Slashdot Mirror
German Publisher Axel Springer Bans Adblocking Users From Bild Website (axelspringer.de)
An anonymous reader writes: Major European publishing house Axel Springer has instituted countermeasures against users who employ adblocking software on its Bild news outlet, which represents a daily publication with a print circulation of 2.5 million. The website now presents readers with a request to either turn off the adblocking or pay a €2.99 monthly subscription fee. In a statement the company insists that online journalism must be funded by one of the 'two known revenue pillars' — advertising or sales.
It's why I don't use ad blocking software or disable ads on Slashdot.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Bild is crap "journalism" anyway.
Viruses not so much. Way too much of that going around to make it safe to browse without adblocking - too many ad carriers do not audit the ads that are displayed, leading to all sorts of click bait and virus crap being displayed.
If a site is important enough to me, I'll pay a nominal fee rather than slow loading times with what is often intrusive hogwash.
If it's not, the information I seek is probably available elsewhere.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Sure, revenue must come from somewhere, but, what happens when your product doesn't worth what you ask for it and you're not willing to compromise your privacy with third parties that do whatever they want with it?.
Bild is the worst example of German yellow press. I seriously doubt that people who are intelligent enough to install an ad blocker would read bild.de anyway.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Actually that seems quite reasonable. At least they give you the choice. I don't like sites that say "you can't view this site with adblock", but with a choice and a reasonable monthly charge for add-free use I'd be happy with it. If it was a site that I used a lot I'd probably pay the subscription. If I decided that I did not use it enough to justify that at least I wouldn't have the feeling that the ads were being forced on me.
It seems that the news industry believes we cannot do without them, and that we must pay for the privilege of keeping them in business.
It's quite hysterical. They're in for a big surprise.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
As long as I can also block the request to turn off the ad blocker, so it looks as if the site is simply dysfunctional, I'm fine with that. I'm even fine with blocking the whole domain. Bild is the worst "newspaper" one could imagine, it's certainly not a loss for anyone.
Would it be possible to create an adblocker that loads all the ads but replaces them with beige squares just before they hit the framebuffer? Or would the latest JavaShit technology still be able to detect these?
I would love to see a company that would:
1.Allow customers to make a single monthly payment, which would be distributed among participating websites according to some metric like pageviews or time-on-site
2.Force participating websites to commit to a no-ads policy in order to participate in the revenue
What will probably happen is that paid subscribers will continue to be served ads, especially from "acceptable" publishers.
If a site is up to make money then it has one of three options, 1 Ads,2 Selling your personal data, or 3 subscriptions. No-one really likes any of them but the trouble is that option 3 just sends people running in the opposite direction.
In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
I somehow doubt they actually get 2.99 euros in ad revenue per reader per month so as to make this a fair exchange. More like 0.10, maybe?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Dear publisher: Fuck you. I'm happy with either paying for journalism or viewing YOUR ads. I'm not going to allow your web site to shove somebody else's ads in my face. If you want to sell ads, then sell ads. Including some piece of code from an ad wholesaler isn't going to fly, in the same way I wouldn't accept an unknown package wrapped in brown paper from other random people trying to sell me shit along with my paper newspaper or paper magazine.
Sell your own ads, publishers. That's part of your job. If you can't be bothered to do that, then I can't be bothered to help you get paid.
I don't respond to AC's.
Hence the name: "Bild" (= Picture) "Newspaper" for people who hate to read, Or lack the brains to understand what they're reading.
bickerdyke
(Btw, just accessed it for testing, out of curiosity, not for reading the yellow news...)
Dear Advertisers,
We had a social contract. In exchange for our attention, you agreed to fund our entertainment. But you squandered that agreement and broke our contract. Simply getting our attention wasn't enough for you. In your zeal to make your ads stand out over the others, you started using insecure technologies that exposed your customers to attack. When you realized that your customers were commodities to be bought and sold, you tried to monetize us. You started using tracking cookies. You sold us to your friends and partners. You violated our trust. And now you're asking us to trust you again but you haven't done a single thing to earn that trust back. Quite the contrary, in fact, you continue to abuse us over and over.
