uBlock Origin is my recommendation as well.
Links:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
That being said, I also switched to uBlock and I owe Adblock plus nothing.
I've seen some thoughts about this:
- Some of the businesses claiming "Yelp extortion" actually deserve their bad reviews.
- Some of the businesses claiming "Yelp extortion" posted fake positive reviews. Unbeknownst to them, Yelp bots automatically detected and removed the fake reviews. Later, after rejecting a call from a Yelp rep asking to advertise, the business owner decides to check their Yelp page and sees that their fake reviews are gone, incorrectly deducing that Yelp is extorting them.
I was at Radio Shack just yesterday looking for a way to do this. They didn't have a solution. Also, it's illegal where I am unless I advertise it.
So if I were to get a call right now from somebody and needed to record it I'm not sure what to do. Any suggestions?
In short, it allows for much more granular controls over what does and does-not load from any given domain. By default, it breaks a lot of websites. But with about 30 seconds of work, you will generate a policy for the domain, you hit save, and then that domain will be unbroken on every subsequent load. I find it useful as a noscript replacement.
For anyone interested, more details here: https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization
TLDR: it's for "unintrusive" ads only and you only pay if being on the whitelist gives you >10M extra ad impressions/month
The whole acceptable ads thing has an opt-out checkbox in the extension.
Given that both Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin ("uBO") uses EasyList to block ads, this is a dubious claim, requiring at least some evidences.
Now add to this that uBO supports filter syntax not available on ABP[1], this makes your claim even more dubious. Feel free to provide actual examples.
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#...
Perhaps I'll give it another try, but honestly, i don't notice any adverts with ABP so i tend to forget it's even there. I definitely noticed when uBO was installed.
The claim:
> still see some ads using Origin, where with ABP I don't
... is definitely dubious. I still have to see such vague claims to be substantiated, with actual examples of where this happens.
Once in a while someone will provide a URL in support, but it turns out upon investigation that ABP also suffers the issue. I can readily provide URLs where it's actually the opposite, uBO works where ABP does not. For instance, try:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet
http://kissanime.ru/Anime/Demi-chan-wa-Kataritai-Dub (click on an episode link, start the player)
Ads suck but they are the defacto revenue model for the contemporary internet. Micropayments struggle partially because of the network effect... websites don't integrate because there aren't enough customers, and there aren't enough customers because most websites don't offer micropayments!
ABP could help establish a sustainable micropayment model for the broader internet, and ultimately help increase privacy by addressing that root cause (revenue). Their customer base is significant and the value proposition of "micropayments vs nothing" is much more compelling than "micropayments vs ads". Imagine if Google adopted the same standard with Google Wallet, Youtube, and native Chrome/Android support...
That said, I will continue using uBlock Origin in the mean time. Much faster than ABP :)
+1 for uBlock Origin.
I don't agree with this blanket statement. It is not ads that suck.
What sucks, for me, are ads that track me, ads that try to install malware, ads that are data and cpu hogs, ads that try to get my attention in anyway possible, ads that try to deceive me, etc..
This is basically all ads, just a matter of degree. It's been a long time since ads where "Hello, I'm the spokesman, our product does X and Y, costs Z and I recommend it heartily".
Effective modern marketing is using a lot of psychology and statistics to tune the message to be as effective as possible without regard for facts (beyond what being caught obviously lying would cost you). It's all deception.
major industry players charging us all for per-youtube, etc. views of everything? hmm
However, it relies in part on a particular HTTP header, so from an information theoretic standpoint it will dramatically narrow the pool of candidates. Good enough for an individual who doesn't want to be profiled for advertising, not good enough for someone worried about advanced persistent threats.
I'm inclined to agree. Clearly we're not alone in that sentiment, if you check the responses to their ill-conceived Twitter poll.