting over everyone else in campaign ads. Several other fundamental rights mean you have the right to ignore shouty ads, but you don't have the right to shut the advertisers up. Likewise, the right to refuse ad exposure online is implied by the fact that the website runs on your computer. But other rights - such as the right to control copies of your speech - can negate that same implication.

Anyway, this is why I think we should bring back the Boston Strangler[6]. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[0] This is separate from the concept of "ambush marketing" where you try to ride another marketer's coat tails as close as possible without violating trademark law, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing

[1] https://digiday.com/media/adblock-plus-accuses-axel-springer...

[2] https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f...

[3] Here's a longer GitHub issue/flamewar full of people debating whether or not you can apply DMCA 1201 equivalents to ad blockers: https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034

[4] Shut up Stallman, you know what it really means. - Not Cory Doctorow

[5] I'm afraid to call them property because if I do that means the Takings clause applies and we can't ever roll back the life+70 insanity that Berne, Germany, and the EU foisted on us.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_te...

On Windows, I use Anti-Adblock Killer + uBlock Origin + SponsorBlock + YouTube Enhancer (which adds many features such as granular custom speed up to 14x).

Try Anti-Adblock Killer.

Should also be using Anti Adblock Killer

Link

Check out uBlock Origin's per site switches [1]

[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...

If ads, in particular on YouTube, are the problem, anything Chromium-based is probably only going to get worse and worse (see [1] and [2]). So that basically leaves you with Firefox and Safari.

I work for Mozilla (speaking for myself, of course), so I'll leave you to guess which I'd recommend :P

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

[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/googles-widely-oppos...

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Or if on mobile, it is well worth it to look up adblock options for the browser you use.

What are the compelling advantages of Chrome nowadays?

Chrome is working to limit the capabilities of ad blockers:

https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/11/chrome-pushes...

Whereas a compelling advantage of Firefox is that uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:

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

Advertising networks have often been vectors for malware. Using an ad blocker is an important security measure. Even the FBI recommends ad blockers:

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising

https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...

https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624

> It allows for 30,000 dynamic rules

That is not what we mean by dynamic filters. From https://developer.chrome.com/blog/improvements-to-content-fi...

> However, to support more frequent updates and user-defined rules, extensions can add rules dynamically too, without their developers having to upload a new version of the extension to the Chrome Web Store.

What Chrome is talking about is the ability to specify rules at runtime. What critics of Manifest V3 are talking about is not the ability to dynamically add rules (although that can be an issue), it is the ability to add dynamic rules -- ie rules that analyze and rewrite requests in the style of the blockingWebRequest permission.

It's a little deceptive to claim that the concerns here are outdated and to point to vague terminology that sounds like it's correcting the problem, but on actual inspection turns out to be entirely separate functionality from what the GP was talking about.

> Giving this ability to extensions can slow down the browser for the user. These ads can still be blocked through other means.

This is the debate; most of the adblocking community disagrees with this assertion. uBO maintains a list of some common features that are already not possible to support in Chrome ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... ) and has written about features that are not able to be supported via Chrome's current V3 API ( https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... ). Of particular note are filtering for large media elements (I use this a lot on mobile Firefox, it's great for reducing page size), and top-level filtering of domains/fonts.

> "Its happened before"

> That's not an argument

It's a subheading to "2. Browser engine monopoly". The subsection's purpose is describing how bad things were during the IE monopoly to reinforce that it's something to be avoided.

> in fact you could counter-argue that IE left a lot of technical debt

That would be agreeing with the article, unless I understand what you mean.

> On top of that, the internet was very different back then.

In a way that now makes it harder for truly new competing engines to pop up due to increased complexity of the web.

> I'm still not convinced, why would I change my browser?

The points made in the article are:

* Increased privacy, opposed to willingly giving your data to an ad-tech company

* Helps avoid a browser engine monopoly which would effectively let Google dictate web standards

* It’s fast and has a nice user interface

Onto which I'd add:

* Content blockers work best on Firefox (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...), doubly so when Manifest V3 rolls out

* Allows more customization of interface and home page

* UX improvements, like the clutter-free reader mode, aren't vetoed to protect search revenue as with Chrome (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37675467)

Advertising networks are vectors for malware:

https://www.cisecurity.org/insights/blog/malvertising

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising

https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...

So if you're concerned about security then you want the browser with the best ad blocker.

uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:

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