Advertisers, you have asked us to return to the old model but have given us no reason to do so. I will continue to block your ads and your malignant tumors until you have proven without a shadow of a doubt that you have mended your ways. Until then, SCREW YOU.
Sincerely,
Your former customers
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
looks like it fails to detect the use of noscript ;)
So does that mean that the company is going to take full responsibility for the malware they spread through ads? I thought not.
Their ad blocker banner requires JavaScript. Running NoScript circumvents it.
Works fine for me with uMatrix. Of course I don't know German that well, so...
Trolling is a art,
Are they actually blocking, or are they putting up a stupid DIV overlay which you can defeat in a hot millisecond?
We all have different reasons why to use adblocker - historically it was we didn't want to see ads or they made the viewing experience slower, and now malware.
And of course the content owner needs to pay the bills.
Previously many sites didn't have the option to allow viewers to pay a subscription fee. This seems completely fair trade. Another model is "pay what you want" (kind of the Public Radio/TV model in the USA).
I've been seeing more requests than ever recently to "please turn off Adblocker" while browsing.
I see the same thing and my response is basically that I'll turn it off when I am paid in cash to view the add AND all tracking data is provided to me for review and possible veto. Until then they can go perform sexual acts on themselves. Their bad business model is not my problem.
If a site is important enough to me, I'll pay a nominal fee rather than slow loading times with what is often intrusive hogwash.
Exactly. I do subscribe to a few sites that I find particularly valuable to me. The rest of them aren't valuable enough for me to worry about. If they paywall it off then I'll just go elsewhere but they aren't getting a penny from me, directly or indirectly. I'm certainly not paying for something (including in the form of personal info) before I've had a chance to evaluate the site and I never once agreed to view the ads or have my activities tracked.
Perhaps what is needed is a new form of adblock, which actually loads the ads, possibly on a low priority basis*, but doesn't display them.
*Thinking along the lines of accept the first 1k of the ad, then go slow on the TCP responses, until the main-page/non-ad-identified bits have finished. I am looking for a system such that the ads are downloading to /dev/null while I am reading the ad-free page.
Of course the negative response to that will be to put some active content in the ad such that the article will not display until the ad "payload" is actively processed and phones home. Thus blurring the line between ads and malware even more than it is already. (at times)
(If someone is already doing this sort of thing, please don't flame me, just inform. Frankly, although I used to maintain block lists, etc., I gave up years ago. Well not completely; I do attempt to avoid certain publishers, but that is on a more manual basis rather than automated.)
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Ok so your site needs money from Ads to survive, I get it, we all have to make compromises. But you are serving those ads via un-vetted bloated 3rd party scripts which can harbor malware, cost me time and money & track my Ass between sites. Therefore if you put up a page that asks me to accept your 3rd party Scripted Ads, I will send you a copy of my User Terms of Service for you to agree too. In which you will find clauses that require you to accept responsibility for all 1st, 2nd & 3rd party content and resources served by your site and all losses incurred should that adversely affect my systems, privacy etc.
Alternatively, if you wish to serve all Ads in a 1st party context without scripting then I'm powerless to stop you and would be much happier.
So in the end to me its not the Ads themselves that are the problem, but how they are delivered and what hidden factors are present that I consider a detriment to my using your site.
[on] my home consumer-grade broadband router [...] I had forgotten how many of the mainstream ad servers I'd manually blocked by hostname
APK would be proud of you.
Christ, nearly 6MB in 642 URL requests just to load their home page once. Anyhoo, from two full fetches of their home page. Excepting the dozens of trackers and advert organisations that I haven't noted to be involved in malware, we have:
smartclip.net: Party to LG "Smart TV" spying without consent.
turn.com: Repeated malware advertisments to-date. Most recently infecting iPhones.
ads.yahoo.com: Repeated malware advertisments to-date.
serving-sys.com: Repeated malware advertisments to-date.
advertising.com: Repeated malware advertisments to-date.
adnxs.com: Repeated malware advertisments to-date, including Angler Exploit Kit via MSN.com
adscale.de: Malware advertisements.
adsrvr.org: Malware adverts, pushing virus-infected toolbars
rubiconproject.com: Repeated malware bundlers, unwanted toolbars, search result injectors, home-page meddling
mathtag.com: Malware advertisements.
openx.net: Repeated malware advertisments to-date.
bidswitch.net: Malware advertising. Most recently infecting iPhones.
