zlacker

[parent] [thread] 15 comments
1. runjak+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-09-20 14:17:52
If you use uBlock Origin, did you try to submit these filters to the uBlock Annoyances[1] or EasyList Annoyances lists before starting up this project?

That would help far more people that starting up yet another Annoyances list.

1. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets

replies(3): >>notsyl+71 >>mig4ng+R6 >>gxnxcx+Xg
◧
2. notsyl+71[view] [source] 2023-09-20 14:22:06
>>runjak+(OP)
These aren't just annoyances, they are core features of the sites.
replies(3): >>runjak+J4 >>pbhjpb+vj >>tejtm+Lj1
◧◩
3. runjak+J4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 14:37:57
>>notsyl+71
So? Any corporation would argue that about the annoyances on their properties.
replies(3): >>reyqn+F8 >>thrdbn+7f >>ruined+Kj
◧
4. mig4ng+R6[view] [source] 2023-09-20 14:46:56
>>runjak+(OP)
I didn't know about this. Might add them to my filters, and see if mine apply there too. Thanks.
replies(1): >>runjak+Vd1
◧◩◪
5. reyqn+F8[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 14:54:48
>>runjak+J4
I thought people used those list because it cleaned up the websites without breaking them. This is largely breaking the websites, only letting through a very opinionated subset of functionalities.

Even if it's nice for people who want just this, I don't think this has its place on the annoyances lists you mentioned.

◧◩◪
6. thrdbn+7f[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 15:24:16
>>runjak+J4
No they wouldn't?

Annoyances are mainly for things like cookie popup or copy-protection etc. I doubt companies would argue these are their "core features".

◧
7. gxnxcx+Xg[view] [source] 2023-09-20 15:32:33
>>runjak+(OP)
PSA: Some annoyances lists can be zealous about removing from websites any visual cue indicating the availability of an RSS feed.
replies(1): >>dredmo+kK1
◧◩
8. pbhjpb+vj[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 15:44:56
>>notsyl+71
Might be scope for upstream projects to add a new group like "uBlock Focus" where blocks are to focus main content?

Before IT took away all plugins (!) I used uBlock this way, hiding sidebars and leads that weren't conducive to work (eg interesting stuff).

replies(2): >>PcChip+mL >>matheu+ET1
◧◩◪
9. ruined+Kj[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 15:45:57
>>runjak+J4
the main timeline is a core feature of twitter for most people.
◧◩◪
10. PcChip+mL[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 17:53:10
>>pbhjpb+vj
>Before IT took away all plugins

weird decision, I push plugins to lots of my customers (uBlock Origin)

replies(1): >>ehPRet+VM1
◧◩
11. runjak+Vd1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 19:48:50
>>mig4ng+R6
Some people here bring up some good criticisms of my comment. Perhaps it would be more focused to call your list "Distractions" or some such.

I certainly buy their stance that these are different from what are traditionally on the Annoyances lists.

◧◩
12. tejtm+Lj1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 20:12:26
>>notsyl+71
why not both? the site pushes their features, the user filters their annoyance and we all normalize the wasted resources.
◧◩
13. dredmo+kK1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 22:52:37
>>gxnxcx+Xg
I strongly suspect that those get caught up on "social" or "sharing" icons, often indicated by a "social" class, or "share-daddy" specifically (I block that last a heck of a lot myself).
◧◩◪◨
14. ehPRet+VM1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-20 23:17:27
>>PcChip+mL
indeed, one could argue a reputable adblocker is paramount to endpoint/enduser security these days
replies(1): >>userbi+Kg2
◧◩◪
15. matheu+ET1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-21 00:14:30
>>pbhjpb+vj
> Before IT took away all plugins

They really like dealing with users and their malware infections I guess. It's the only possible explanation given that uBlock Origin is probably the most effective anti-malware software in existence.

◧◩◪◨⬒
16. userbi+Kg2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-21 04:18:48
>>ehPRet+VM1
The FBI agrees: >>34916239
[go to top]