webtorrent VS easylist

It's because of the kind of content that is shared. BitTorrent serves a lot of content you are not allowed to redistribute, so having an open gateway immediately puts you at risk of aiding the distribution of content. But it does work, someone even made something native to browsers so browsers themselves can share content: https://webtorrent.io/. There are even fuse "gateways" to make it native to your computer and pretend the files exist locally: https://github.com/search?q=bittorrent+fuse&type=repositorie...

IPFS doesn't seem to be used for that kind of content much, it seems to be targeted more towards web-native content (html pages, images, that kind of stuff). It's probably safer for Cloudflare to run this.

title. I have some experience with c++ but not much with torrent libraries. (webtorrent, stremio)

You can stream torrents

If it fits your model, WebTorrent[0] can offload a lot of bandwidth to peers.

[0] https://github.com/webtorrent/webtorrent

Then https://github.com/webtorrent/webtorrent could be used to actually download the videos in browser, the idea being here though, that you would at least seed out as much as you got. Enabling other's to access videos without requiring creators have the infrastructure to push a video to 1000s or more clients at once.

I assume you've seen https://webtorrent.io/ ?

import { ScreenshotOptions } from "./schema"; import puppeteer, { Page } from "puppeteer"; import { PuppeteerBlocker } from "@cliqz/adblocker-puppeteer"; import fetch from "cross-fetch"; let blocker: PuppeteerBlocker | null = null; async function blockCookieBanners(page: Page) { if (!blocker) { blocker = await PuppeteerBlocker.fromLists(fetch, [ // the list of the cookie banners to block from the https://easylist.to/ website "https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt", ]); } await blocker.enableBlockingInPage(page); } export async function render( options: ScreenshotOptions ): Promise<{ url: string }> { const browser = await puppeteer.launch(); const page = await browser.newPage(); if (options.block_cookie_canners) { await blockCookieBanners(page); } await page.setViewport({ width: options.viewport_width, height: options.viewport_height, deviceScaleFactor: options.device_scale_factor, }); await page.goto(options.url); const encodedScreenshot = await page.screenshot({ type: "jpeg", encoding: "base64", fullPage: options.full_page, }); await browser.close(); return { url: `data:image/jpeg;base64,${encodedScreenshot}` }; }

uBlock Origin has a few lists for cookie banners that I always keep on [0][1]

[0] https://github.com/easylist/easylist/tree/master/easylist_co...

[1] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/tree/master/An...

I think this is now fixed (or worked around) by https://github.com/easylist/easylist/issues/17937 ?

You mean the VG Wort METIS tracking in order to participate in the German royalty scheme? From a publisher perspective that tracking is necessary, but from a user perspective it's just another example of third party tracking. Thus, it is part of some filterlists that uBlock Origin users can subscribe to, for example the EasyPrivacy list. Talking to the filterlist authors is very unlikely to resolve this: after all, it is tracking, regardless of intention.

Fixed in EasyList: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/859abc79711aa69441e809a394677f6392b8c59a

If I have noticed a new ad, to which list should I report a filter issue? Should I report the new advertisement to the issue tracker at uBlockOrigin/uAssets, or should it be reported to EasyList instead?