This is good but do not use Adblock Plus. Use µBlock. Adblock Plus let's through some 'kosher' ads. If that's acceptable to you, all good. If you want no ads whatsoever, use µBlock.
It works out of the box and blocks everything. Uses even less resources that any other alternative.
Yes, I like to support sites like reddit that vet their ads to eliminate the obnoxious ones. In an ideal world, I'd like the speed/memory usage of µBlock with the ability to enable the 'kosher' ads. When 41 goes to stable I'll re-enable ABP.
The problem to me is the tracking across websites. The fact that the website you visit recognizes you and tracks which pages you visit on its site is perfectly fine to me. Particularly if I have an account (news website, ecommerce, etc).
But google analytics, facebook, twitter, adclick, etc all track your activity across websites and to me should be at the top of any decent ad blocker.
I'm not a fan too. But I come to realize that it can be an easy way to support sites you like without having to spend one penny, just by disabling your adblocker. If there are companies willing to give money to websites I like by displaying little images that I won't even look at - so be it.
Ads work even for if not especially for those who think they don't. I'd rather support people by paying for their work directly instead of going through middle ad-men.
Sure, they use the same amount of cpu and bandwidth, they have the same effect when seen from peripheral vision (or even audio), and also have the same effect on the usability of the page, sure
Please keep denying the bleeding obvious (oh and they clearly have different effects on buying decisions)
I will fight anyone who tries to tell me that a auto-playing video with sound enabled is not just as annoying as a small static image on the side of a page. Even when I'm somewhere with a limited internet connection. [sarcasm]
You're arguing semantics. Yes they are more annoying but they are all effective in making you change your thinking/buying habits and decisions. I don't want any of it, "good" or bad.
I actually don't believe that's entirely true either, or at least not as "bad" as you seem to think. Sure, any sort of advertiser would like you to use that product/service, but it's isn't necessarily trying to impact the way you think. There are plenty of ad campaigns that are simply trying to be made known. Without that, how would you expect any product to reach some sort of critical mass? Word of mouth alone?
Firefox, for example, used several different marketing avenues including a newspaper ad to try to make people aware of them. As far as I recall, that was all they were trying to do, let people know another browser option was out there. It seems a stretch to consider that as trying to manipulate your thinking.
You can disable ad blocking for sites you regularly use. When the ads on a site are annoying, simply re-enable blocking for that site until you feel like giving them another chance.
I don't think the average Reddit user knows what an ad blocker is these days? I wouldn't feel guilty blocking their ads? I have a feeling they are making a lot of money?
People can buy gold (a month of "reddit premium") to thank others for their contributions. In October 2013, they launched the "reddit daily gold goal" bar that displays how much gold is needed every day to pay for all (server?) costs (http://www.redditblog.com/2013/10/thanks-for-gold.html). I don't know if it includes other costs or just server costs actually. I've looked for some statistics over time to see whether the goal is being reached often or not but I can't find a graph.
They've got a couple other revenue sources like merchandising and their own advertisement system. But it would seem Reddit is not a massively profitable business at this point.
I am not 100% convinced that they will ever (officially) be profitable (or that they would need to be).
There is a lot of corporate crap that makes the front page, I expect that reddit receives remuneration for this. e.g. there was a front page post recently of a TacoBell sign that was 20 years old, a crap post with little value, but it ends up with +2000 votes and is front paged on a friday(i think). What do you think that sort of exposure is worth to Tacobell? If Tacobell did pay for some product placement of this nature do you think reddit would ever tell its users? Nope, that would pretty much kill any future attempt to do this sort of thing.
Whether the Tacobell payment is official or hidden by way of increased ad costs on other CondeNest properties or even if it is offered as a sort of add-on to their usual advertising in print media. Reddit is selling their front page one way or another becuase it is pretty much their cash cow, however milking it must be done very carefully because a user backlash would kill the site or future opportunities to monetise in this manner.
That's just speculation though. It could be happening, sure, but that sounds very risky, and doesn't pass Occam's razor as far as I'm concerned. On Twitter, time and time again, some people will retweet / fav corporate stuff because it's funny or makes them feel good / outraged / etc. Some people love to associate with or promote a brand they like.
Maybe Taco Bell puts a lot of work in creating content that works well on the Reddit frontpage (which would definitely be manipulative, but hey, what are you gonna do), and maybe their own employees at home are upvoting it ("it's for the good of the company"), but I very much doubt the top people at Reddit are making a business out of this, if only because they couldn't justify it to their employees.
It just seems more likely to me that 1) a lot of material is organically upvoted, and it includes corporate stuff from well-known compagnies because a lot of people relate to them 2) some companies are (trying to) game the system in various ways that violate the spirit but not the letter 3) Reddit is trying to extract profit from all that but isn't being very aggressive about it because they don't have very high operating costs, are VC-backed and they'd rather find something that's compatible with the spirit of the platform and sustainable in the long run.
> There is a lot of corporate crap that makes the front page, I expect that reddit receives remuneration for this.
That's almost certainly false. Even if you believe the people running Reddit have no morals, the money from promoting Taco Bell can't possibly be close to enough to the legal and business risk to getting caught.
I've unchecked this option since I used AdBlock Plus (years ago, I'm sure) and I've never seen an ad. The closest thing I've seen is "please disable your adblocker" banners.
You can disable that. The only questionable part is who decides what ads should be allowed when that setting is on. Here I agree, if AdBlock developers are paid for whitelisting, such practice is very questionable. Are they?
Source: My employer (a major site with Alexa rank <100) contacted ABP asking to have our text-only, clearly-delimited sponsored search results whitelisted. They told us that it wouldn't happen unless we signed an NDA, paid them a share of the revenue difference, and installed a third-party script on our site to allow them to track our users. (We just laughed at them and changed our markup to work around the block.)
I love the NDA part. Looks very transparent and opensourcy..
I wonder if there would be interest in a real community driven whitelist. One without money involved or a dominant company applying it.
edit: This might work under the premises that there is (1) such a tool/list itself (2) a maintaining community and (3) a set of adblockers to support the list.
(1) is pretty simple. It's a list of ad-placements followed by a set of exclusion filters. This one needs to be transparently editable and commentable (both the ad-placement and the filter list edits)
(2) is a bet, I admit. I could imagine that if there is a serious interest in the allowance of unintrusive ads than this would be not a problem if enough reach is provided.
(3) is again an easy one. There are only so many adblockers out there. One key differentiator to ABP is that they don't allow ads on default. If that stays the same and the exception list is treated as an opt-in addition, I can only imagine benefits for those blockers.
The only losing party is ABP since their overall impact might be reduced due to the lost of their monopoly. Since lists need to be transparent, their list could be used to start off and improve further maintainance.
Yes, Adblock Plus' whitelist has been compared many times to a mafia style extortion scheme. Companies pay to let their ads through. By using ABP over other copies of the same open source code (or competitors like uBlock), you are supporting this business model.
I tried uBlock origin and I didn't find any advantages over adblock plus besides not having to disable an option to block most ads... but either way, noscript is still necessary
no. noscript is not necessary. ublock can block every javascript until I allow it for a website.
I had 3 addons before I started using uBlock: noscript, ABP and request-policy. uBlock replaced them all and is much better. It has a nice clear interface and gives an even biiger amount of control.
yes. I enabled "Im an experienced user" option. Then one can see a matrix with two columns in the uBlock menu. Left one is global. I set everything (including javascript) to red (disabled) in the global column. When visiting specific sites I can allow some resources (like javascript) locally (only for that domain) in the right column.
that would only make the Application Boundaries Enforcer and ClearClick (anti-clickjacking) missing from uBlock origin, if you don't install noscript [1]
I have a question about NoScript. I run Ghostery which blocks all tracking and analytics js files, preventing most of the tracking I'd like to avoid. What does NoScript offer here? Seems like you'd want to block analytics even if you're browsing a "trusted" site.
First of all ghostery is far more beholden to advertisers than ABP. On that basis alone they can't be trusted. It also only screens for known vulnerabilities which leaves you open to js zero days that noscript would have prevented if you are aggressive about what you permit to run.
I used to be a big RequestPolicy believer, but single-page apps (which feels like saying "horseless carriages" in mid-2015) make it a lot of work. https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/Changes-from-HTTP-Sw... is the best thing I've found if you're into granular control over sites. uBlock also has an ~"I'm an advanced user" option which will give you a little more blunt but still useful control over cross-site requests.
This is just a default whitelist that's trivial to remove. Yes, it's dumb, but it doesn't completely compromise NoScript if you're aware of the whitelist.
I think you're expecting it to solve a problem it's not intended to solve.
I'm not expecting it to block all javascript, or all malicious javascript. I'm just expecting it to block most or all of the annoying stuff on the web.
To the extent that this is the job it's being hired for, you don't really need to 'trust' it. You run it and it either does what you want or it doesn't. Personally it suits my needs perfectly.
First there was uBlock. Then the maintainer got tired of it and passed it on to someone else. That next maintainer made some changes in the first couple weeks that made the original guy not happy about the direction he was taking it. So the original guy tried to take it back, but ended up forking it and calling it uBlock Origin.
That's my best recollection, I might have some details wrong. I believe Origin is the favored one right now.
The maintainer of uBlock Origin needs to do a much better job of explaining the difference between uBlock and uBlock Origin. The extensions' descriptions on addons.mozilla.org are word-for-word identical:
Interesting. He still hasn't answered why a user should pick one or the other. If he wanted to focus on refactoring and larger features, he could have enlisted a "lieutenant" to manage bug fixes and releases while he works in a dev branch. The uBlock "brand" had quickly become the "new, memory-efficient ad blocker", but now the brand has been divided and muddied. This seems like a good example of the problems with 'product line extension', where a new extension should have used a new name.
I don't understand why he doesn't just re-po the repo (ha) from the guy he gave it to. it would solve the strange monetization problem and fix the schism the two projects have created for end users.
You can disable the "kosher" ads, there's a checkbox in ABP's settings. Pretty simple. Just uncheck "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" http://imgur.com/BWzIEyo
ABE has been great and even after their controversial whitelist was added it was always very simple to disable. But ABE never innovated or focused on performance and so now uBlock (Origin) is all you should consider running.
This is good but do not use µBlock. Use µBlock Origin. µBlock's developer lets through some changes the creator of µBlock didn't like. If that's acceptable to you, all good. If you like the original µBlock, use µBlock Origin.
Sigh. Adblock Plus / µBlock are almost as broken as not using them.
I only want to block obnoxious ads. First and foremost, popunder (these should not even exist, I don't see any legitimate use for them) and also popups.
Let's add the very aggressive ones (blinking content).
I don't want to block the ads on my favorite blogs and I really don't like the fact that I have to create a custom rule to do so.
Funnily, the guy who owns AdBlock Plus also worked in the department of United Internet which invented Binlayer back in the day.
The issue I see mostly is that they actually sell access to the "acceptable ads" list. If it was just actually acceptable ads, it would have been okay, but mafia-like methods? that’s just morally inacceptable.
uBlock and Adblock Plus are built around filter lists of urls (in fact, both use essentially the same lists). So if something is blocked in one but not the other, it's probably a difference in the filter list subscriptions. This is easily configurable in both.
Can you be more specific? What does ublock do poorly?
I find it works well for me with a minimum of fuss. I even got it to block those awful "Powered by Outbrain" clickbait links that have been showing up on news sites lately.
It blocks those? Thanks, you've sold me. I find them incredibly annoying because sometimes it looks like an interesting list on the site I'm currently visiting and then realize it's taking me through 3 other portals.
Last time I tried it, it seemed to be filtering out too much javascript. Like I would occasionally click on buttons on legit sites and they would do nothing.
With uBlock and FF 38 - the page load completes faster and only about 850MB memory is used in total!
Chrome people should really be doing something about the memory and battery usage on the desktop. It's getting ridiculous.
Also I wonder how things such as OS X's Compressed Memory feature affect this in real life. I mean without the fix, the OS will notice the duplicated, in-memory style sheets and compress them to reduce memory usage and you should not see much of an improvement due to this patch on platforms like OS X that implement memory compression.
(Looking at activity monitor with FF loading the vim color scheme test shows 0MB Compressed Mem for FF - not sure if FF opts out or if there simply isn't enough memory pressure for the OS to start compressing FF's mem.)
> Chrome just chokes on it for a long time - the tab uses 1.7GB of memory while it is still loading!
Chrome 43.0.2357.130 m (64-bit) on Windows 8.1 here, takes 787.6 MB for me (with uBlock). If I open an Incognito window (i.e. no extensions) it takes 109 MB. Not sure where this discrepancy is coming from. Chrome's responsive the whole time.