This isn't advert blocking. It's a crucial layer of system security.
What we need is a new generation of adblockers: Have it download whatever the ad material is, but just don't render it, and if it includes javascript, fake-execute it in a sandbox. Then advertisers will get paid, and you don't have to see ads, and nobody is the wiser because they won't know the difference. Face it: People who don't want to see ads are going to do whatever they have to to not be subjected to them, and people who don't care about ads will see them.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
However, I'm not running scripts unless I have a compelling reason to do so.
Then watch sites twist overage costs on cellular and satellite Internet into such "a compelling reason":
"Many ISPs meter your data. To save you money, this photo collection uses WebP compression. There are two ways to view it: switch to a web browser supporting WebP, or enable JavaScript to use our Canvas WebP decoder."
"Many ISPs meter your data. To save you money, we deliver only the parts of the article that you actually read. To continue reading past the lead paragraph, please enable JavaScript."
Nope. If you want to block my adblocker, fine, I won't go there.
I find NO ad acceptable, but if web ads acted like newspaper ads and sat there, didn't try to distract me from reading, didn't take over my screen, didn't make noise, flash, throb, etc, I'd TOLERATE it.
These days, ad networks are so laden with malware and viruses (when is Google or another ad network going to get sued for not vetting content?) that an ad blocker is antivirus for your web browser!
Corporatism != Free Market
Major European publishing house Axel Springer has instituted countermeasures against users who employ adblocking software
No problem. I'm sure adblocking users will soon employ countermeasures against Axel Springer, if they still want to see it.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
in discussions about Adblock defeat sites: Anti Adblock killer. Works dandy for me.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The national broadcaster in Ireland already does this on their internet streaming service. I wouldn't even mind so much except that I also have to listen to the advertising they broadcast, in addition to paying for the service via the Irish TV licence system.
I raised a ticket about the issue, haven't heard back...
It's become common for a user to read only one article on each of ten sites when he finds articles through web search, citations from other sites, or social sharing. How is anybody going to be willing to subscribe to each of those sites? A pay per page model would have to deal with transaction fees that payment processors charge, which are fairly large for the credit card networks. Even Bitcoin imposes a fee of 0.0001 BTC (currently 2.5 cents) on any transaction smaller than 0.01 BTC (currently 2.50 USD) to discourage "dust spam".
If you really wanted to make it stop, there's a single blob of Javascript that does the redirection. I wouldn't know how to do it, but it seems the variable(or array or object, I don't know what it is in JS) 'de.bild.cmsKonfig' contains the actual redirection URL. I imagine a userscript designed to set that to null would render their anti-adblocking useless.
I agree that DNS-level blocking is effective. It was effective for TWX, who blocked ads on a DNS proxy built into a home router. But it relies on an anomaly in the present web advertising market, namely that ads are delivered from a different hostname from the rest of the site. Thus a site can defeat it by serving the ads and the rest of the site from the same hostname.
the program I built for custom hosts file generation is completely FREE, no strings attached
Does it come with the ability and right to make and distribute improved versions? If not, that's a string.
I used to not block any ads from any site, but Slashdot changed all that when they sent me a video ad that instead of perhaps following me scrolling the page down, yanked me to the top of the Slashdot page where the ad lived.
If you mention a product or service while one of your "smart" devices is within earshot, have fun watching/hearing the same commercial for that product/service over and over and over and over and over and over and over on tv, steaming sights, and digital radio stations, also be prepared for amazon and other shopping ads on websites trying to sell that same product/service to you. They have you by the wallet. If you want entertainment, you either deal with being tracked like an endangered Rhino, or you pay out your asshole for all the different content providers.
If your web browser is vulnerable, then a script in a page that you view can attack your box even if it isn't an advertisement. Get a web browser that isn't vulnerable, such as a web browser that runs in a sandboxed process.
