What are /r/uBlockOrigin's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

You can also add "I don't care about cookies" as a filter list to uBO if you want.

Just copy & paste this: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ to custom lists.

(1) Chrome has a built-in pop-up blocker which is sufficient.

(2) uBlock Origin is technically superior to ABP, as shown on https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode, but that doesn't make ABP users idiots. If anything, most of them simply don't know a better product exists. uBO is faster and more reliable when it comes to blocking. ABP slows down browsing, and doesn't protect against tracking and lots of ads in default mode. That is because ABP makes money off you, while uBO is on your side. ABP also doesn't protect against malvertising, because malware domains aren't blocked and potentially dangerous scripts could still be injected into your browser. ABP is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

(3) uBlock Origin works out of the box, but can be manually optimized for personal use. It is already a very excellent blocker in default mode, but it's always a good idea to go through the list of filters and activate the privacy and ad related lists.

The term "sold out", aside from evoking imagery of teenage fans angry that their favorite underground band just got signed to a major label, implies that gorhill is intentionally leaving a hole in UBO's code/filtering in exchange for money from Twitch. The premise that he has done so is very likely dubious for a number of reasons:

• gorhill has never accepted donations for UBO, as he doesn't want to feel "compelled" or or obliged to work on it for any reason. If he won't take people's freely-given money to work on the thing, it would be highly unusual to take a corporation's money, which would carry with it a very obvious obligation to help their business.
• UBO does not have an "acceptable ads" policy the way ABP does. You can see the reason for that in its manifesto.
• The source to UBO is open-source, and if there were a hard-coded exception to Twitch's adds, someone would be able to see it. And fix it. Or fork it, if it were put there intentionally, and remove it.

There are very few people out there who are genuinely concerned about your privacy and security. gorhill is one of them. I invite you to consider that a potential bug or shortcoming in the adblocker's filters is not sufficient evidence to accuse a developer of intentionally sabotaging their own product.

Hi,

Thank you for pointing this out.

It seems (does anybody have further info on that?) /u/chrisfully was (shadow) banned for downvoting posts regarding the recent development of uBlock Origin in various subreddits (/r/firefox, /r/programming, etc).

I honestly do not have a worked out plan for this subreddit. Gorhill did answer on my github post here.

No matter how the whole ublock vs. ublock Origin situation goes, for now I will probably stick with this subreddit name as long as gorhill keeps the name too. Thus avoiding any kind of misunderstanding what version of the addon this subreddit is about.

Other than that, I will try to get some nicer look and feel/css/layout going for the sub. I am not a total html/css noob but lets call my skills in this regard limited. So if anybody wants to help out with that please feel free to contact me.

Everything else will happen. Maybe people will start posting things ublock Origin only related here instead of annoying people in /r/firefox that are not directly tight to firefox as well.

I am not planning on creating any serious "content". If I understood gorhill correctly, he might check this sub from time to time and answer questions and "requests". (But please keep it civil and intelligent. No need for posts that can be solved by reading the wiki). My idea for this was/is that it can become some kind of semi github/normal forum for "non-github" people (if that makes sense).

So if people want to help out a bit with /r/uBlockOrigin, please contact me. Not trying to run a one man show here or something. Gorhill wants to stay in the background as he mentioned and only answer some questions if he feels like but not run a "community" board. Lets give him this space and let him code away.

I have linked explanation inside the file -- go read it.

I have no other way to rewrite the subscription URL. See: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/1183

That website is completely unrelated to uBlock Origin. See https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Badware-risks#ublockorg for more info.

See this post about the Safari issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/9gtgm9/safari_removed_ublock/

Just had this myself now on my phone. I checked it on my desktop machine, and it isn't happening there.

So the crafty buggers are only pestering mobile users, who can't fight back. And trying to avoid the block from users with the power to enact it.

Fortunately, there's such a thing as mobile browser emulation :)

Here's the filter I just worked out. Seems to work for me: tvtropes.org##div:has(div:has(h2:has-text(without ads)))

I got the info to make filters like these from the docs. It's the only way I know of to fight these pesky random-string classes & names.

Gorhill has mentioned using Dynamic filtering as the "opt-in" option.

If you're not aware, quite a few people use uBlock Origin more as a security add-on than an ad-blocker since you never know whose advertisements could be carrying a malware payload.