Chrome extensions run in their own process which means the memory usage is reported separately for each tab and extension. IOW the memory usage for the tab is that of Chrome 100%.
I believe (most) ad blockers work by changing the DOM of each tab. They inject their own CSS to hide elements. The the stylesheets will be processed in the tab's process, not the extension's. This VIM page would be quite heavy on elements that need styling by CSS.
Yes, they do run in their own process. But, so what? Did you expect the ram consumed by the extension to balloon? I didn't. It's clearly evident that these ad block extensions are inflating the memory used by the tab. So, again, why is Chrome to blame for these inefficient extensions?
I was testing on OS X - On Windows 8.1 the page kept loading for a while and then the tab crashed - it used 767Mb before crashing. Probably the extensions you are running are different from me as well - I am running uBlock, Privacy Badger, Lastpass and ChromeCast.
Edit: The crash on Windows 8.1 is reproducible for me. Turns out I'm running a 32-bit build on Windows. But that just very likely means the crash is due to it exceeding the 32-bit process address space limit. I've seen it reach 900+Mb but since the reporting is not real time in chrome://memory it's hard to know at what point it crashes.
In any case since extensions are separate processes I am more perplexed as to how you are getting that low memory usage for the VIM tab. Make sure you wait for the page to load - it takes some time for me to start reaching 900Mb levels and the tab is still loading at that point.
I waited the first time. If I scroll to the bottom of the page I get 98,232 KB. Highest I can get now. Task Manager says close to the same thing, and my computer isn't under memory pressure so I don't expect Windows to have paged out a bunch of Chrome's memory.
http://imgur.com/im0YFhw - 1.6GB on 64-bit build. I get 107Mb in an incognito tab as well. That has got to be a bug - more than 10 times mem usage on regular tab!
So you're blaming Chrome because your Ad Block Plus extension crippled and hosed it? Why don't you try running the same test with Ad Block plus disabled and share your results? That page renders in 112MB and scrolls blisteringly fast in Chrome 45 Dev. With Ad Block Plus installed it chokes it.
People need to stop blaming Chrome and start looking at the havoc their extensions are creating. Whenever I hear a Chrome performance or memory story it invariably always ties back to their extensions.
It's clear why Apple controls and limits modifications to their software. It's to prevent situations like these from erupting and giving their product a black eye because some inefficient extension is in over its head.
Well, for one I don't have Adblock installed. For two, chrome extensions run in their own process which means the memory usage is reported separately for each tab and extension. So the hosing is completely Chrome's fault - 32-bit version just crashes with the tab in question taking maximum memory.
1) Chrome with no ad blocking extension renders the page in about 112MB with fast scrolling.
2) Chrome with ad blocking extension installed inflates memory.
Seems pretty clear to me where the problem lies.
Also, the issue isn't about these extensions running in their own process as this is simply to prevent a bad extension from taking down the tab. It's about what these extensions are doing to the tab process.
My point has always been that uBlock is doing something to the Chrome tab process renderer that's causing it to consume a lot of memory. The very fact that the example page renders in only 112MB compared to >800MB with an ad blocker installed is proof of this. In the case of Chrome, with an ad blocker installed, they seem to be doing something to the DOM that causes the memory allocated for that renderer to balloon above 1GB. But, the very fact that these ad blockers cause this extreme spike in memory is alarming.
To the layman you would think the removal of ads from the DOM would reduce the amount of RAM consumed. But, just the opposite occurs. Why is this? What are these ad blockers doing exactly and why are they causing these rendering engines to spike in memory usage? But, one thing is clear, whatever they're doing it's the fault of the ad blocker and not Chrome.
Again. Please re-read the original article. Firefox is fixing their inefficient memory management w.r.t. CSS with a later version. That fixed version reduces the memory usage to 450Mb with the same Adblock code. So it wasn't exactly Adblock's fault - it was Mozilla's code that was grossly inefficient and they owned it and fixed it.
Same way, as it stands today, with uBlock FF 38.x loads that site in about 750Mb whereas Chrome with uBlock uses 1.6GB.
Unless you happen to know that uBlock is doing something crazy on Chrome but not on FF, and that Chrome code is 100% without inefficiencies - don't state it like a fact that it is uBlock that is the issue. uBlock is manipulating the DOM - Chrome is using memory for those elements, it is entirely up to them to optimize it if uBlock can work fine with less memory on Firefox while essentially doing the same thing.
