ublock origins isn't blocking ads anymore. What works better?

RedMorph
https://redmorph.com/articles/proof-in-the-packet.html

>>52237438
thanks mate

File: 1445114567550.jpg (13KB, 249x249px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 249x249px

>>52237438
>>52237506
don't believe his lies, redmorph is proprietary and the dev is shilling it heavily on /g/ because he wants you to buy a VPN service associated with it.
Check ublock's filter settings page, make sure that the ones you want are actually checked.

File: disgusted.jpg (237KB, 500x416px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 500x416px

>>52237581
>it's proprietary code so it must be bad
Jesus anon get your shit together.

>>52237635
>it's proprietary code so it must be bad
yeah

>>52237408
>>52237438
>>52237506
>samefagging this hard

Adblock.

Not Adblock Plus, just Adblock.

It werks.

It never did, it just hides them.

Is there a good reason why people don't just use a host file? I have used it a long time, it blocks ads, do not give "I see you use a ad blocker" messages and have never had a problem.

File: 1439913674560.png (64KB, 917x505px)

64KB, 917x505px

>>52237408
Why not Privacy Badger?
https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

It uses heuristics to block tracking instead of blacklists (so no whitelist bribery shenanigans).
It's also completely open-source and sanctioned by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

>>52237826

They don't know how

>>52237889
Because it's garbage and either blocks things it shouldn't or doesn't block things it should way too frequently

>>52237953
>blocks things it shouldn't
Can you give me an example? I've been using it for months and there's only a single site I had to whitelist manually.

>>52237968
>there's only a single site I had to whitelist manually
There's your example then

>>52238377
A single example is certainly not significant. I haven't said which site broke so you still haven't given me one. I'm waiting.

>>52238399
I don't still use it because it doesn't work, and it's not like I made a list of sites it breaks when I did use it, so I don't have any examples on hand to give you.

>>52238493
>because it doesn't work
Maybe you used a really old version because it's definitely working now and not breaking sites at all. Or maybe you're full of bullshit.

>>52237889
>>52237968
>>52238399
>>52238517

Fuck off EFF. There are real blockers that actually work and nobody wants to use your trash that spams every page full of advertisements for itself

File: 1450275780696.jpg (1MB, 927x2362px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 927x2362px

>>52238551
>spams every page full of advertisements for itself

Is this some new kind of bait or are you mixing this with some other program?

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-04 at 6.56.25 PM.png (57KB, 431x509px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 431x509px

>>52237889
Good fucking christ this doesn't do anything

File: file.png (30KB, 415x623px)

30KB, 415x623px

>>52238667
That's why retards like you need to go back to idiot-proof blacklist based blockers.
How the fuck is an heuristics based blockers supposed to immediately know what a blocker is and what isn't? The 2nd time a domain shows up using information from another site you visited is when Badger detects it's a tracker and blocks it from them on. Makes sense don't you think?
Give me the site you printscreened that on and I'll show you what shows on my side.

Bottom line is you only notice blocks from the moment trackers start tracking you. It takes a few days. I shouldn't need to explain this to someone on /g/.

Pic related is an exampe. It's Tom's Hardware.

>>52238732
>How the fuck is an heuristics based blockers supposed to immediately know what a blocker is and what isn't?
So it always allows tracking sites through the first time it encounters them? That's fucking retarded. Why would I want to use something that's guaranteed not to work once per domain I access when I can use a blocker that works all the time?

>>52238843
>So it always allows tracking sites
It allows the tracking site once, yes, which completely negates tracking altogether. Whatever could see you only once cannot track you. It's much less retarded than incomplete, manual and error-prone blacklists like uBlock, AdBlock and the such. Do you have any idea how many trackers are missing from the blacklists and how many new trackers show daily? Theoretically, Badger captures every single one of them.