Ad block

[Joe rock]

Hello all,

exist adblock for chrome ? I search it , but I didnt found nothing.
Other browser have adblock ?

Thx
--

[Adrian]

In message <rq21jc$qei$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Joe rock <joe...@se.ce>
writes

>exist adblock for chrome ? I search it , but I didnt found nothing.
>Other browser have adblock ?
>

Try firefox.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

[Piet]

Joe rock wrote:
> exist adblock for chrome ? I search it , but I didnt found nothing.
> Other browser have adblock ?

Brave (built-in adblocker)
Firefox + uBlock Origin
NOTE: try to get 68.10.1: last good version; all later
versions are a disaster - see comments in Google Play.

-p

[Jim S]

In article <XwPBPiCp...@ku.gro.lloiff>, bul...@ku.gro.lioff
says...

>
> In message <rq21jc$qei$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Joe rock <joe...@se.ce>
> writes
> >exist adblock for chrome ? I search it , but I didnt found nothing.
> >Other browser have adblock ?
> >
>
> Try firefox.
>
> Adrian

Samsung Internet is actually good even on non-Samsung androids. Nice GUI
M$ Edge is very similar.

Both have adblocks available and sync to Chrome or Edge resp.

--
Jim S

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:06:48 +0100, Piet wrote:

> Brave (built-in adblocker)
> Firefox + uBlock Origin
> NOTE: try to get 68.10.1: last good version; all later
> versions are a disaster - see comments in Google Play.

Hi Piet,

Why not solve the global problem for all apps; not just one browser.
o Is there any inherent advantage to browser-specific ad blockers?

Just curious why people use browser-specific blocks when an overall block
"should" (would? could?) work even better (as it blocks all ads always)?

For example, wouldn't something like "AdClear" beat browser-specific plugins?]
o <https://adclear.com/>

While there must be other similar apps, my question for you is one of...

... Isn't it a better approach to block all ads, rather than to set up each
and every browser with browser-specific ad blocker extensions?
--
Why not solve the global problem for all apps; not just one brower.

[kelown]

>> Brave (built-in adblocker)
>> Firefox + uBlock Origin
>> NOTE: try to get 68.10.1: last good version; all later
>> versions are a disaster - see comments in Google Play.

> Why not solve the global problem for all apps; not just one browser.
> o Is there any inherent advantage to browser-specific ad blockers?
>
> Just curious why people use browser-specific blocks when an overall block
> "should" (would? could?) work even better (as it blocks all ads always)?
>
> For example, wouldn't something like "AdClear" beat browser-specific plugins?]
> o <https://adclear.com/>
>
> While there must be other similar apps, my question for you is one of...
>
> ... Isn't it a better approach to block all ads, rather than to set up each
> and every browser with browser-specific ad blocker extensions?

System-wide Android ad-blockers require giving VPN permission to the
ad-blocking app. Browser-specific ad-blocking doesn't require enabling a
VPN. And Android allows only one VPN to be in use at a time. So if you
need an encryption VPN to use at a public library, you'll need to
disable the ad-blocking VPN while using the other one.

[Joe rock]

Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> ha scritto:

> In article <XwPBPiCp...@ku.gro.lloiff>, bul...@ku.gro.lioff
>
> says...
>
>>
>
>> In message <rq21jc$qei$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Joe rock <joe...@se.ce>
>
>> writes
>
>> >exist adblock for chrome ? I search it , but I didnt found nothing.
>
>> >Other browser have adblock ?
>
>> >
>
>>
>
>> Try firefox.
>
>>
>
>> Adrian
>
>
>
> Samsung Internet is actually good even on non-Samsung androids. Nice GUI

If a person dont have samsung ?

>
> M$ Edge is very similar.
>
>
>
> Both have adblocks available and sync to Chrome or Edge resp.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jim S
>
>

--

[Mayayana]

"Joe rock" <joe...@se.ce> wrote

| > Samsung Internet is actually good even on non-Samsung androids. Nice GUI
|
| If a person dont have samsung ?