Chrome isn't exactly known for being thrifty on memory and battery btw.
I would love to have a way to accept kosher ads with ublock origin (but not ads that have been whitelisted by paying ABP). It would be great if there was a transparent community driven ad whitelist.
I want to support content creators but I also do not want to have to deal with the more obnoxious ads (or flash ads or animated ads and so on). I currently support a few creators with patreon but that's only limited to a few.
How about non-ad ways to interact with the right communities, like a corresponding subreddit? To me that sounds more reasonable, since that way you increase the communication and your own awareness, but don't support spamming people with information they haven't requested.
Maybe one could write an addon that checks the contrast and other visual features of each ad, then blocks that site or network's ads indefinitely if an ad exceeds the thresholds.
I'm a convert to using "the great suspender" in chrome and the amount of memory it consumes for me has dropped dramatically. The tradeoff is waiting for a page to reload when I focus the tab, but it let's me keep dozens of tabs "open" at once, for long periods of time, without annihilating my system memory.
Combined with µBlock and click to activate plugins etc. Chrome almost behaves now.
I'm always shocked at the age of some really important bugs. Large optimization potentials of many public / well used / open source systems have been noted for many years.
Consider that the web has changed a lot over the past 14 years. Back when this bug was filed, it was much less common to have many tabs open, and those tabs would have contained many fewer documents on average. So even if ABP had existed back then, the optimization potential would have been much smaller.
Firefox used to crash a lot, and freeze a lot back when I was using ABP.
ublock has never worked as well for me, I also dislike the element selector. Sometimes I want more than blocked something being displayed, like blocking a script. And ABP allowed that easier, that's something I miss.
yeah, uBlock Origin makes it a tiny little bit hard to undo what you've block, I find it easier by bookmarking the below which opens the settings page & remove the most recent lines you added / blocked
I'd wager the majority of Chrome users are simply normal people who had it shoved in their face when using Google web properties with Internet Explorer. These people are not aware of Firefox.
Anyone here prefer uBlock over UBlock Origin? I tried both and stuck with Origin since something like this should be relatively easy to reach "feature complete" status, thus go into pure maintenance mode.
Either are a big step up from ABP.
uBlock Origin does a more thorough job at blocking network connections [1] compared to uBlock since the former disables prefetching and the latter doesn't. [2] uBlock is also missing the per-site switches and strict domain blocking features from Origin. [3]
Personally I can't see any reason to use uBlock over uBlock Origin.
First, I believe everyone should be using uBlock (Origin) [1] anyways. Second, I'm looking forward to seeing how Firefox's built-in tracking protection will evolve[2]. Also, should be interesting to see how Safari's new blocking framework changes the game.
Safari's new approach of using a built in (natively compiled) rules engine to block content seems more and more to be the best option. But it's also the kind of option you'd only see from a vendor who doesn't make any money from ads (Apple... and possibly MS).
What doesn't prevent these vendors to advertise their own products. Or make money by letting others pay. Apple, MS and {{any_big_company}} do everything that generates revenue. Even Mozilla has started to sell data and advertising space in Firefox. I don't care where the spam is coming from. And no Mozilla, I will certainly never book my next holiday trip on booking.com.
Advertising space, not data. Nobody is tracking you through the new tab page. Mozilla just populates it with some default ads (which can be removed or replaced with your own new tab customizations)
Actually Mozilla analyzes and stores the user's surfing data to allow it's customers to direct ads to the user's preferences. I actually don't understand why so few seem to bother. I think it's a quite big deal. Same with these telefonica chat thing.
Regular telemetry data. Not surfing data. And certainly not sold.
Hello doesn't collect data passively either; using the video chat can of course lead to data collection though I doubt it does (but you would have to assume that can happen for any non peer-to-peer service of this kind since there will always be a server side component which you can't verify)
Is there a Chrome or Firefox equivalent to IE's "Personalized Tracking Protection List"? In short it tracks the resources loaded by sites you visit and if they show up on more than a configurable number of sites they get blocked. Basically, it only blocks what actually could be tracking you. I would love to have that functionality in Chrome or Firefox, especially if the tracking list could survive a reinstall (IE's cannot).
