Comment by lucb1e

Comment by lucb1e 2 days ago

> super vague stuff, like links to the FAQ that list a bunch of technical details

Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality? It's a feature I use, a user-facing setting, not an under-the-hood technicality. (Budding web designers have a tendency to pick overly thin fonts because it looks fancy/unique at a glance and being interested in the actual text on the webpage was not their job description)

I'm less familiar with the other things. Clicking one experimentally, it mentions:

>> The primary purpose of dynamic URL filtering [is] to fix web page breakage

Webpages break on adblocking not infrequently. I'm not a blocklist developer so I can't say how useful this particular function is, but I'm also not going to assume that, just because I don't know the technical details, that it's just handwavey technical details nobody needs to care about and everything will be the same regardless of what the most qualified person on the topic is saying

> I don't think I should have to read a series of 20 web pages dense with specialized technical details to understand what it's supposedly not doing

Consider that you're not paying for someone to produce marketing material; it's a free thing. Sometimes that means that finding out information requires reading source code, or in this case, it's probably data files that contain these dynamic thingies so you could see the list of what mitigations will stop being possible and on what kinds of sites those are. If you (or someone else) do a writeup that fills the information gap you are looking for, I'm sure a lot of other people also appreciate that existing

pests 2 days ago

> web designers have a tendency to pick overly thin fonts because it looks fancy/unique at a glance

Mac's have this font thing where it basically makes font's have a heavier weight. This is the result of that.

Reply View 0 replies

ufmace a day ago

Well the people posting that link seem to believe it's a clear and direct response to the question of why uBO Lite is insufficient when I or others say it works fine for us.

> Not being able to block remote fonts is a vague technicality?

I suppose not, but I never noticed whether it was or was not being blocked. I'm not really sure why that's so important. It certainly doesn't seem to justify the "oh no google is totally super evil for killing manifest v2" vibe that goes on.

> Webpages break on adblocking not infrequently...

Maybe, I guess. But exactly which websites are broken on uBO Lite that were not on "full"? Can anybody give me even a single example? I've been using Lite for I think like a year or something and haven't noticed any.

I can see being a little mad if, say, https://mytotallyimportantwebsite.com was really broken on Lite and that was your favorite website. I just can't get all hot and bothered though at the idea that maybe some website that I've never seen and nobody can name is broken on Lite.

> Consider that you're not paying for someone to produce marketing material; it's a free thing.

I get that I'm not entitled to somebody's work to create a simple and clear explanation. But the argument I'm making is that uBO Lite is perfectly fine actually, which I don't think requires any evidence. It's the other side of the argument - that uBO Lite is insufficient - that needs to provide evidence to convince me. You're more than welcome to make that argument if you care to.

I'm telling you and others that posting links of technical details is not going to convince me that Lite is not good enough, that I need to be super mad at Google and switch browsers etc. If you try to tell me to do work to "educate myself", I'll say no thanks and keep on browsing just fine with uBO Lite. In my opinion, it's somebody who cares enough to make the case that I should change who should gather sufficient evidence to convince me. It's sure funny that they're all indignant and demanding as long as it's someone else they think should do work to change, but they suddenly get all quiet when asked to actually gather and present evidence to make a case to an audience that's skeptical instead of fawning.

Or more simply, if somebody wants to be a smug link-dropper, how about a link to even one single website that's broken on Lite, which I have yet to see anybody anywhere provide.

Reply View 2 replies

lucb1e a day ago

Right, I see what you mean. Just to not ghost the conversation, I can only say that I don't have such an example because I don't use Google Chrome or uBlock Lite
You may be in a better position to do this comparison than me, if you stumble upon a broken site (they're likely infrequent indeed) and could quickly check whether it works with full uBlock (ideally in the same browser engine, since some sites are nowadays only tested on Chromium's implementation of the web standards, but Firefox is probably a good second option when Chromium simply can't do it anymore)

Reply View | 1 reply
- ufmace a day ago
  
  Okay, that's fair.
  I currently do most of my browsing with Chrome and UBO Lite, and have yet to find a site that it doesn't work with. I do keep a copy of Firefox with full UBO and NoScript open on my desktop computer, just on general principles I guess.
  Well, except for the other thread here where somebody pointed out Twitch, which doesn't block ads on either in stock form, which I did just check myself. Though I had already stopped using Twitch anyways, more because all of the other dark patterns it has are rather annoying.
  By all means, browse with whatever setup you please. I just wish people would take it easy a little on the assertions that UBO Lite is inadequate.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies