Ad blockers are biting the dust

[Red Squirrel]

Issue with noscript is so many sites insist on using a retarded amount of JS from like 20 different domains so it makes browing the internet a huge chore as I need to figure out which of the 20-40 I need to allow for the page to even load. It also breaks financial stuff since a transaction might try to load a script half way and if it's blocked it does not go through etc. It was too much trouble so I stopped using it. I wish it went by script TYPE instead of just domain. Allow scripts that interact with the web page, block scripts that try to interact with the browser or computer.

 

[lxskllr]

NoScript gets easier to deal with the longer you use it. You could also whitelist everything, then blacklist the known garbage as the mood strikes. Initially, you won't be any worse off than not running it at all, but as you add to the blacklist, speed and privacy should increase.

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's the issue, when doing research I might only land on a given site once, ever. So no matter what I need to deal with it. Would be nice if it worked based on the type of scripts (the invasive ones) instead of per domain. One that blocks modals would be great, those things piss me off so much. There's apparently ways for scripts to also track your mouse movement, would be nice to block that too but without having to block the whole domain as it might break stuff that's actually needed.

Actually one thing Noscript could use is a community "definition" system where it would keep track of all this with community help so when you first install it, it already has a black/white list. Kinda like AV.

 

[dullard]

Issue with noscript is so many sites insist on using a retarded amount of JS from like 20 different domains so it makes browing the internet a huge chore as I need to figure out which of the 20-40 I need to allow for the page to even load. It also breaks financial stuff since a transaction might try to load a script half way and if it's blocked it does not go through etc. It was too much trouble so I stopped using it. I wish it went by script TYPE instead of just domain. Allow scripts that interact with the web page, block scripts that try to interact with the browser or computer.

I don't see the point of wasting all your effort doing all that. Allow ads to be seen, ignore them, and then the advertisers lose money and the sites you want get a profit. Win for everyone. All you are doing is making those who flood the internet with ads spend less money.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't see the point of wasting all your effort doing all that. Allow ads to be seen, ignore them, and then the advertisers lose money and the sites you want get a profit. Win for everyone.

Malware gets distributed through ad networks. Allowing ads is bad policy.

 

[dullard]

Malware gets distributed through ad networks. Allowing ads is bad policy.

So does your advice of whitelisting everything. (Also that is a racially charged term).

 

[Red Squirrel]

Ad block is a must these days, the web is virtually unusable without one. The ads go too far now, it's no longer simple banner ads. Now it's plastering entire web pages, often blocking content, full screen videos, ads that are super flashy and annoying, etc.

If you want to see something comical try viewing this site without adblock. Or worse, on mobile. Some of the overlay video ads pretty much block the whole viewing area. And yeah ad networks tend to be filled with malware. But that is a whole other issue, there should really be a more selective way to block this type of malware. They need to make something like noscript that blocks scripting based on what the script does, kinda like an AV heuristics. Block any script that tries to access or write to the system itself or change browser settings or access personal info etc. But allow scripts that are needed for overall format of the site, but do block modals or other annoying things etc. They need to make these script blockers more selective.

 

[lxskllr]

So does your advice of whitelisting everything. (Also that is a racially charged term).

I don't care about made up racial shit. People can take their offense and a $1, and go get a cup of coffee. I suggested whitelisting everything as a first step for Squirrel because that's neutral. You left off the rest(an omission is the same thing as a lie), where I said to add to the blacklist. Personally, I blacklist everything, and only add domains I trust(or want to deal with the slowdown of loading scripts) over time. My whitelist is very small...

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I don't see the point of wasting all your effort doing all that. Allow ads to be seen, ignore them, and then the advertisers lose money and the sites you want get a profit. Win for everyone. All you are doing is making those who flood the internet with ads spend less money.

Ads can be so intrusive they load a page down so much that it won't load properly. I block all ads, everywhere.

 

[dullard]

I don't care about made up racial shit. People can take their offense and a $1, and go get a cup of coffee. I suggested whitelisting everything as a first step for Squirrel because that's neutral. You left off the rest(an omission is the same thing as a lie), where I said to add to the blacklist. Personally, I blacklist everything, and only add domains I trust(or want to deal with the slowdown of loading scripts) over time. My whitelist is very small...

You are exaggerating what you wrote. You said "You could also whitelist everything, then blacklist the known garbage as the mood strikes. Initially, you won't be any worse off than not running it at all" That is a whole lot different than "I blacklist everything, and only add domains I trust".

Omitting non-important information is not a lie. Posting later the exact opposite (going from blacklisting as the mood strikes to blacklist everything) is a blatant lie.

 

[dullard]

Ads can be so intrusive they load a page down so much that it won't load properly. I block all ads, everywhere.

I have the slowest internet money can buy. I never have a problem with slow ads. Your data is 20 years out of date for most sites.

I hate ads too. But the best way to defeat them is to force the advertisers to keep paying money and get nothing from it. Adblockers just prolong the problem.

 

[lxskllr]

You are exaggerating what you wrote. You said "You could also whitelist everything, then blacklist the known garbage as the mood strikes. Initially, you won't be any worse off than not running it at all" That is a whole lot different than "I blacklist everything, and only add domains I trust".

Omitting non-important information is not a lie. Posting later the exact opposite (going from blacklisting as the mood strikes to blacklist everything) is a blatant lie.

I'm gonna assume you aren't a native English speaker, since what I wrote is perfectly clear. What *I* do, and what I recommend to others are different. I'm more willing to put in work navigating the internet. I don't expect others to do what I do, especially when they've already said they find it a PITA, so I recommend something different.