It's not clear to me from reading the article, if the headline is correct. From what I understand (non-native speaker) with the mentioned fix ABP uses less memory than last year without that fix. But does it make FF use less RAM in general, compared with FF with fix but without ABP? That's how I understand the headline, ABP makes you save RAM compared to using FF without ABP. But that's not how I understand the article.
Mmm, I see the ambiguity. It's meant to mean that "the combination of Firefox + AdBlock Plus will use less memory than it did previously", not "Firefox + AdBlock Plus will use less memory than Firefox alone".
The fix will also reduce the memory usage of Firefox when used without AdBlock Plus, but the difference will be small.
Fastmail web interface users + ABP|ABE|uBlock users:
When I have any of these three blockers installed, and then use mail composition on the Fastmail tab, the page jumps around while I type. Eventually the line that I'm typing has scrolled itself down to the bottom of the window, and sometimes even jumps between below the window and just enough above the bottom.
µBlock does not use the same technique of creating a style sheet and inserting it into all loaded documents, so the type of sharing done as part of this work does not help µBlock.
I'm pretty sure it does according to this wikipage[0]. It may not load _all_ the rules into every page, but it definitely does create a stylesheet and inject it into the page.
I can't see where on that page it talks about using style sheets. Last week I searched the µBlock sources for use of the nsIStyleSheetService, which is Gecko's internal interface for adding style sheets without manipulating individual documents, and the only use of that interface is for adding css/legacy-toolbar-button.css, which I assume is for some UI.
So, this might be a case of me assuming too much, but I basically read every instance of _cosmetic filters_ basically as _css styles_. There are a couple CSS files in the git repository that have "filter" in their names[0], but yeah I can't actually be 100% certain at a glance that they're using CSS and not manipulating the DOM with JS.
I just did some poking around, and it looks like uBlock does insert a couple of <style> elements into the document. I'm not sure if this is how all style-based blocking is done in uBlock, but since these are document-level style sheets, they are not shared like user agent-level sheets are. (We will in the future be investigating whether we can share more data between common document-level style sheets across multiple documents, though.)
Conspiracy theorist much? Mozilla knows that a significant portion of their userbase uses ad blockers and complains about the high resource usage. They added a cool feature today that would reduce that usage, resulting in a better experience for their users. But you feel someone needed to pay them?
I'm surprised by the complete disregard for people and companies that are reliant on ad revenue for a living. It's only a matter of time before we reach the tipping point and sites start blocking browsers from viewing their content if they detect an ad blocker is installed. I'm surprised more sites don't do this.
Some sites try. It's an unsolvable problem, like DRM. My machine, my rendering rules. Only way around it is restricted clients, like consoles and iPhones and so on. Or maybe Intel SGX, which allows remote attestation of running specific code.
And ad companies brought this on themselves by being idiotic and annoying. Even Google is as bad as the others in the 90s. On mobile apps, I get scammy "virus scan now" or "clean phone fast" with blinking yellow and red. They link to the Google Play store, to install some app that requires all permissions.
You'll find it's because for the most part, the amount of people browsing websites with an ad blocker is still significantly lower than those who don't, so companies just let it slide. Though of course it's growing every year so maybe in the near future your scenario might happen.
Praytell, what's the solution to make sure a remote client device is rendering your page and executing your scripts exactly as you intend? Because you could take the same thing and sell it as rights management software and make a killing.
If it ever gets to a point where the revenue lost via adblockers gets significant then you'll probably start seeing sites only serving content via distribution channels they can control completely (eg paywalls, apps, desktop clients). In fact, you can see people starting to experiment with this type of distribution model.
I think it's a save bet to assume that more providers will compensate the reduction in ad revenue by offering yearly subscriptions like Amazon Prime.
I don't like that, but all in all the online advertising industry isn't that much money divided by the amount of people participating in it. Maybe 20$ to 50$ a month for the whole thing.
This doesn't include the hidden costs imposed by the new gate keeper dynamics established with such a subscription model, the reduced participation abilities for poorer people, the (vague, I know) anonymity enabled by ad metrics compared to credit card credentials.
I still block ads though. Being able to block ads and free ride on ad financed content is simply not an equilibrium. Idealistic sacrifices won't change that.
When a popular site tries to detect adblockers the filters/rules are updated with exceptions for files that are tested.
Simple way to reduce ad-block effectives is not to use ad-networks but advertiser don't like that idea.
It works out of the box and blocks everything. Uses even less resources that any other alternative.
Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...