uAssets VS anti-adblock-killer

1. Force uBlock Origin out.

2. Reimplement its features selectively.

uBlock Origin comes with a filter called 'Block Outsider Intrusion into LAN'[0].

[0] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/blob/master/filters/...

Migrate to Firefox and install uBlock Origin, you will have this feature and more.

fixed https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/613159034ef6eed417516e90710474dfab42a808

BTW the whole issue was this, https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/de85f38ad297a6724d3f06d360f1693ab29599ad

Aternos is problematic. See issue https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/13144

Fixing anti-adblock may cause ads or breakages. If you see any issue, please report back the EXACT URL and your country when accessing the URL so volunteers are able to investigate by commenting here or in this thread on github.

Looking at the filters that uBlock is using, it still seems to be some sort of regex on the xhr request/response body [1]. Why can't youtube trivially defeat this by encrypting everything?

[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/fb33bb3c1fa99...

a) How does ublock (-the extention-) upgrade . i suppose what that purge caches does is going to the repo and grabs the latest lists/ids etc ... but if during this battle you had to upgrade the extention itself was this done via the extention store or the the extention goes grabs the new version by it self ?

Mega thread issue on GitHub tracking this https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/19976

Reddit is not and should not be considered a tech support site.

YouTube is stepping up the anti-adblock nonsense and will be disabling playback after 3 videos

Personally, this sort of arms race is only going to cause me to not use YouTube

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/assets/47215043/f76f8ea2-3dd4-43ef-8293-353243cc5863

(Apologies if this was shared already)

Tracking issue for uBlock Origin: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/19976

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