Comment by boredhedgehog

Comment by boredhedgehog 3 days ago

3 replies

This might not qualify according to one's perspective, but: Twitch.

Twitch takes a userscript to block ads. UBO Full can run userscripts, uBO Lite can't, so now you need an additional extension to run the script.

Of course, if you run Tampermonkey anyway, it makes no difference.

ufmace 3 days ago

It's the most real example anyone's provided so far.

I tested it on both regular Chrome with UBO Lite and Firefix with stock full UBO, and both show ads on Twitch. I haven't looked into how to actually block them, but I'll take your word that that's the only way to do it in both cases.

It seems to me, both cases require some extra action to block ads. Full requires you to dig up a userscript and how to load it into UBO, while Lite requires you to find and install a whole extra extensions. Doesn't seem like that huge of a difference to me. I suppose some may disagree, but it's not at all hitting my bar for declarations others have made like that Lite is inadequate or Google is terrible for disabling Manifest V2.

raydev 3 days ago

You're reminding me, Twitch somehow got around UBO a few years ago. Oddly it was basically the only site (that I used regularly) that UBO couldn't catch.

Are you saying that everyone using UBO had to add their own script to get around it? Why didn't UBO just do it?

  • boredhedgehog 3 days ago

    Are you asking why a filter doesn't suffice, or why uBO doesn't automatically load the userscript?

    The answer to the former is that the script swaps in a low-res replacement stream while the ad is running, which I don't think a filter can do. As to the latter, an extension automatically executing arbitrary remote userscripts supplied by third parties would be a nightmare for security.