Hey! I need a new adblocker because Adblock plus sucks right now, what's the best in your opinion?? (Using chrome)
Ublock origin.
>>55148062
you want uBlock Origin
remember to turn on the extra filter lists in the options, like the anti-adblock killers.
What's wrong with ABP?
>>55148062
>not using reading websites directly on the HTML font
cuck
>>55148062
If you are allergic to ads, then why are you supporting the #1 global advertiser by using their data-mining browser?
>>55148102
Not alergic, but i hate them (got enough on TV), i just like chrome, never tried any other tho..
>>55148092
Uses more memory than UBO. UBO also supports more blocklists out of the box, you just have to check then and update.
but the bigger problem is that ABP is developed by a company whose business model is for advertising businesses to pay them to whitelist their ads. You can turn this off in ABP, but the default is to allow their """"""""acceptable"""""""" ads to be displayed. In other words, the developer has a financial incentive to make their software less effective to sell you out to advertisers.
>>55148194
UBO has no financial incentive? Who pays their bills?
>tfw Adblock Plus survived long enough to see themselves become the villain
>>55148218
It's free software (GPL). One guy (Gorhill) develops it because he wanted a better adblocker. If I remember right, he refuses donations. It's hosted on Github, presumably for free or $notmuch. Other groups maintain the blocklists, he just writes the addon that fetches, parses, and applies them.
>>55148194
>>55148228
>BAWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! clicking a checkbox is hard
>>55148271
uBlock0 uses less system resources. I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
>>55148271
The checkbox shouldn't even be there is the problem. An adblocker shouldn't let advertisers pay to bypass the blocker. My software should work for me, not them.
Kindly keep your trip on so I can filter your idiocy, you little attention-whore shit.
>>55148062
ublock origin
dont forget to turn on anti anti-adblock.
>>55148298
Sure it should. If the ads are non-obtrusive. The whole reason we started using ad blockers in the first place is because advertisers got greedy. They weren't happy with just static images because they didn't get enough clicks. That's when they started shit like pop-ups, pop-unders, flashing images, sounds, etc. If they go back to acceptable static image ads then there should not be a problem.
>>55148261
he probably got hired for a big wageslave job because of doing this so it's fine
Thanks to everyone, got UBO on!
>>55148341
Advertising is inherently intrusive. That's what advertising is. The advertiser is trying to distract me from what I was doing and make me pay attention to something else, in an attempt to persuade or trick me into spending money that I otherwise would not have.
So no, I want 100% of advertising blocked on 100% of sites. Its my computer and I decide what gets displayed on it, and I don't want to see advertising. If this hurts their business model, well that's their problem, not mine.
>>55148399
I disagree. Also, it becomes your problem when they shut down or start denying you their content. Face it, you are just a parasite.
>>55148448
we could do with a large number of websites shutting down desu. the best content on the internet doesn't come from people who are in it for the ad money anyway, it comes from people writing about stuff they're interested in.
>>55148517
PFFFThahahahaha
I'll remember that the next time someone mentions Fan fiction dot net.
>>55148448
What went wrong in your life that made you tripfag on anonymous image boards to feel superior to those who block ads?
>>55148448
what if I use ad nauseam which blocks every ad while simultaneously clicking them?
>>55148062
Pi-Hole master race
>>55148087
>remember to turn on the extra filter lists in the options, like the anti-adblock killers.
Just had a look in settings -- there's about 15 or more boxes unchecked in the 3rd party filters section, besides the region ones.
Should I just check them all or are there any I shouldn't?
>>55149609
stuff I leave unchecked:
>the "experimental" filters
>EasyList w/o element hiding rules (I believe its a subset of regular EasyList)
>the "multipurpose" lists
>the country-specific lists
everything else I have checked.
>>55149575
>>55149575
This desu
>>55149673
Thanks man.
Any reasons why? Specifically in the multipurpose lists. The "Dan Pollock’s hosts file (someonewhocares.org)" filter looks useful.
>not one install Gentoo recommendation
this place has changed
>>55149848
I know one of em is just two other lists put together. Also just like to know what the list is focused on.
>>55148062
AdNauseum if you want to get back at advertisers.
>>55148087
just a heads up anti adblock killer does not work on chrome by itself.
you also need the userscript because chrome lacks support for a certain webextension that makes it work out of the box.
https://reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/
>>55149890
>Using Chrome
This was his original sin
>>55148062
speaking of ublock origin.
anyone has a good filter for porn sites?
i feel like none of my filters is actually up to date regarding those.
