Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Reportedly Bypassing Ad Blockers On Google Chrome
An anonymous reader writes: YouTube users have lit up twitter today, angry about an apparent change of policy by Google, which now seems to be showing ads in front of videos on YouTube even when using Adblock. Neowin reports: "Google's workaround seems to be applicable to all similar extensions and isn't exclusive to just AdBlock Plus. The company has not stopped at just skirting the extension, however. Users with AdBlock enabled will now have to see full-length video ads with no option to skip them half-way through, a feature YouTube has offered for a very long time. The only way to get the option back is to disable AdBlock, or to whitelist YouTube."
Yeah, that's how you kill your own browser off, Google.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
... use YouTube with ad blockers on Firefox. It feels good solving the world's problems.
Just switch to another browser.
...is to switch to Firefox.
Like for many other commenters, this would be enough for me to make a browser switch.
Chrome is an advertising platform, nothing more. Expect similar (and more invasive) behavior if you buy Google's new wifi router. People seem to conveniently forget that Google is the world's biggest advertising company. Their sole reason to exist is to fuck you coming and going, by showing you ads on the front end, then compiling every bit of data they can about you on the back end and selling it around. Google is the pimp and you are the whore.
I for one will not use a browser made by an advertising company.
the ad wars have
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, I don't like the ads myself, but I don't blame youtube for trying to circumvent the adblockers, it's their right to do so..
what they've done here what Internet Explorer and mozilla always wanted. Now everyone will move away from Chrome. You cant fight the users cause you will lose. You have to win somehow by giving them what they want and this is not it. I've always used Internet Explorer so that's not a problem for me. I still don't see ads at all.
Another stupid idea they might go with is blocking the others from seeing the video all together if we don't disable the adblock. That's what dailymotion and vimeo are hoping for. Then users will eventually move away and youtube will be a thing of the past. watch it go.
FTFA, this change only affects the YouTube "app" installed in Chrome. Uninstall the app and you're golden.
Free isn't free. And the advertising arms race continues. I've often wondered how long it would take sites to either force you to watch content anyway or to disable content. With youtube doing this it's a matter of time before the rest do.
Google is the pimp and you are the whore.
I for one will not use a browser made by an advertising company.
What about Firefox, whose entire existence depends on money from Yahoo (an advertising company) and previously Google.
Even the user switching menu being permanently on and taking space from my tab bar is enough to have me wanting to switch.
I will say too that it seems like YouTube also has ads when having DNS ad blocking turned on. (http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/) This behaviour is not something I've noticed before a month ish ago. It also seems like background audio on iOS is not possible when using the YouTube webpage. Just more extinguish of the EEE.
From the twitter posts in the linked article, it seems this started on the 5th. My most recent ad revenue data from YouTube is for that day, I made $11.68, normally I make $5-$8 per day. I've been seeing some spikes recently, but I assumed that was from heavy back to school advertising, maybe it could have been from this.
Any other tubers out there notice something like this?
I have a policy of boycotting any product I see advertised on youtube for 72h.
This was driving me nuts today, but I can confirm that uninstalling the Chrome YouTube app solved the problem.
I always thought it would be a matter of time before google figured out a way to stop adblockers from blocking video ads, it's such a huge incentive.
If people would put their money where their mouths are, they wouldn't have to. But apparently not paying for things, and then being annoyed when they make their money through other means, is the way to do things. After all, they're just web browsers. Surely anyone could whip one up on the cheap.
Seems like forks of the open-source version should be able to disable this.
works fine for me, as this only effects the youtube app, course you would have known that if you bothered to read.
chrome still loads and runs faster, especially on my old / ultralight computers, and doesnt eat 2/3rds of my ram just sitting there
Just drop the whole show and do something else - drink a beer or have a good smoke or tea - enjoy life without all those suckers.
It may even work...
I've been copying and pasting this into my hosts file every couple months on top of using ad block. I haven't seen adverts in a long time. http://someonewhocares.org/hos...
Download the YouTube video using youtube-dl, livestreamer, or use some other video views (like maybe VLC and SMplayer).
Won't work with the for-pay stuff (Hollywood movies and whatnot), but it'll work with most normal videos.
The compressed firefox download is 47 megabytes. Sure, a program that size is easy to write.
Many years ago they did a complete rewrite, and the effort almost bankrupted them.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
People viewing the internet as "a capitalistic system" is what got us into this mess in the first place.
The web is filled with freeloaders who get angry when they don't get their way.
Google can introduce a paid subscription model for those few willing to pay-up for using the service without ads and tell the rest of the freeloaders to accept the ads or fuck off. After all, these people bring nothing to the web except costs.
Here are the instructions to reenable the adblocking in Chrome again: http://www.ghacks.net/2015/09/...
What other browser is available on netbooks? The only operating system sold on netbooks nowadays is Chrome OS. They don't make netbooks with preinstalled desktop Linux anymore, and even if you use Crouton to install a "normal" Linux distribution, a Chromebook's bootloader still prompts you "Press space to wipe all your files and reinstall Chrome OS" every time you turn it on.
Since Google's business model is virtually entirely ad based it has major incentive to put in ads. (even Firefox to a lessor degree) The biggest issue isn't ads though. It's the tracking that comes with ads.
There are three ways to generate revenue to pay for development work.... ads, charity, or paid model . The current problem with paid is everyone wants something for free. They'll accept the ad based browser over forking over cash. The problem with charity is that developing, maintaining and updating modern browsers is expensive. So ad based browsers currently dominate the market.
If we want to change that what is needed is a coalition of the willing (possibly spearheaded by a trustworthy privacy oriented NGO like the EFF) to build a new privacy oriented open source browser from the ground up... and create a new privacy oriented non-profit to do the ongoing development work.
While someone would argue why not just port over existing open source browsers the problem is that the existing browsers all have features that can break the ad/privacy model. This is because the companies behind them aren't focused on privacy. The company that develops it (unlike Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple et al) has to have a principled privacy model that keeps out anything that isn't privacy friendly. (including any extensions that break privacy, ad tracking, insecure browsing, etc.... )
They could possibly supplement the non-profit's income by also offering a paid version of a Tor-like service that works by chaining VPN's together to create the same effect as Tor but at a much faster speed.
Human nature is to mostly seek our self-interests. If an organization's revenue model includes ad revenue, their self-interest will drive them to exploit that. If however their business model is based on making revenue specifically only on privacy features and nothing that could compromise that.... they have the incentive to do just that.
Those aren't the only options. The other option if to FUCK YOUTUBE.
The owner of a web site owns or licenses copyright in the documents that make up the site, whether you visit or not. Doesn't ad blocking create a derivative work?
Pale Moon x64 is Firefox with adult supervision. With Pale Moon, use Pale Moon's own ad blocker, AdBlock Latitude.
Firefox is becoming less and less stable. It's so unstable that it often doesn't report crashes, so the crash reports aren't reliable, they show far fewer crashes than actually occurred. Mozilla Foundation needs better management.
At some point, I think you need to get your own website instead of copy-pasting your entire spiel all over Slashdot.
Google can introduce a paid subscription model for those few willing to pay-up for using the service without ads
Google announced "Google Contributor". When I signed up, I was told I would be put on a waitlist, and I've been on that waitlist for months with no reply. That's one of the problems with Google: "no reply."
And if they want to put the tabs on top
I have them on the left (Tree Style Tabs). They also load and unload themselves from memory (BarTab), block ads (uBlock origin), and run only desired scripts (NoScript).
.: Semper Absurda
Capitalism has nothing to do with advertising. Advertising is propaganda done by private businesses in an attempt to brainwash simple minds. Advertising is so ubiquitous that everyone has become a simple mind, expect those who have achieved to block all external information from their life. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you don't even notice adverts, you are just like everyone else and you are influenced by the adverts.
I don't know what kind of 'ism' advertising belongs to, but it is not capitalism. When I take a step back and look at the most popular sites on the Internet, I would say it is even the opposite of capitalism. Most popular sites are for free (as in free beer). But they are not free (as in free speech). If you really want to compare the current Internet as an advertising platform I would not compare it with the capitalistic system where you have to pay for everything you want, but with that other system that used to exist in Europe until the late 80's/early 90's: Communism. In Communist Internet you get the information 'they' want you to get for free, but in Communist Internet the Internet owns you(r privacy).
Just look at it. You get everything for free, even when you want to pay for stuff you can't even get it, with the system of blocked regions or messages like 'not available in your country'. Just like in the Communist countries where there was a high demand for Western products but they were not allowed to buy them.
