[decasteve]

From the horses mouth [1]:

Main reason I published on AMO is because a feature which I think is important was removed from uBlock (per-site switches). That both versions diverged significantly enough so soon is not in my control.

When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened. When uBlock removed the per-site switches, a demand was created for a version of uBlock with the per-site switches.

This is the reality of GPL: anybody can fork and create their own flavor if they disagree with the pre-fork version. This should not be seen as wrong when it happens, it's expected. In the big picture, users win.

As far as trust is concerned, both versions can be trusted -- that should not be an issue in either case: the development and source code is public in both cases (every single code change can be easily browsed on github).

Edit: Notice that I still contribute fixes to uBlock since the fork, and also try to deal with filed issues (those issues which are relevant to both versions), so it's not like I am ignoring uBlock to the advantage of uBlock Origin -- I also want uBlock to work fine for whoever uses it, I just strongly disagree with the removal of the per-site switches feature.

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-966...

[currysausage]

> hence ABE happened

Fun fact: ABE is now discontinued "in favor of uBlock" because the latter is just so much more efficient. [1]

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-Us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/

[izietto]

It has been discontinued too early; from an AdBlock Edge comment, titled "uBlock may be fast, but is rubbish":

> I've been using uBlock now for a while and while it is light and fast, it's is rubbish to use. Exclusions are idiotic, context menu controls don't work, default filters selection is idiotic, it doesn't sync settings like Adblock Edge does, I'm just starting to hate it.

> I'd too like to see AdBlock Edge continue its own development path even if it's not the fastest or lightest. It's still better than all other ad blockers...

[Sir_Cmpwn]

I haven't been seeing those issues with uBlock.

[tobylane]

The one issue I've had with it is it won't hide the share feature on each link of Reddit.

[tim333]

try right clicking on the thing, click uBlock link, paste:

## .post-sharing-button[href="javascript: void 0;"]

into the box (or delete the other text till you get that) and click create

[tobylane]

When I refresh the page none of them are hidden, even the one I used to get to the box. Chrome 44, all other extensions disabled.

[bhouston]

And don't forget that uBlock blocks Google Analytics, breaks most popular travel sites if you try to actually purchase, and also error reporters like NewRelix. Most of this is the fault of the default inclusion of EasyPrivacy I believe.

[gpvos]

Blocking Google Analytics is the main point of any blocker I would consider using.

[JohnTHaller]

Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc and blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance).

[click170]

It's not like GA is the only way to gather statistics, there are other vendors and even the access logs for your server itself.

I'm not willing to let Google follow me everywhere on the internet and if that is detrimental to the sites I visit then they are welcome to block me if they detect that I'm blocking GA.

[sbierwagen]

  By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor.

Well too bad. Maybe they should take the radical step of actually looking at their server logs.

[junto]

There is a very good reason why GA is free to use. It involves building profiles of your users for Google's benefit. Don't be surprised or upset if some of your users don't want to participate in that privacy shit storm.

[DatBear]

>blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance).

What? How does that even work? If GA goes down, their site just stops working until it's back up?

[gpvos]

Too bad for them. They should use same-domain analytics instead. Otherwise they have no chance with me.

[Too]

Many sites? I've been blocking GA through ghostery for years and haven't had any problem ever. Only problem with Ghostery i've noticed is blocking Adobe Typekit and some other UI-framework i can't remember the name of, and that is extreeemly rare. Besides, as many others have said, if a site is stupid enough to rely on a third party server for analytics that is their problem, not mine, there are plenty of good analytics alternatives that can be hosted by yourself easily, and there are plenty of good websites out there that i can visit instead if one is not working without GA.

[bcg1]

Sounds like those sites need a better architecture if those things are so strategic to their business.

[pikzen]

>which is the only way they make money other than ads.

Yeah.

> So, you use the site resources

Yeah.

>don't see ads

Yeah.

> don't add to their user/page view numbers.

Yeah.

>Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc

Yeah.

Well you know what ? I wouldn't be doing this if ads provider didn't abuse my trust and displayed popup ads. I wouldn't be doing this if ads were actually targeted (lol jk). Early ads providers fucked it up for everyone. Not only do I hate the very principle of ads, I go out of my way to avoid them.

And most of all, I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't Google Analytics. Use piwik, use whatever you want as long as it's selfhosted and doesn't report to <gigantic database of users> and I will allow it. After all, I have no way of knowing if you're selling my data back anyways. It's my computer, I pick what I want to display and which code I want to execute. You want stats ? Use your own server.

[andybak]

Would you block any analytics tracker - even one that didn't share data with 3rd parties? (i.e. a tracker that was purely to enable to site owners to gain insight into their visitors)

[gpvos]

No, I'm mostly concerned about cross-site sharing of data.

