Franky, I'm a fan of how those advertisements are tied into the site. Not flashy or obstructive, classy, embedded into the tile grid. No garbage tracking scripts loading, no plugins, just a simple colour image (from the same domain!!). If all ads were like that, I'd throw away my uMatrix and Adblock.
I use both in conjunction because AdBlock removes ads while simultaneously fixing the flow of the site, while uMatrix leaves gaps and holes in the site. But I need uMatrix to be safe from XSS (unfortunately, most websites include jQuery from a different domain, what a stupid practice). Also, uMatrix breaks a lot of sites (especially sites using content delivery networks on multiple domains) so if I really want to access the content, I open it in an incognito window and disable uMatrix temporarily on that site (it's tedious to figure out what exact request broke the site. I only do those manual exceptions for my most favourite sites). Like that, the site works but most of the tracking and the ads are still blocked ;)
Yes, it is sad that the state of the internet has degraded so much that this is necessary.
I ran adblock+noscript for many years for the same reason. Thats why I am suprised you would want to deal with two extensions when you could just use umatrix. What "flow" does adblock fix?
Like I said, I have had a similar setup for probably a decade now. So no, I don't think that it is a sad state of affairs that adblock/noscript/umartix are necessary. Did the "state of sexual intercourse" need to degrade to a certain level in order for condoms to be necessary?
No, I don't want the "Collapse placeholder of blocked elements" uMatrix option activated because then, if a website embeds e.g. youtube videos or soundcloud songs I have no visual cue of their existence, whereas, if the option is disabled, I see it greyed out with a link that I can click to watch it in a separate window. I feel like our discussion is at this point a clash of personal preferences and would not like to continue. Have a nice day :)
it's ironic that QUFB's (gp) specific complaint includes that the ad appears "regardless of search term", despite that this is maximally privacy-preserving: the only thing it gives away is that you came from the search engine.
He would be happier if ads were served that had some connection - no matter what - with search terms! (To an immediate loss of some theoretical privacy, which is true even if referral links are not sent, simply by virtue of campaigns having some connection to searches.)
It appears that a visual advertisement for Coke appears in the left frame, no matter what the search term is.