What we need are ad blockers that spoof being non-ad blockers
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
...to insist the world work the way you believe it should work.
Too bad that Capitalism will kick your ass.
-Styopa
If the majority of sites in the top ten results from a major search engine look like WSJ or Elsevier/Wiley journals, with a paywall or anti-ad-blocking measures required to view past the first paragraph, the web will become a more frustrating place. I have already run into this problem with paywalls when I search for certain linguistics topics on Google.
I wish more online pubs would do it. I'm not willing to look at ads, but don't mind paying for good content. I hope this works for them.
I went there with AdBlock on and could read as much as I wanted to, view all the articles, everything.
Whatever they're doing, they're doing it wrong.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I went to bild.de with adblock. I don't see the blocking, browsed article, and yes I live in germany with german IP. Most probably it also require java script or flash, so it does not work with anybody comboing flashblocking with adblocking.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Bild is the epitome of shoddy and sensationalist journalism in Germany, sort of like the Daily Mail in the UK.
I doubt the people smart enough to use adblocking read the Bild. And if so, all the better.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Firefox with uMatrix* works fine. No requests for 0.99c.
I highly doubt I'll ever visit bild.de again though, it's just a tabloid. Although since it is not the USA there are Tits. Much like other countries UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc Tits are revered as glorious things as opposed to the place where nipples go that will scar scare and corrupt your children.
(*) No changes to uMatrix's config|settings. And I don't subscribe to the automated lists for uMatrix.
Sure, good journalism needs good pay ... but what Springer - and especially their "Bild" paper does is neither. Apart from that, their blocking won't work if you have a JS blocker, too ... :) So their technical abilities are similarly good as their journalistic ones ;)
If you want me to view your site without an ad blocker then only have a few non-obtrusive ads (no blinking, no flash, no auto-play, not overly large in file size and in screen size), don't link to trackers as you have logs to see how I navigate your site, don't use excessive scripting, make sure your site is secure, your HTML is good so that browser doesn't have render the page again (for example provide image widths and heights), don't use pop-up, and provide good value.
People discovered that they don't actually need to access the news site and just go elsewhere.
Look, your joy of over advertising the fuck out of everything is dying. Like climate change, you went too far, you fucked up, you can't scale back now.
We're tired of fake download buttons downloading malware, sites trying to misdirect us or trick us into clicking things for that precious revenue stream. We're tired of being tricked and treated like shit by advertisers.
So now we block them. We don't want to see it, at all, and you can't make it up to us now. Shit has hit the fan, I guess you all should have thought of this before 'someone ruined it for the rest of you'
Should have been more choosey over what advertising agency gets to run ads on your site.
All you're doing is making sure that I NEVER EVER use APK.
NEVER.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Most people wouldn't use ad blocking if the advertisers didn't allow malware laden ads be served to their PC's turning them into mindless drones for a botnet. They could fix that problem easily by turning around and vetting ads. Or if the ads weren't so obtrusive and annoying either. Bet we'll see within 3 months that they're reversing this stance, or within a year it shuts down.
I allow ads ... but I block javascript and flash except for a short whitelist and don't have java for browser. That cuts out malware, but also happens to cut out a good amount of ads.
If the advertisers just put up a static image ad I would see it. If they want to use the same delivery mechanisms as malware I don't feel for them.
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
We can do much worse than simply ignoring them. We can write some software that downloads their ads, and clicks on everything that can be clicked, _without ever showing it to the user_. Overnight the value of a click-through would plummet, as these mechanical (and worthless) clicks cannot be distinguished from real clicks.
So, is this a risk the advertising industry wants to take?
I've had malware served as an ad, but that's unusual. The bigger problem is the sheer volume of stuff. One news site that I visit semi-regularly tries to load things from as many as thirty external sites - it varies wildly. I just now opened their page to see today's number: on the home page Ghostery blocks 12, AdBlock Plus another 4. Go to an article, and the numbers rise to 17 and 4. Sorry, that's just too much crap: I am visiting one site, not twenty-two. The site loads many, many times faster without all of that crap.