You lose a lot of key contextual information when using an external blocker. For example, how would you enforce the domain= option? From ABP's filter cheatsheet:

> domain => Specify a list of domains, separated by bar lines (|), on which a filter should be active.

The context in which a network request is made is lost when it leaves the browser.

This would also render impossible pretty much all of dynamic filtering and per-site switches due to lost of context: in dynamic rules and per-site switches, context is a key component of the rule.

I actually proposed a real solution for this problem but it was closed without any comment https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/3173

I hope that the wider uBlock community can have a say on this matter.

From https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.13.10

> Important: If you are having issue with uBO being irremediably broken with the 1.13.10 update, you will have to fall back to re-installing 1.13.8 until I don't know when. > > Direct link to 1.13.8: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/685614/ublock_origin-1.13.8-an+fx+sm+tb.xpi. > > If you are forced to downgrade, you should probably disable the auto-update for uBO.

uBlock Origin is basically a firewall for your browser so it needs some serious insight to the inner workings of your browser to assure requests are getting blocked reliably, which can include cookies, scripts, images and more. See this wiki page which briefly explains most of the permissions and why it needs them.

tl;dr: yes it's meant to do that

FYI, if you are a Chrome user who already has the original uBlock installed from the Chrome Web Store, your uBlock will automatically be updated to uBlock Origin.

For Firefox users, uBlock Origin will be coming to Mozilla Addons (AMO) soon, but for now, it is available at gorhill's github release page.

To your point, they don't deserve credit. All they did was see something pop up that says BAD and start remediation steps without doing any thinking. They literally could have just set up a script to do what he did. The fact he let you figure it out in your own is nice, but really just equates to you getting a rebuttal period before he decides to wipe your computer.

Edit, I just found this from a few years ago: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/2128

You're allowing 3rd party resources to be loaded. What do you expect? It's working as intended. Read the page below for further info.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-rule-syntax#actions

Avoid that github repo, it's a scammy version of the real deal - https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Behind-the-scene-network-requests

Well if you can learn to whitelist and manage whenever a website breaks down, then no, don't whitelist every connection.

Use dynamic filtering to "Allow all" (green), cosmetic filters will still work.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-turn-off-uBlock-everywhere-except
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-turn-off-uBlock-everywhere

It's here: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/src/js/start.js#L271

no-large-media: behind-the-scene false behind-the-scene * * noop behind-the-scene * 1p-script noop behind-the-scene * 3p noop behind-the-scene * 3p-frame noop behind-the-scene * 3p-script noop behind-the-scene * image noop behind-the-scene * inline-script noop

rules of submitting - clause 4 (do not submit feature requests/revolutionary ideas).
Gorhill tries to keep the addon as small as possible.
One of adblocking purposes is a traffic saving.
It's useless to collect IPs: there are a lot of NAT/dynamic ip/proxy/vpn/etc

And you asked to implement a vague experimental p2p protocol to deal with a problem that does not actually exist

Whatever browser supports WebExtensions, OR if you want some ad-block capabilities on mobile you could also use a DNS server like AdGuard DNS. That's what I do. https://adguard.com/en/adguard-dns/overview.html

I am facing the same issue. Except the entry in the Extensions window, there are no signs that uBlock is installed in Firefox (i.e. no icon in the top toolbar, and no context or menu entries). Ad blocking and my custom filters are not working either.

I googled for it and found this thread, but no clue otherwise.

System information:

• Windows 10 Enterprise (64-bit)
• Firefox 55.0.3 (64-bit)
• uBlock Origin/webext-hybrid (1.13.10)

EDIT: OK, so I searched for this on uBlock's GitHub issues, and the solution is mentioned in the release notes for v1.13.10:

> Important: If you are having issue with uBO being irremediably broken with the 1.13.10 update, try to un-install the re-install uBO -- possibly quitting Firefox before re-installing.

Worked for me. :-) (Do read the full release notes if it doesn't work for you.)

(I lost all of my dynamic filters, though. Luckily, I had a full backup of uBlock settings (it was almost 3 months old, but it's better than losing everything), so I used it to restore my settings.)