... mediocre at best. Just like in the Communist countries the only alternative to official channels is ... the shadow economy (torrents, warez sites, ...). Just like in the KGB, Stasie, ... in the Communist countries, there are agencies monitoring the entire Internet population in secrecy.
Just like in Communist countries you get most basic things for free, but the quality is
If I want to compare an Internet whose only revenue is advertisement with a political/economical system than it is Communism and not Capitalism.
And to me it is no surprise that only the most communist like movements can survive on the Internet, like GPL and BSD and Creative Commons, ... They are not really communist of course, but they are bought for free (as in free beer) and free (as in free speech) and give you the tools to reclaim control over your data.
The advertisers are.
MalwareBytes' hpHosts highly recommends & hosts it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... + Start64.com displays it for me - good enough for me tepples...
How can I say that?
OK:
The demand for my program & its data it draws got SO big, that MalwareBytes' own HpHosts (who again, host & HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT for me) had to move to UnDDoS'able AMAZON servers due to it...
(That tell you anything? It did me - what I do here on /. & other sites, works for good p.r.!)
* :)
(I don't really have an interest in maintaining a webserver or site here either...)
APK
P.S.=> So far so good though - /. makes for EXCELLENT exposure for it & nobody here amongst my 'naysayers' ever proves me validly wrong technically so... there ya go! apk
Firefox is free, the company behind Firefox depends on money from any source (in this case Yahoo). That's both the advantage and disadvantage of Open Source. You are still making a living, but you have to find another cash flow than from selling your software.
When Microsoft abandoned IE 6, nobody could pick up the code and continue support. When Mozilla abandons Firefox, anyone can pick up the code and continue support (except for the name and logo maybe, or what was it that the Debian people thought was too unfree?).
I forsee the next step: embedding the ads into the video stream itself. :-|
I don't see a problem here. 1. Don't update Chrome. 2. Don't use Chrome. Fucking simple answer people. Stop bitching like a bunch of little faggots.
I wonder if that has anything to do with Chrome suddenly starting to constantly crash on my system. I looked up the information I was getting after the crash apparently there was a workaround that involved setting up some custom exemptions for the browser with my AV/Firewall.
Would be rather ironic if it was related because Google was my dedicated un-adblocked browser for sites I trust. It was easier to simply uninstall chrome. Which finally got me to try opera for my dedicated browser for trusted sites.
If the purpose of Chrome is to get rid of ad blockers, why haven't they gotten rid of any ad blockers in Chrome? One specific ad blocker isn't 100% effective with the Youtube app. Few people even use the Youtube app. This doesn't have anything to do with the browser, you know.
I've been noticing it's doing the same thing with Safari on Mac. If you have Adblock on, the ad videos are unskippable. Turn off or pause adblock and there's no video ads.
Latest stable Chrome with Adblock, Ghostery, and ScriptBlock. No ads.
Alright, let's talk capitalism. How much is viewing this Slashdot page and having a forum for your views worth to you in dollars and cents?
Pretty soon all these adblockers making a fuss are going to push content producers to integrate ads in to content in a way that is completely seamless and unblockable using simple URI blocking mechanisms, scripts or others.
I mean content that, by simple algorithm standards, is completely similar to other content and media on the page.
See that Youtube video? Yeah, now the ads will be spliced on SERVER to the front, middle and end of the video. You can say bye-bye adblocking since now it will be a full, single data stream from start to finish with no noticeable client-end hooks, changes, events or anything to target with a script or extension.
It will happen. Sooner or later it will become like this.
You think your adblocking matters? Google are bigger than the city you live in. You matter not. The entirety of adblockers make barely a dent on Google since they barely pay any money for bandwidth since most of Youtube runs over their own network which basically only requires power and routine maintenance, much cheaper than a 3rd party CDN.
In fact, the only thing adblocking people are doing is hurting the people that they likely watch because they like their content.
Google don't suffer. It is the poor Youtube channel you like that is suffering more.
Your time isn't THAT important. Besides, you should be watching all your videos at 1.5x speed anyway. Real-time is for normals. Gotta live fast.
My computer, my rules. Don't like it, buy me a computer, pay my electricity bill and internet bill. I'm totally down with that. Otherwise, too bad. Or better yet, if you don't like people doing what they like with their computers because your site wants them to do something they refuse to, take your site down. Please do that. Hilarious.