I set up Firefox with uBlock Origin and NoScript....
pleasantly surprised that such control and civility is
possible on my $30 Tracphone. :)

[Jim S]

FWIW I believe Samsung Internet can be installed on any android.
--
Jim S

[Mayayana]

"Jim S" <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote

| FWIW I believe Samsung Internet can be installed on any android.

I can't imagine wanyone would want software from
Samsung, much less based on Chromium, which calls
home to Google. I'm guessing the 2 of them are in
bed together with datamining. I use Chromium on
a Raspberry Pi for streaming because it's the only option.
Otherwise I wouldn't touch it.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 00:00:41 -0600, kelown wrote:

> System-wide Android ad-blockers require giving VPN permission to the
> ad-blocking app. Browser-specific ad-blocking doesn't require enabling a
> VPN. And Android allows only one VPN to be in use at a time. So if you
> need an encryption VPN to use at a public library, you'll need to
> disable the ad-blocking VPN while using the other one.

Hi kelown,

Thank you for posting to help others out of the goodness of your heart.
o Your point is valid, and well taken.

1. System wide ad blockers come with their own VPN
2. Given Android negates the use of two VPNs at once...
3. That negates use of another VPN at the same time

Fair enough.
o I'll update the record in the cross reference so all benefit always.

See also:
o Tutorial: How to install & set up free ad-free GSF dependent AdClear on unrooted Android to block ads by application and skip YouTube ads
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/GouWPiwXuaw>
--
Most of us post on Usenet to help others out of the goodness of our heart.

[Piet]

Jim S wrote:
> FWIW I believe Samsung Internet can be installed on any android.

It can, but don't forget to also install "AdBlock for Samsung Internet".

-p

[Jim S]

You get a choice of 8.
I can't remember why, but I use Adguard Content Blocker.
--
Jim S

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 03.12.20 um 01:32 schrieb Mayayana:

Chromium is a free and open-source software project developed by the
Google-sponsored Chromium project. The source code can be compiled into
a web browser.

Google uses the code to make its Chrome browser, which has more features
than Chromium.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 12:01:12 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Chromium is a free and open-source software project developed by the
> Google-sponsored Chromium project. The source code can be compiled into
> a web browser.
>
> Google uses the code to make its Chrome browser, which has more features
> than Chromium.

Hi Joerg Lorenz,

I think your advice is factually correct, which is very much appreciated.

Moving forward on the tangent of adding value with regard to Chromium-based
browsers with privacy and ad blocking, there's nothing I know of that's
inherently wrong with "privacy-based" "chromium-based" "ad blocking" web
browsers, of which many exist (at least on Windows, where I'm not sure
which of those are ported to the Android ecosystem).
o Epic Privacy Browser (with proxy)
o Opera VPN Browser (with proxy)
o SRWave Iron Browser (google crap removed, supposedly)
etc.

The question to ask on that tangent would be "Which are ported to Android?"
o What privacy based chromium-based or mozilla-based adblock enabled web browsers are on Android?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/_UkCESnaqdE>

I simply ask others to please _add value_ to that thread so, in about a
week or so, we all can have a nice list of the free, ad free, privacy
based, inherently ad blocking (gsf free?) web browsers on Android.

[Mayayana]

"Joerg Lorenz" <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote

| Chromium is a free and open-source software project developed by the
| Google-sponsored Chromium project. The source code can be compiled into
| a web browser.
|
| Google uses the code to make its Chrome browser, which has more features
| than Chromium.
|

Yes, but Chromium calls home. Even SRWare Iron,
supposedly a completely clean version of the same
code, tried to call Google when I blocked it calling
home. Yet the whole selling point of Iron is privacy.