Here is what Gorhill says about ublock.org:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock BEWARE! uBlock Origin is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the web site ublock.org**

The donations sought by the individual behind ublock.org ("to keeps uBlock development possible", a misrepresentation) are not benefiting any of those who contributed most to create uBlock Origin (developers, translators, and all those who put efforts in opening detailed issues). For the differences between uBlock Origin and uBlock, see the unbiased Wikipedia article.

Twitch5 has been recommended a few times. But some people have also said this is a sketchy plugin. Afaik, HTML5 ads can't be disabled, and for some reason the button for turning off the HTML5 player is not working for me.

The solution I use is streamlink, since I prefer watching it in VLC player, and it's a lot less CPU intensive. I guess the only problem with this is that a chat isn't available, so if I want to interact with the chat I will open the streamer's twitch page in a browser and put "/chat" over the link.

Adguard is a DNS blackhole with a proxy server to rewrite requests before they hit the browser in order to provide the cosmetic filtering.

They also break HTTPS by implementing their own CA to intercept your HTTPS traffic.

https://adguard.com/en/blog/everything-about-https-filtering/

Given the closed source nature of the windows apps, the broken HTTPS and the fact they have access to literally all of your network traffic, you'd be insane to use it.

Use pi-hole + ublock origin to get the same functionality without broken HTTPS and open source code that you can vet yourself.

uMatrix, from the same developer. Development has stopped, but it still works great.

Gives you fine-grained control of what loads on a given site.

Very aggressive by default, thus many websites will be broken. However it's easy to re-allow everything, or individually.

Turn on advanced mode. Green the All box in the global (left) column. This will allow all requests through.

To activate the filters for a specific site, grey the All box in the per-site (right) column. This will override the global settings.

See advanced features and the dynamic filtering guide.

Are you using the Dev version? If so, I did post the issue here: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/594

Haven't found the problem yet or what it could be. But I have personally since downgraded from Dev to Stable for the first time ever because it's been annoying me (that and 1Password Extension due to the change in websocket connections).

It actually might be related to this issue to: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/554

I agree, this would still put the trust on Github. Also they may not like that they're being used as a free CDN for filter lists. My proposal was to use ipfs for peer-to-peer decentralized delivery so that no single point have to be trusted: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/3173

You can simply install UBO on the mobile firefox.

For youtube there is vanced https://vancedapp.com

For trash games there is netguard

If you want deeper adblocking you need root.

It's already available for mobile.

Android

1. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox
2. Add-ons
3. uBlock Origin

iOS

1. Buy an Android
2. Follow steps above

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Element-picker#element-picker-does-not-work-removed-element-reappears-when-you-reload-the-page

Show us this filter you created or address of the page and element you want to block.

> you will need to whitelist any sites that uBlock Origin breaks, and you might want to whitelist a favorite site that counts on advertising revenue

Neither site breakage nor the wish to support a site warrants whitelisting (i. e. turning uBO off) in my book.

Breakage can usually be fixed, as /u/ZaphodBeebblebrox pointed out. If it can't, I'd carefully consider whether being able to use the site is worth the reduced level of privacy/security likely to result from whitelisting.

And if a site counts on the support of its visitors, it can show respect for them by using alternative methods, rather than expecting its visitors to expose themselves to the risks posed by ad networks.

>They literally could have just set up a script to do what he did.

I think the warning was generated by a firewall?

>equates to you getting a rebuttal period before he decides to wipe your computer.

I'm optimistic.

>I just found this from a few years ago: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/2128

Thanks! I was gonna report it, but uBO GitHub allows bug reports from contributors only.

> I have 3+ million ads blocked? How?

uBO is not an "ad blocker', it's wide-spectrum content blocker. By default it blocks more than just ads, it also blocks analytics, trackers, miners, malware domains.

Yes you are fine. The default settings are ideal for everyone who likes a "set and forget" kind of use and it blocks all of the evil stuff.

There's an excellent overview on the github page of the project if you want to know more: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode

If you acticate all lists you'll be somewhere between easy and medium mode.

Not at all. Even subscribing to Fanboy Social is not going to fix this. The only good solution I endorse is to use dynamic filtering: <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-to-easily-reduce-privacy-exposure>. This is a good way to start using dynamic filtering, since there won't be widespread breakage this way, as opposed to when using default-deny.