If they were to give me a choice between seeing their site with ads, or never visiting again, it would be an easy choice: bye-bye. Crappy media sites that regurgitate articles written elsewhere are a dime a dozen. If a site with useful, original content were to take that tack...well, why would they? I subscribe to the sites I value most, and then feel entirely justified in blocking their ads. /. falls somewhere in the middle. I'm supposed to be able to turn off ads, which would be nice, but they turn back on randomly. Anyway, what's with the trackers? The mobile site seems to ignore the ad setting entirely and has been showing the same crappy ads for stupid apps for weeks now. So I leave everything blocked. At the moment, that amounts to seven external sites that I have no desire to see (or be tracked by).
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Hmm. I can't advocate DDOS-level of shenanigans, but if there were a couple of bots targeting news sites (if they are reputable, they owe open access to promote open societies, IMHO) that opened the sites with adblocking in place, waited a few seconds for the begging prompt, and then just... left. If there was a large bump in traffic showing just that 'screw you, I'm out of here' reaction, that might help accelerate the end to this greedy folly.
Fuck off! And not view the site. Which is probably crap anyway.
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
If you consider Bild to be good press, then support their work and pay it. Else zip it.
In France we have an Internet pure player, Mediapart. No ad. Paid access to articles built from real journalist work.
Ad is evil for press, its a pressure tool to control published content.
-- Laurent Pointal
Agreed. will never use it 100% because of the developers conduct on /.
It demonstrates how lazy publishers have become with regards to ads online. With an actual paper, or TV show, the publisher gets and curates ads. They have a staff who sells the ad space, they work with production to determine where the ad fill will go and so on. So the only ads are ones they approved, and they are mixed in with the content in ways they chose.
Online, they just say "Fuck it, I don't wanna." They include links directly back to ad network servers and let those people serve up whatever they want which can include malware, as you noted. They aren't willing to spend any time doing curation, they just want to hand it all to someone else and collect money. Well guys, the result of that is really annoying things like pop ups and dangerous things like malware. The result of those are people turning to blocking ads.
Why can't they be sued by the victim? I guarantee over a billion a year is spent on malware removal!
Corporatism != Free Market
Apk's shows /. that shills-trolls can't prove him validly technically wrong using tools that do less + use more.
That sentence should be taken out and shot.
If he wants to show his product is better he should do it without spamming. That's never going to make me decide to try it, and if he's willing to relentlessly spam slashdot, what other scummy behavior is he likely to engage in? Backdoors in his APK shitware? Selling my user data to anyone who wants it?
If you have to spam your product, my response will be "FUCK YOU".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
PNGBlocker 2.0 can invalidate DNS records for known ad servers. I don't block ads, I just make them unresolvable via DNS on my home network.
They demand you stop blocking ads, but never address why people block them in the first place.
They are not blocked because people hate advertisements. They are blocked because the psychopaths that are drawn to marketing can't learn boundaries and simple decency. Popovers, popunders, java-blackouts, slide-overs, noise, flash that extends itself beyond the ad borders obscuring the content... all that kind of horseshit is why they got blocked.
Additional to that- the ad-lag introduced by ad servers being massively over-extended. A page that loads in a half a second takes 30 seconds because the ad is coded to load first and make the rest of the page wait on it, while the TRS-80 that is serving the 80,000,000 ad requests per nanosecond struggles to keep up. Not vetting nor reviewing ads, so malware delivery gets pushed out through otherwise trustworthy pages.
Advertisers- clean house. Unfuck yourselves and your servers. Learn how to not be a sociopath. Then your ads will be allowed through again.
However, until the guy who invented blackout-popover/slider java ads is publicly crucified, then kicked in the jimmy till his eyes bleed, there will be no forgiveness. This crime against humanity must be made to suffer.
If you can establish who infected you, to the satisfaction of a non-technical jury, you can go ahead and sue. It does require money and commitment.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Even if you remove JavaScript support entirely from your browser, can you prove your browser's HTML, CSS, and image decoding engines are invulnerable?
Paywalled sites, such as The Wall Street Journal and scholarly journals that aren't open access, keep up their SEO by stuffing most of the keywords in the abstract.