You want to keep playing games with me? I can shut you down all night...

 

[Arx Allemand]

Ads can be so intrusive they load a page down so much that it won't load properly. I block all ads, everywhere.

Smart choice. Surfing the web on a "wide open" system these days is truly scary. It's like living in the middle of nowhere and being able to see the Milky Way every clear night and then one day visiting a friend in a big city and looking up at a clear sky and seeing yellow everywhere!

All the crap slows down the system, increases load on CPU AND there is a risk of malicious attempts. Just doing Google searches on a system with absolutely no ad blocking and script control can often land you with a fake blue screen with a robotic sounding voice telling you that your system has been compromised and to call a bogus number for help. You have to force close your browser to get out of that.

Casual web browsing these days without a form of script control and blocking ads is risky indeed.

No script is very good but a lot of new users disable it because it essentially breaks everything. But learning it and using it intelligently decreases your risk substantially.

Like I said before, if ads were simple gif images I wouldn't care. But it's getting as bad as idocracy where you need a 100" flatscreen TV to have 30" viewable picture! speedtest.net without ad blocking is a good example. And all those ads slow down your speed results as well. Oops!

 

[Iron Woode]

I do run into the odd site that seems to be able to know I have an adblocker and won't let me further. I have a feeling that trend will grow. I wonder if there is an extension to just make the browser lie about what extensions you have installed when a site has a script to check.

you should get a decent script blocker. I use script-safe.

 

[Red Squirrel]

speedtest.net without ad blocking is a good example. And all those ads slow down your speed results as well. Oops!

Speedtest.net does not even work period for me, even without noscript, one of my extensions must be blocking something. It just stays stuck at connecting. I did not bother playing with it further.

 

[ultimatebob]

Speedtest.net does not even work period for me, even without noscript, one of my extensions must be blocking something. It just stays stuck at connecting. I did not bother playing with it further.

Fast.com seems to be a better speed test measurement anyway.

 

[Arx Allemand]

Speedtest.net does not even work period for me, even without noscript, one of my extensions must be blocking something. It just stays stuck at connecting. I did not bother playing with it further.

You need to turn if off for that site to work. It works fine with ublock origin and the page is devoid of all unwanted graffiti.

Fast.com seems to be a better speed test measurement anyway.

It tends to be and is configurable so upload speed is measured as well.
Depending on your ISP's agreement with Netflix CDN peering, it may show higher speeds and better latency than real world stuff due to how close the host is. I have a full 1gbps fttp connection from Verizon and this test always shows 0ms latency and hits 1Gbps both ways just about every time. The best speedtest.net servers typically average 5ms and 900/930, for example.

 

[Artorias]

God help me if Ublock stops working for Chrome.

Youtube is a damn nightmare to watch without any adblock, not to mention trying to browse sites with a billion scripts trying to run in the background.

 

[MtnMan]

NoScript usually blocks those issues on most sites for me last I saw and if not then unless it's vital I never visit the site again.

I had forgotten about NoScript. Guess I drifted away from it when adblockers were becoming effective.
Just reinstalled it, and it's blocking a bunch of stuff that adblockers let through, in addition it stops the script on sites that blocked viewing because it sensed an adblocker was running. Most didn't matter, but a few common new sites were a PIA with this. Adblocker still running along with NoScript and I can now view those sites... sites like The Washington Post

 

[mopardude87]

Well, i went with Opera GX.All that bullshit with chrome is gone, no more lagging freezing facebook and the annoying issue the op has also went poof. The Facebook freezing started right about the same damn time the other horseshit did lol.

Oh i got the same exact adblock as i did on Chrome, i figured i would do some troubleshooting. Working just fine with Adblock Plus installed. Yeah i tried other ad blockers on Chrome first, made no difference. Its a issue with Chrome it would appear like, not the blockers but oh well. Maybe a combination of both?

 

[JujuFish]

Hmm, reinstalled and so far so good. I recall about less than a year ago it was just disabled in Chrome one day and I couldn't get it to work anymore. Thought it finally met its maker.

To my knowledge, uBlock has never been disabled in Chrome. There were fake addons masquerading as real adblockers that got disabled a while ago. Perhaps you had one of those installed.

 

[rh71]

To my knowledge, uBlock has never been disabled in Chrome. There were fake addons masquerading as real adblockers that got disabled a while ago. Perhaps you had one of those installed.

It had been working fine for the longest time. I had no reason to change other than it being disabled that day. Icon looks exactly the same still... would've been a great fake if that was the case.

 

[pmv]

Issue with noscript is so many sites insist on using a retarded amount of JS from like 20 different domains so it makes browing the internet a huge chore as I need to figure out which of the 20-40 I need to allow for the page to even load. It also breaks financial stuff since a transaction might try to load a script half way and if it's blocked it does not go through etc. It was too much trouble so I stopped using it. I wish it went by script TYPE instead of just domain. Allow scripts that interact with the web page, block scripts that try to interact with the browser or computer.

Yes, absolutely my experience too. Script-blockers are rendered almost unusable by precisely this problem. Why do so many sites have such a ludicrously vast number of obscurely-named scripts? With a script-blocker it's trial-and-error trying to figure out which of the eleventy-zillion scripts is the one you need to enable to actually make the site work.

 

[Mayne]

been using firefox since netscape navigator.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

SeaMonkey is the direct descendant of Netscape navigator.

FF is the disassociated cousin.