Here's the thing, I control what my computer does and the more irritating the advertising is, the more effort I'm willing to put into making sure it stops. My computer, my control. The more advertisers try to force the issue, the more people like me will turn our attention to making sure our computer does what we want and doesn't do anything we don't want.
It's not a new phenomena. You can only push people so hard until they rebel. In this particular war, all of the power lies with the computer owner. You can't force people to consume advertising, you can only ask them to in return for something valuable. I don't mind some advertising as long as it doesn't cross the line from interesting into irritating, but it seems like about half the sites on the internet crossed that line. So yeah, I'm blocking advertising. That doesn't mean I don't want to support the content I love. Slashdot got money from me, even though I already had the ads blocked. Pandora gets money from me. There's a handful of others I directly support, but most sites don't offer the option, even if they offer the content I'm interested in. Why not?
Want to turn a million dollars into hundreds of millions? Take my money! People like me would pay ten dollars a month (easy) to get an advertising free internet. Get the top 500 sites to tell you how much they'd charge per month to offer an advertising free version and then see how many potential customers you could get. I'm betting you'd find out there is a ton of money to be had and people happy to pay. Why isn't anyone already doing this? Won't somebody please take my money?
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
I find that just about every website I visit these days has some sort of incredibly invasive advertising on it. I really don't mind a few clickable links off to the side or a small banner, but what I do mind is the whole new level that advertising has stooped to on the internet. I remember in the mid-2000's how pervasive pop-up advertising became and it reduced the experience of the internet of a crawl. Now the overlay ad has become the new popup. Everywhere I go I find that I sometimes have to click off three or four ads just to get to the useful content I want. I also find that the density of the content I am accustomed to is falling and is also becoming ever more obnoxious too. Advertisers did this to themselves, they got more in-your-face and the internet reacted in a hostile way with ad blocking software. What were they expecting? I never thought the day would come where I actually wanted to use Lynx or another text-only web browser, but I legitimately think the model of the internet being dependent on advertising has crushed the experience to the point where it is no longer usable. At least with advertising driven television you got free signal over the air. Now you pay for the connection and also have to endure an awful experience to have a basic level of information exchange.
8.) Protect vs. spam
APK Hosts File Engine doesn't seem to protect against spam. It constantly spams Slashdot with ads for itself. How do I stop it doing that?
uBlock Origin, no problems, no changes; good time to switch to a blocker that works better at what it's supposed to do, with much better performance,
Don't confuse with "uBlock", which is not the original and much better version of the two, I believe some dev jumped ships to make his own and hijack the name. Not quite sure what went on there.
See subject: Says all - Nobody's validly technically proved me wrong so, there ya are.
* :)
(You wish you were me - I suppose I can understand that, & I don't blame you (lol!))
APK
P.S.=> You know it's true, lmao - but as usual, my 1st line above's as per my usual, true as always - so get on topic, or do better than I then OR prove my points validly technically wrong... Otherwise, you look like a troll to everyone reading (You know this though)... apk
So, you are saying you cannot purchase items on eBay using Pale Moon?
A solution to this is to modify adblocking software to auto click every ad and even spider a layer or two the ad hosts site... Those paying for ads will quickly see the folly and the ad structure or something! will drastically change.
I have not since I was 10 years old bought anything from an Ad... I don't know who does... Now directed/filtered content in search results featuring sites that pay for better placement may have gotten lucky a few times but once I found duckduckgo's results lead me to cheaper online stores I dropped google as my primary search engine...
Apparently the entire Internet needs a reality check:
YOU have no right or entitlement to consume content from Internet sites. Site owners have no obligation to serve YOU with content, especially not at their own expense. If you don't want to see the ads, DON'T USE THE SERVICE. Find another video hosting site that has a funding model you're amicable to.
Block ads if you must, I certainly do. But for the love of his noodly appendage, don't pretend you're somehow entitled to use Youtube on your own terms, gratis, forever. Google is, however, entitled to prevent dishonest usage of its services. This a minor inconvenience to you? Stiff shit.
This is like being upset and angry at the local cinema because they locked off that back door you used to sneak in.
SRWare Iron works just fine (Chrome base)
Just tested. No ads.
I'm almost entirely certain that this is a couple people who messed something up in their adblock settings and blamed chrome, then proceeded to blow it out of proportion. There's always been a random chance of getting unskipable ads so that's nothing new either. This is absolutely not happening on any of my system's, or anyone else I know who runs chrome.