[_ZeD_]

yes.

I keep analytics only for websites that are not-functioning. Still, I despise them.

[wkw3]

Radio Shack had that promise as well, until they went under.

[bcg1]

Yes

[pmontra]

You can also use NoScript for that.

[amalcon]

Why is blocking Google Analytics bad? Isn't blocking spyware like GA the main purpose of ad blocking software?

[JohnTHaller]

The vast majority of people use ad blockers to block ads. That's why almost no ad blockers block GA, etc by default. Plus, from my other comment: "Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their user/page view numbers. Plus, there's the fact that lots of sites use GA to handle inter-page click tracking so they can see what paths users take to analyze UI/price sensitivity/promos/etc and blocking GA may break your ability to actually use the site at all (many travel sites, for instance)."

[glesica]

> By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor.

They can still use server analytics to see me as a visitor. I even show up on Cloudflare. I don't want them tracking what I do on their site, it should be enough to know I showed up and asked for a specific page. If their business model relies on knowing more, then they chose a lousy business model.

Why is there so much sympathy for ad-supported sites on HN but when other industries with obsolete business models are brought up (like record companies) it's all about "disrupting" them? Have we given up on finding better ways to support content online?

[gpvos]

I have no problem with ads per se, only with: 1. any form of tracking across sites, and 2. any unnecessary animation or other movement on the page,[0] and 3. malware. I will do anything to block these things, ruthlessly.

For #2, I actually still have to use ABP, although most are already blocked by RequestPolicy or NoScript, which I use (combined) for #1 and #3 (combined).

[0] In my opinion, even animation necessary for the main content should be click-to-start, but I cannot currently completely achieve this. But disabling GIF animation plus click-to-activate for plugins gives me most of what I want. NoScript also helps.

[sp332]

Some people just use adblockers to reduce the annoyance of looking at ads.

[varjag]

No, its main purpose is blocking ads. Those visibly (and sometimes audibly) annoying flashy things. It's in the name.

[gorhill]

> No, its main purpose is blocking ads

I am well placed to speak about the main purpose of uBlock Origin. Here, from front page of the project:

> uBlock Origin (or uBlock₀) is not an ad blocker; it's a general-purpose blocker [...] Ads, "unintrusive" or not, are just the visible portions of privacy-invading apparatus entering your browser when you visit most sites nowadays. uBlock₀'s main goal is to help users neutralize such privacy-invading apparatus [...]

[ikeboy]

I use it for default browsing, if anything doesn't work I open it in an incognito window. Can't complain.

[mistermann]

An incognito window doesn't use add-ins?

[morganvachon]

You can enable it per extension in Chrome, so if you want an ad blocker to work in an incognito window just go to chrome://extensions and check the box that says "Allow in incognito" (though allowing an ad blocker to work in incognito mode defeats the purpose of using that mode, at least in the context of this discussion).

[ikeboy]

In chrome, no. Firefox does.

[JonLim]

I enjoy how efficient Chrome has become as a result of uBlock, but it has a couple niggling issues. The most prominent of which is that embedded videos on a page (like those made on Reddit comment threads via RES) will display the ads, and there's nothing I can really do about it.

Still spiffy fast, at least.

[onli]

If I remember correctly, EasyPrivacy got removed from the default selection quite a while ago. But it was in it when that addon was first presented here, probably where that memory stems from.

[JohnTHaller]

EasyPrivacy is enabled by default in current installs of uBlock on Firefox.

[path411]

Any script blocker should by default block any third-party script.

[lentil_soup]

Honest question, what's AMO?

[fredmorcos]

Addons.Mozilla.Org

[coldpie]

addons.mozilla.org

[piyush_soni]

Others already told the url it refers to. In other words, it is the term used for Mozilla's add on store in the absence of a suitable name.

[pen2l]

> When ABP added "acceptable ads" in their fork, they also created a demand for a version uncompromised by the "acceptable ads" principle, hence ABE happened.

I wish they'll go one step further and add the "Please remove us from your adblock" notices to default blocking list

[laggyluke]

You might like these options: https://cloudup.com/cJeKg7Zljwa

[rmxt]

Maybe a little ironic that this linked page doesn't work unless cookies are enabled. For those unwilling to click, the screen shot contains a snippet of the Adblock filter selection, and "Adblock Warning Removal List"; "Anti-Adblock Killer I Reek"; and "EasyList" are checked.

[karlzt]

"Edit (2015-06-15): Somewhere toward the end of May, I decided I will not contribute code anymore to https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock anymore. See top of README."