SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
How do you handle ads on the internet?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:53PM (6 children)
On palemoon, those plus ublock origin (which I don't know how to use) and Adblock Latitude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:39PM (5 children)
You don't really want to mix two "kinds" of the same content blocker. They can interact and conflict with each other in weird ways, especially when they use the same lists/techniques that aren't perfectly in sync. In your example, uBO (in easy mode) and ABL use many of the same types of filtering techniques and will conflict. You should pick one or the other (preferably uBO, since ABL is relative garbage). Some other examples would be uMatrix and NoScript, RPC and uMatrix, AdGuard and ABP, uBO (in advanced mode) and NoScript, among others. Safe interactions would be PrivacyBadger and any of the above, NoScript and uBO (with advanced off), RPC and NoScript, ABL and NoScript, among others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:43PM (4 children)
How will they conflict? If the result is to deny a resource access to my eyes if one or the other match, I'm fine with that.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:20AM (3 children)
First we need to ignoring the fact that they can never increase the blockages as they can both can use the exact same lists for blocking and both will require resources for memory and processing time. But for examples of conflicting, they could try to inject different surrogates on the page. They could both try rewriting the CSP header to do a csp or script directive in bad ways (similar to how they used to cause problems with early WebEx versions of NoScript). Their respective user styles and DOM rewriting engines may create incompatible changes. You might get caught in a loop as each tries to do something to the DOM which then triggers the other. One could explicitly whitelist certain resources the other would block, causing it to get through unadulterated (rare but has happened). And those are the ones I came up with off the top of my head.
For a weird example of conflicting plugins, look at the multiple bug reports of HTTPS Everywhere conflicting with uBO/ABP. It is true that it wasn't serious but they had to specifically design around the presence of the other in the same browser to avoid UA warnings.
The various content blockers have gotten nicer to each other over the years because people use them together and reported the problems. But when they use the same blocking tactics, it is still an example of literally no positives and multiple negatives.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:08AM (2 children)
Obviously the solution is to ban all ad blocking plugins. Users just can't be trusted to install software alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:43PM (1 child)
Where did you get that from? I pointed out that running multiple of the same type of blocker (in this case, publicly-available filter lists and ignoring the fact that uBO has a superset of features) can cause them to conflict and provide no security benefit. They asked how they can conflict and I told them how. I don't care whether they run 2 blockers or 20 blockers of that type on their machine. But that doesn't change the fact that it is literally no benefit to do so and multiple downsides, both real and theoretical.
And the only real reason I chimed in in the first place is to let everyone else know, as I figured those on a more technically inclined website and that a Palemoon user in particular could handle such information. But, alas, apparently one among us could not handle it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @06:23PM
I'm guessing he was refering back to the attitude of Mozilla and Chrome, not you. I had a laugh on that account and I'm not giving it back if I'm wrong.