I suggest uBO-Scope to really find out what is not blocked -- it will show you EasyPrivacy does nothing because that is out of its core purpose. Fanboy Social is not very good either for that purpose, it's mostly for cosmetic purpose.

There is Fanboy Anti-social but at that point I really prefer people using dynamic filtering, as the rules can not be bypassed by any static filter exceptions, and in the event a site really does need Facebook to function properly, then it's a matter of creating no-op rules for that one site with a simple point-and-click.

That filter works just fine:

viperslayer.space##.swiper-container

If it does not work for you, read &quot;The removed element reappears when you reload the page?&quot;

To force an update for all filter lists:

• Click Purge all caches and then click Update now

To force an update for a specific filter list: (example - uBlock filters)

• Click on the clock icon next to uBlock filters and then click Update now

Wiki reference

Remove the YouTube addon from Chrome. It seems to automatically install itself with each update.

Activate dynamic filtering so you can block those 3rd party ad servers from ever connecting again as well.

In all honesty, I'd rather not use an external program like VLC or MPC to view a Twitch stream. It seems more fitting for folks who are dedicated to only a few streams but personally, I just like to float around a bit. So I just use Twitch5 for Chrome.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/7fzbid/what_happened_to_the_twitch_5_chrome_extension/dqgeqa2/

It got removed a little while ago from the Play Store, but there is still an archive of it up on the net.

https://crx.dam.io/ext/knankefoajngclnjgnelanfohgihifpc.html

I downloaded the most recent release and changed the file type to ".crx"; then went to "chrome://extensions" in a new tab and dragged the file to the window. Installed just fine on my end.

Go fuck yourself Twitch.

so it's probably a spotify web issue. I'll try downloading the client and editing the hosts file with StevenBlack's hosts
edit: the ad is not played but there is a delay between a song and the other as long as the ad itself. not exactly an adblock but something really close
edit2: after adding the full hosts list and not only the two spotify entries I completely stopped having ads on the client (non-web version)

hmm this is weird. the feature is still available and works just fine for me...

did you try reinstalling uBlock? Make a backup of your settings and delete the addon and reinstall it and load your settings. does this fix it?

if not you might wanna check out https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues

put the list in a (non-public) bitbucket/gitlab repository, then deploy for free with netlify.com.

you could use your own domain or use the one netlify provides. password auth is only available if you pay money.

its handled by a script would require a scriptlet inject.

here's what it looks like if you wanna figure out a bypass even though i think it's pointless to.

https://hastebin.com/aqujomilef.js

Aight I went ahead and tried a filter anyway:

chaturbate.com##+js(acis, document.getElementById, entrance_terms)

sure this can be fixed better, but this is all i can do with my knowledge on JS.

uBO Dashboard -> Filter lists -> click on the clock icon at the end of "uBlock filters" line -> click on "Update now" on top.

Alternatively click on "Purge all caches" -> "Update now"

Go with uBlock Origin in advanced mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode

It's incredibly powerfull, easy to use and you have the avantages of static filters.

You can also try Scriptsafe, a better noscript extension (firefox, chrome)

Block whatever makes your browser connect to strictly blocked domains on the originating pages (e. g. with an appropriate $popup filter) and you won't be annoyed by the strict blocking notification.

FWIW, I tried a couple of pages on kotaku.com and lifehacker.com and didn't get any such popups (uBO 1.17.2 with default settings and filters on Firefox 63.0.3). Are your filters up-to-date?

No, uBO only ignores local IPs. If the hosts file points domains to non-local IPs, those IPs will be blacklisted.

So 12.34.56.78 example.com will be parsed as:

||12.34.56.78^ ||example.com^

See implementation: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/d7d544cda040bb79aa3ab2591521bb1c43f57aaa/src/js/storage.js#L786-L849

Thanks for taking the time to report -- it turns out it's a regression in the dev build. Fixed in 1.17.3b8: related commit.

You sure you're using the element zapper? According to gorhill, the zapper is just temporary as no filters are created for the content you're blocking, so they reappear the next time you reload or close and revisit the website again. Maybe your filter lists updated after a while and fixed the issue.