All hail apk, Lord of Hosts.
Put the ad at the end, not the beginning. It will be seen less but also hated less.
Do you really want to associate your brand with interruption and irritation?
When you click on a video, you're eager to see it, and here comes an add to kill the mood.
On the other hand, when you're done with a video, you're usually laughing or smiling or in a good mood, and there's maybe more of a lull as you try to decide what to do next.
Just update your hosts file with ad server IPs and be done with it - "mvps hosts" in google will bring it up
Google would never do evil, would they?
Nothing on Google Chrome linux, yet! But I use U-Block.
Easy - they need the research. If you're wanting to work around ad blockers, you need to figure out how they work, so having them in your catalog is a way to do that. Plus, if you don't have ad blockers, people will quickly realize it.
And the "Skip Ad" thing is still present - it's just Google rigged it so that the ad blocker sees *that* as the ad! In other words, the "Skip Ad" link is made to appear as an ad, so your ad blocker will dutifully block it.
It's happened a few times before - many sites that go and show historical ads often put the content up as "ads". Which often triggers ad blockers, and you can easily tell because they always put up comments as "I can't see the ads!".
But I am entitled to completely free service.
I see everyone is mad about this, but i find it actually right.
I mean, Google is not making you pay or anything, is leaving you the right to skip ads if u listen to them a little.
It's not that bad. Google is giving a lot of services for free, is it SO bad that somebody has to pay for those huge infrastructure costs? Actually, if i can help back Google it's ok for me. Google helped me a lot, i'm just giving something back.
Just use an ad blocking hosts file like MVPS. no Google ads regardless of browser. I have it set up on my AP.
This Sig does not Exist.
It's the site owners who are entitled? Slashdot is a parody of itself sometimes.
They can deliver the content in whatever means they want. Don't like it? Don't visit. Google are under no obligation to deliver content in a way that meets you personal preferences. You don't have a right to ad free content. You can try to bypass or not receive this content but Google are perfectly free to come up with ways to ensure they won't serve you one thing without the other.
You have no automatic right to access their servers and content and it's perfectly within their rights to control access, just like you as a user can turn off JS and disable cookies.
Users with AdBlock enabled will now have to see full-length video ads with no option to skip them half-way through, a feature YouTube has offered for a very long time. The only way to get the option back is to disable AdBlock, or to whitelist YouTube.
I had YouTube whitelisted (or at least AdBlock said "allow this page only", for every page). Then it started showing those full-length video ads, and now it is blocked. Seems to have worked this far.
The link you provided is interesting. The discussion gives an extremely good impression of the thinking behind Pale Moon.
Here is a quote:
'What Firefox does is a rather crude "try, try again" with lower reported maximum supported TLS settings in this situation where secure renegotiation is not supported. This (unsafe) fallback allows Firefox to "connect at all costs" (the cost measured in terms of security, in this case) although it's not part of normal protocol negotiation or any standard.'
The discussion gives an extremely good impression of the thinking behind Pale Moon. [...] 'What Firefox does is a rather crude "try, try again" with lower reported maximum supported TLS settings in this situation
They are both wrong. The right way is to inform the user that unsafe behavior will be required to proceed, and then let them do that. That's how Firefox handles questionable certificates, and it's how Pale Moon should handle questionable cipher suites.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
People want to be paid for their work? Pfff. I deserve it for free because I'm a self-entitled millennial!
There's an easy fix.
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/09/06/blockers-not-blocking-ads-on-youtube-in-chrome-try-this-fix/
which will be fixed soon.
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=526413#c6
enjoy.
See subject: "Doth not a logical argument make" & you're not convincing thus.
* :)
I merely spoke truth -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... & it elicited that "FoaMiNg-@-TeH-MouTh" raving reply from you, laden with profanity & using the name of Jesus in vain...
(... & to quote Jack Nicholson from the film "A Few Good Men"? "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" & it's still truth...)
APK
P.S.=> Face facts: You WISH you were ME... lol!
... apk
If the Internet is the self-wiring of a global unified brain.. then its a universal good for all, and Ads are the left over "Prions" infecting it.. rather than getting flushed out with the waste.. they have become lingering fragments of life.. attempting to evolve at the expense of the whole.
You're missing the fundamental problem.
No website should be able to see what extensions you have in your browser, and no website should see even which version of a browser that you're using.