APK, YOU need "anti adblock killer" too, right? These scripts try to retrieve an image from an ad domain, and if they fail to do so (because an adblocker or HOSTS ENGINE prevents that), then they shit all over your screen like the idiot pirates that they are.
These user script workarounds aren't just for browser based adblocks, they are for host based adblock too. Because they have to modify or neuter a content-domain hosted script that is trying to ruin the browsing experience.
I think you use these scripts ALONG WITH your ad blocker or hosts engine or whatever.
Actually he's obviously wrong on several points. His software won't run on anything but Windows (point #14). It also can't block various things that uBlock/ABP can. Example: that annoying bar at the bottom of Wikia sites, or the donation stuff on Wikipedia, or the native ads on /. So it doesn't "do more with less", at best it does less with less. It also can't block IP addresses, which phishing and malware attacks can and do use.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Too short; not apk
Requiem for the American Dream
I am using ScriptSafe for Chrome and disabling loading of "code.bildstatic.de" makes the site work. I think that using NoScript may work as well.
As a former LA Times employee and lead engineer on several of their spin-off web sites, I don't understand why this is such a problem.
I only recently installed adblocking software on all my devices. I resisted, but ultimately I had to. Reading on-line had become extremely unpleasant, or occasionally impossible in the case of some of my older equipment. Adblocking was a breath of fresh air. Now pages actually load instead of hanging for minutes at a time, I don't have to be followed everywhere... you know the story.
But there are a few places I still see ads, even though I've got the most aggressive settings turned on (angry, I was.) I don't mind the ads I see, because they are respectful, done the old-school way, like newspapers, magazines, TV and radio have always done it. The ad is the same media as the host, served right along with the other content. No weird redirects, no waiting for content from a multitude of servers to load, no friggin javascript nonsense, etc. etc. etc.
Hey publishers, you want to save the net and get revenue too? Take a lesson from the old school and go back to delivering the ad embedded in the content, in a way that's respectful of your users.
Hey advertisers, stop being so friggin nefarious and maybe we'll accept your existence like we do elsewhere. When I'm reading a story from the NY Times, blocking the images from the story only hurts me. Give the publisher the display ad just like you did in the columns of the actual paper and our ad-blocking software won't even know its there.
Everybody can win with a method that's tried and true. Until I am respected by the advertiser, I will not respect the advertiser, nor the publisher who gives them a place to shout from. I will go back to reading actual printed media instead. Ain't no javascript there.
I don't use AdBlock Plus, I use uBlock. To answer your points:
1) My browser blocks malicious sites, I'm certainly not going to trust you over Google.
2, 3, 4) I find it's better not to get infected by a virus rather than trying to block it from communicating
5) I don't see Google DNS going down as a big risk, in fact I'd see the possibility of outdated DNS entries in the hosts file as worse
6) DNS poisoning applies to insecure routers. If my router has a security hole I'm getting it fixed/replaced, not using a sticking plaster
7) Ghostery and uBlock both block trackers. There are pages that break without them, so I like having a quick switch to turn off this functionality when absolutely needed. I ran into this just yesterday while activating a credit card.
8, 9) This is absolute bullshit, your software does nothing directly against phishing or spam, this is basically just a duplicate of #1
10) You won't reduce data usage any more than uBlock does, and my home internet connection isn't capped.
11) Again, Google Public DNS, no blocks
12) Any caching resolver can do that
13) Caching resolver, like the one in my router
14) Complete lie, your software is Windows only. And if your software isn't required for a hosts solution (which it isn't), then why are you pushing it so hard?
15) Really? If it's so easy to control where's the source code so I can modify it?
16) uBlock is much more efficient than ABP was, and the additional features provided by uBlock (like per-site whitelisting and blacklisting) are worth the additional resources.
I don't actually read your replies to my comments, I had to go and find this one. I do occasionally see the titles. By all means, keep trolling me. The day I stop seeing you post I'll know to start checking the obits. I want to make sure I get a chance to dance on your grave before everyone else gets there.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Bild...or better called Blöd is not even worth being called a tabloid. It surely is not a newspaper, more a spewing device of lies and deception. Although its oversimplistic story telling is right on target with the intellect and attention span of the 144 character crowd.