Zapper

> I want to block some paths on the website,

By Strict blocking?

||example.com/abcd$document

This will show "uBlock Origin has prevented the following page from loading" page when you navigate to example.com/abcd

The reason is that these filters use those capabilities of uBO that go beyond the ABP syntax - capabilities which AdAway presumably doesn't have (see https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#extended-syntax).

Yes, original tooltip text was also bit different: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/199

"This master switch has blocking precedence over...:" will be better?

(wiki https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-scripting)

> originate from some-nonsense8897cdf8697.moz-extension-scheme

moz-extension-scheme is whitelisted by default. Did you remove the whitelist directive moz-extension-scheme?

See: <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dashboard:-Whitelist#important-read-carefully>.

The backup/restore/reset buttons in the "Settings" pane of the uBO dashboard should work for all settings. IIRC, they did for me in the past, but apart from the reset button I haven't used them in recent versions.

You can create an exception for a cosmetic filter by replacing ## with #@# (compare /u/Frellwit's answer). For network filters, prepending @@ denotes an exception. See https://adblockplus.org/en/filters#whitelist and https://adblockplus.org/en/filters#elemhide_exceptions.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dashboard:-3rd-party-filters:

> uBlock Origin discards duplicate filters, so the number of filters used within a filter list depends on how many duplicate filters were detected within that filter list.

An issue about failing to detect false positives for popups has been fixed in the latest dev build, you may want to try the dev build and see if this fixes your issue: <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#installation>.

> Any idea whats wrong?

Presumably your filters are out-of-date. I got the ads mentioned here on welt.de and a background ad on the other site just now using my test profile (uBO 1.16.20 with default settings and filters on Firefox 61). Forcing a filter update cleaned up both sites AFAICT.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/3698

First comment in issue for legacy Thunderbird says:

>It's simple: a volunteer developer has to come in and see what needs to be done to make it work.

Add no-popups: * true under "My rules", then use the site switch to allow popups. Note that on Chrome-based browsers this may apparently affect the opening of tabs by the user.

Documentation:

> The more filter lists one add, the higher the likelihood some web pages may not render properly, due to higher probability of false positives.

As for performance, uBO scales very well. If people tell you otherwise, they will need to provide actual profiling data to make the case. Even when I select all non-regional filter lists in uBO, it still performs better than ABP with only EasyList/EasyPrivacy

For starters you can try this https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-popups

General anti popup rule is: ||domain of popup^$popup. You can add your filters to My filters tab in UBO settings.

Just force a reload the page. The zapper removes elements, they will come back when you reload a page. See <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Element-zapper&gt;:

> since no filters are created, all the elements you removed will be back once you reload the page.

There is no default list for dynamic filtering. Dynamic filtering is what you make of it. The closest thing it has to defaults is medium mode settings. As a warning, medium mode requires significantly more work than easy mode.

You will need the ublock legacy version I believe, https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/download/firefox-legacy-1.16.4/uBlock0.firefox-legacy.xpi

not sure the current UBO version is compatible with Cyberfox

> I can post a link to an example web page if needed.

Without a URL where the issue occurs nobody will be able to create a filter to target these random elements.

But first off, have you made sure your filters are up-to-date? Also, if there's an appropriate regional filter list you aren't using, consider subscribing to that to see if it makes a difference.

If you took the time to learn how to use uBO as much as you did writing this post, you'd have figured it out already. Since I'm in a good mood, I'll help you out though.

First of all, here's the wiki.

Regarding pop-ups, just go to the "My Rules" tab on uBO's Dashboard and type no-popups: * true on the "Temporary Rules" side and hit "Commit" to block them in all websites permanently (I really don't recommend this because some websites use them legitimately, I use this in a per-site basis).

Regarding the blocked requests counter just tick the box that says "Show number of blocked requests on the icon" in the "Settings" tab, it's literally the second option you see when you open up the Dashboard.

Yes, because preventing requests from being made means the data that would be sent in response to those requests isn't downloaded (see https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Does-uBlock-block-ads-or-just-hide-them%3F).

I can't reproduce your issue (uBO 1.14.24 with default settings and up-to-date default filters, Firefox 58.0, not logged in at xvideos.com). The logger shows this exception filter from EasyList being applied to requests to that CDN: @@||xvideos-cdn.com^$xmlhttprequest,domain=xvideos.com. So I guess you just need to update your filters to fix the issue.