Requirements such as browser version and extension/plugin requirements should be handled withing the browser itself, not the server. And even so developers can still code their sites to downgrade gracefully, without direct knowledge of browser/plugin specifics.
It doesn't make FF suck any less.
I also think it's a good thing because I'll waste less time on youtube. Waste 30 seconds to watch a cat video--I don't think so.
So I'm failing to see the problem.
Still no tabs on the side? How do you manage lots of tabs without them in a vertical bar, nested, colored and grouped?
In a portrait monitor configuration, I can see 60 tabs without any scrolling or overlap. (Firefox with tabkit 2nd edition)
I let them play ads... The reason for that is they revenue share with the content creators. I would actually gladly go to a twitch-style x bucks a month model where some of the x is divided up by the content creators, but they aren't offering that. I heard they're starting someting like that for other websites, but not youtube :(
That being said, they've shown me the same exact advert for a restaurant about 30-40 times in a row now and I'm starting to feel like its not worth it. I don't want your 'apps', Chilli's.
You think a company like Google needs to see a browser extension to know how people block ads?
If you want someone to fuck you, then you should investigate rapists or prostitutes. Advertising companies have been providing you with free television, radio, free local newspapers, and in more recent decades, free websites to educate and/or inform you if you so desire. Or you can choose not to view them if you prefer.
If you do choose to view them, rather than performing sexual intercourse with you, they will actually display some advertisements for products and services which you might or might not be interested in buying. If you prefer not to buy them, you can ignore the ads and just enjoy the content, which in no case will get you pregnant or infect you with a sexually transmitted disease.
Furthermore, if you allow their cookies and other tracking technologies to operate, they will reduce the percentage of ads shown to you for products you are totally uninterested in, and show you a higher percentage of ads for things that you actually do have some interest in. All without causing government men in black hats to raid your house and confiscate your computers and arrest you and sodomize you because "OMG this week we are arresting and sodomizing everyone who likes Game of Thrones or Doritos".
Seriously, dude, you're overreacting to this stuff.
Daily Motion is a good option. Vevo isn't bad. I've been cranky with YouTube for a long time. This is a good time to ditch them.
I've been using an OS-level blocker for years (privoxy.org). No complaints.
There are other browsers that will allow ads to be blocked on youtube. I should really stop with that statement but the more I think about this, the more it annoys me...
Google preventing ad blocking from working on their sites, within their browser, shouldn't be much of a surprise but it is a another dangerous step away from browser being a neutral tool to show website content to visitors. Maybe MS will change IE to show their own ads instead of ads from Google - they have already turned Windows into Spyware... Firefox has already forced plugins on users that we can't remove and shown a willingness to compromise the privacy of users to make a bit of money.
Open source browsers can be forked to get around the sleazy tactics of developers but that requires people willing to take on the development work required to support that fork.
To download the videos and bypass the YouTube player completely using any number of available options.
See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads that actually makes you go FASTER (instead of slowing you down as other "so-called security 'solutions'" do).
* :)
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
"The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...
APK
P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!
(Accept NO substitutes!)
...apk
Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...
Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you by dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!
APK
P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ublock's NOT as efficient:
Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.
UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
+
ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!
+
UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's better?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you by a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!
APK
P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.
What's better than ghostery by FAR?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
Can PrivacyBadger do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on PrivacyBadger doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> PrivacyBadger does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
PrivacyBadger's Adblock+ codebase 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!
+
PrivacyBadger adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads & actually SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed), whereas by way of comparison, other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOW YOU DOWN!
* :)
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
"The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...
APK
P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!
(Accept NO substitutes!)
...apk
Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...
Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject & here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
* :)
I'm not spamming anything. I don't even SELL anything, I give it away for free AND I merely tell the truth & how it is:
FACT: I created a tool far superior to its "so-called 'competition'" in crippled by default sold-out to advertisers browser addons like AdBlock/AdBlock+ -> http://www.businessinsider.com...
(One that uses what you ALREADY HAVE NATIVELY HAVE minus "bolting on 'MoAr'" that runs in slower usermode (vs. hosts in kernelmode)).
APK
P.S.=> I'd suggest you do the same, but you can't even live up to my subject line (& it's obvious you lack the skills in computer programming to do so)... apk
Because I don't use Adblock, Adblock Plus, or any other adblocker that bends to the whims of advertisers. Instead, I use uBlock.