I see no reason to trust anything Google have
touched. They're known liars. Worse, they've somehow
charmed a large percentage of the geek worls. Maybe
because it started as a geek company. So geeks tend
to trust them. But those days are long gone.

[nospam]

In article <rqe3m0$doe$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | Chromium is a free and open-source software project developed by the
> | Google-sponsored Chromium project. The source code can be compiled into
> | a web browser.
> |
> | Google uses the code to make its Chrome browser, which has more features
> | than Chromium.
> |
>
> Yes, but Chromium calls home. Even SRWare Iron,
> supposedly a completely clean version of the same
> code, tried to call Google when I blocked it calling
> home. Yet the whole selling point of Iron is privacy.

chromium is open source. remove anything undesirable and add privacy
enhancing features, as numerous browsers built on chromium have done.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:33:22 -0500, nospam wrote:

> chromium is open source. remove anything undesirable and add privacy
> enhancing features, as numerous browsers built on chromium have done.

Wow. Would you look at that! nospam said something factual that's credible
o Which is why I can easily prove his credibility about that of a coin toss

This time this despicable unprepossessing nospam troll came out "heads"...
o Lucky him.

Please see this thread on that Chromium-with-privacy web browsers' topic:

o What privacy based chromium-based or mozilla-based adblock enabled web browsers are on Android?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/_UkCESnaqdE>

--
People like nospam are literally despicable unprepossessing human beings.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:46:07 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

> Even SRWare Iron,
> supposedly a completely clean version of the same
> code, tried to call Google when I blocked it calling
> home. Yet the whole selling point of Iron is privacy.

Mayayana is a mixed bag, whom we know for decades, where he bases his
entire strongly held opinion on flimsy evidence (or none whatsoever).

Hence, it behooves us to doublecheck Mayayana's claims, as he, like nospam,
is as wrong as he is right (a coin toss result being the more reliable).

I do NOT claim to know if SRWare Iron is "more private" than "Chrome";
o But certainly it is billed as such by the makers and others

For example, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare_Iron>
"It primarily aims to eliminate usage tracking and other
privacy-compromising functionality that the Google Chrome browser
includes.[8] Iron ships with certain Chromium privacy options switched
on by default"

After the list of privacy enhancement over Chrome, that web page says:
"In December 2014, Lifehacker said that Iron offers little that is not
available by simply configuring Google Chrome's privacy settings.[24]"

So maybe Mayayana simply didn't configure SRWare Iron correctly?
o I don't know, as Mayayana is infamous for just making shit up.

Unlike people like Mayayana (who just make shit up), I doublecheck my
facts, so I googled a bit more to see if what Mayayana claims holds water.

This article says the same thing as the Wikipedia, which is simply that
SRWare Iron is mostly just a lot of Chrome privacy-based settings set right
o Why You Shouldn't Use (Most) Alternative Browsers Based on Google Chrome
<https://www.howtogeek.com/108384/6-alternative-browsers-based-on-google-chrome/>

Hmmm... what's so wrong with the _default_ settings aimed toward privacy?

Moving on, I found this from 2014, which is a forum of some sort, so take
it with a grain of salt, but it seems to make the same claim Mayayana did.
o SRware iron contacts google servers during startup (to update extensions)
<https://www.techyv.com/questions/srware-iron-contacts-google-servers-during-startup/>

That's pretty flimsy (one guy saying it without proof and another guy
saying it again without _any_ proof, so I take it with a grain of salt).

Notice Mayayana also doesn't ever provide proof, so, I suspect he just made
it up, but if he didn't just make it up, all he has to do is tell us how to
reproduce his results.

I'll be glad to run the tests, as I consider Mayayana a long time
bullshitter par excellence, whose belief systems are often imaginary.

NOTE: I'm not defending SRWare Iron mind you, as I said truthfully I have
no idea if it's phoning Google with my information; I just ask Mayayana to
back up his claims (which, I already know, he never will).
--
The problem with Usenet is bullshitters find it an extremely safe haven.