@@||shop.pcmag.com^$csp

fixes the issue.

I added it to uBO-unbreak.

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/d2011da94f6da6820efe84f135a57450c66fe183

Just update that list.

How to manually update a list: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dashboard:-3rd-party-filters#update-now

If you're talking about a "blacklist mode" see https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-turn-off-uBlock-everywhere-except.

Do you mean the counter on uBO icon? Youtube uses scripts to track you, most of those tracking requests are covered by standard subscription lists, that's why the counter increases on youtube.
Also you can check everything in uBO logger. It gives general understanding of what's going on.

For Firefox 57+ and uBO 1.14.23b3+ there's HTML filtering. So the correct syntax would be ##^noscript. I'm not entirely sure if it has to apply to specific hostnames like scriptlets do. Haven't tried it yet.

> I don't want to see this page and I don't want to get randomly redirected.

Don't click on any link then. What you ask makes no sense. The browser does not know in advance that a page will be redirected, it acts after receiving an answer from the remote server. uBO is merely an intermediate preventing further "damage", and it acts as per content of filter lists.

1. You click "click me click me" link, which says will cause the browser to send a network request to goo.gl to fetch the document.
2. The remote server goo.gl answers by telling the browser, "Hey, the web page is actually not here, it's at shareasale.com, go get it there"
3. The browser sends a network request to shareasale.com to fetch the document.
4. Your browser receives the document and displays it.

uBO intervened at step 3 to prevent this from happening, because there is a filter matching shareasale.com in the filter list, and rather than leave you with a blank screen that vaguely inform you of some network error, uBO displays the why the network request was blocked, along with ways to act on the provided information.

Other blockers would not intervene at step 3, they would let the page load. What you are asking here is that uBO blocks the page but doesn't tell you why -- leaving you with something similar to what you get when you enter https://www.nonsense.mcnonsense/ in the address bar. This makes no sense, why would you prefer to see such nondescript error message?

As for me, I am not arguing anymore with people eager to shoot themselves in the foot, just use the no-strict-blocking: * true above to make uBO stop "annoying" you and have it behave like other blockers.

Assuming it's the same issue discussed in this recent thread, forcing an update of your filters should fix it.

Adding ||shopping.side2.no^$important to "My filters" should do that. But, FWIW, I see no connections to that subdomain on http://www.side2.no/ anyway.

The large headlines on that page are the result of the site's CSS, which you can override with :style() cosmetic filters likeside2.no##h3 > a > span:style(font-size: 16px !important) (just a quick example for one element, I didn't look over the CSS).

Nano Adblocker is more for developers and filter maintainers, it is slower than uBO but has many must-have features for filter maintainers:

https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/29#ref-commit-212048b https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/3331#issuecomment-351177993

In summary, uBO will still focus on users, RAM, and CPU usage, while Nano will focus on developers and advanced users who likes bleeding edge and fast releases.

I don't get any overlay or other obvious anti-adblock measures on that site using default settings and filters (uBO 1.14.18, FF 57 / uBO 1.14.12, Chromium 62). Try forcing an update of your filters.

Depends on your definition of blocking. Strict blocking prevents your browser from making any connection to a blocked host. But as the strict blocking can be disabled with a single mouse click, it is obviously unsuited as a parental control tool - if that's what you had in mind.

Well, I don't think the uBlock Origin GitHub is the best place though. Gorhill doesn't want design ideas in the issues tracker. "Submit bugs/issues only." "Do NOT: Submit pull requests. Submit design ideas. Submit feature requests. Submit "revolutionary ideas".

Contributing: Link

> I've already subscribed to every third party ad filter and social media annoyance list there is.

Have you made sure they're up-to-date, too? If that doesn't help, report the issue to the maintainers of the relevant list(s).

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Procedural-cosmetic-filters#subjecthasarg

>The :has(arg) operator is actually a planned pseudo-class in CSS4, but as of writing no browser supports it. Instead of waiting for browser vendors to provide support, uBO provides support for :has(arg) as a procedural operator. By restricting subject and arg to be valid CSS selectors, this means uBO will be able to support the :has(...) operator declaratively once a browser supports it.

Leave it turned off in "Settings" (but adjust the size threshold as desired) and use the per site switch in the popup (the film strip icon at the bottom). This generates rules of the format no-large-media: www.example.com true.

I would rather have someone step forward and volunteer to upload to Pale Moon's repo. I've already way too much to do. Just like volunteers stepped forward to port uBO to Edge and Safari versions. Easier in the current case because there is nothing to port, just merely to upload the latest stable uBlock0.firefox.xpi from the Releases section to Pale Moon add-ons repo. Thanks in advanced to whoever volunteer.

Also, I would appreciate that whoever volunteer to upload to Pale Moon to volunteer to handle Pale Moon-specific issues, this is one thing which is sorely missing on uBO's issue tracker: people to volunteer to validate/invalidate/reproduce/sort issues, I end up spending way too much time on this, this can't continue like this.

> I'll wait a week for an update that fixes it then turn updates back on

There is no update that will fix this. It's a Firefox issue, fixed in Firefox 56. It does not look like they plan to import the fix to Firefox 55. Read the release notes for the official workarounds.

Here's the releases page on GitHub for uBlock Origin

If you use uBlock right now and are switching to Nightly, follow the full instructions. If you just want to switch and start fresh, just install 1.13.9rc4 and it'll work just fine. Been using it for five days now, no problems have come up that I can't attribute to Nightly.

Thanks from me too, I just discovered the dynamic filtering which is explained very comprehensible in the wiki. I'm happy and excited right now :-)

Allow me to bolster /u/False1512's statement with a quote from the uBO wiki:

> uBlock Origin discards duplicate filters, so the number of filters used within a filter list depends on how many duplicate filters were detected within that filter list.

:-)

The default filter lists (shown here) are a good start. Apart from maybe a regional adblock list, I'd only start adding lists if I regularly experienced annoyances getting through. Adding more filters means site breakage is more likely, as you've already experienced.

Regarding redundancies: uBO discards duplicate filters. In your setup, "Basic tracking list by Disconnect" for example is marked "0 out 34 used" - all filters in this list are duplicates.

Block the domain the ads are loaded from: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-user-features

These "suggestions" often come from third-party domains. I don't know what the specific domain is on that site, but you can block all "3rd-party".

From the wiki:

> uBlock Origin discards duplicate filters, so the number of filters used within a filter list depends on how many duplicate filters were detected within that filter list.

So the numbers indicate actually used (i. e. non-duplicate) filters and total number of filters in the list.

Having more active filters presumably increases uBO's memory usage (which is a disadvantage of static filtering anyway), and it obviously increases the likelihood of site breakage.

• Go to uBO's dashboard
• Select the &quot;3rd-party filters&quot; pane
• Find the filter list named "uBlock filters" (near the top)
• Click the little clock icon to the right of that list
  • As a result, the list will now be labeled as out of date (yellow warning sign)
• Click the "Update now" button at the top

Reloading the web page on watchcartoononline.io will now cause the new filter to take effect, and you should be able to watch videos.

My rules tab:

* google-analytics.com * block

* nameofsite.com * allow

This will bypass any filter subscription rules you have set. Whitelisting the site will bypass these dynamic filters and allow google to run their scripts. So don't do that.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-precedence

Curious to what the site is and why it's blocked now.

First of all: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-websocket/pgdnlhfefecpicbbihgmbmffkjpaplco?hl=en You need that.

Second of all, the problem with PHUB is that they keep exploiting EasyList whitelists.

Something anyone who has trouble with static filtering should do is learn how to use dynamic filtering, which makes things a whole lot easier.

use uBO's logger
look through yellow lines in the logger, its probably a filter with 'arrow' or 'vote' part in it, click on it and see where it comes from

||i.ytimg.com/vi/*/hqdefault.jpg$domain=example.com

Or

Dynamic filtering. Example:

example.com ytimg.com * block

Will block ytimg on example.com.

easy fix - add to filters:

<code>next-episode.net##script:inject</code>(abort-on-property-write.js, tryCheckA31)

i used this site prior but now there are many better cross platform alternatives

> wot

Uninstall that addon, try out privacy badger or disconnect.

http://www.pcmag.com/news/349328/web-of-trust-browser-extension-cannot-be-trusted

https://lifehacker.com/web-of-trust-sells-your-browsing-history-uninstall-it-1788667989