Ad-blocker for LA Times website?

[Lance]

Firefox 52.0.1 32bit on Windows 10 64-bit.

I live in Los Angeles and enjoy checking out the Los Angeles Times
newspaper online, I even subscribe for home delivery. Over the course of
the past few months the LA Times website has gone completely nuts with
advertisements. Please check it out and observe what happens over, say,
3 minutes (www.latimes.com).

I don't have this problem with any other websites so I assume this isn't
due to malware. A restart with add-ons disabled makes no difference.
Logging-in to my subscriber account makes no difference. Memory use
climbs from 140MB (immediately after restart w/ disabled add-ons) to
over a gig after several minutes.

These are not nice unobtrusive ads like the NY Times or Washington Post
websites have. These are pop-overs specifically for LA Times or "Our
Partners" products (newsletters, diapers from Walmart). Occasionally,
the page will reformat to make room for an inline video ad.

I do not begrudge the LA Times having online advertising, my newspaper
probably needs the revenue badly. But these ads are so intrusive it's
just about impossible to read an online news story.

Can someone suggest an ad blocker for the Los Angeles Times website?

[Mayayana]

"Lance" <lltb...@link-earth.net> wrote

| Can someone suggest an ad blocker for the Los Angeles Times website?

I don't see any ads at all, though I also
don't see images. I do find the text available
and readable.

Do you use a HOSTS file? If you look at the source
code of any page from latimes.com you'll see a lot of
tracking/ad links at the top. Chartbeat, Scorecardresearch,
Doubleclick.... it's all either spyware or ads. Add those
to your HOSTS file. (Don't block trbimg or any other
trb or trib URL, but you can block all the rest. They're
all crap.) If you just add the major and tracking companies
to your HOSTS file you shouldn't need an ad blocker.

The second option is to block script. You'll then see
what I see. (Unfortunately, the site is a convoluted
mess and the images seem to be loaded via script.)

You might also want to try NoScript extension. That
would let you enable script at LATimes while blocking
it from Doubleclick and the others.

[Paul in Houston, TX]

Lance wrote:
> Firefox 52.0.1 32bit on Windows 10 64-bit.
>

> Can someone suggest an ad blocker for the Los Angeles Times website?

Turning off JS stops pop ups but does not allow images since they are also pop ups.
I use uBlock Origin, Quick JS, Flashblock, FlashStopper, Bluhell Firewall,
and No Google Analytics.
I don't see ads on the link that you posted, however clicking on anything
on that site gives a large pop up. In other words if you use an ad blocker
then you cannot view the LA Times website.

logo
Advertising revenue helps
support our journalism
To read today's stories, please turn off
your ad blocker or subscribe
Whitelist this site
Subscribe Now | Already a subscriber? Log in

[Frank]

Your site looks alright to me but I subscribe to the local Gannett rag
and even though a subscriber it makes me turn off Adblock Plus to see it.

Initially they will let you into the site and were dropping cookies to
give you a limited number of logins I used to delete the cookie but now
they apparently block by address. Lot of us have lodged complaints with
the paper/Gannett and they have lightened it up a bit.

I too would like to defeat these SOB's since I pay for a subscription
and should not be constantly dunned by more ads.

[Lance]

Lance wrote on 3/21/2017 13:41:
> Firefox 52.0.1 32bit on Windows 10 64-bit.
>

> Can someone suggest an ad blocker for the Los Angeles Times website?

Way back in the Win98 days, I used a dead-simple little utility to
download/edit hosts files maintained by several kind souls.

Hostsman, the utility, and the various hosts files are still around and
maintained. I went back to them and the madness is gone. The LA Times
website loads in a second (instead of minutes) and those intrusive
pop-overs are gone.

Thanks everyone for their help. Mayayana gets special mention for
reminding me of Hostsman.

[VanguardLH]

Lance <lltb...@link-earth.net> wrote:

> Firefox 52.0.1 32bit on Windows 10 64-bit.
>
> I live in Los Angeles and enjoy checking out the Los Angeles Times
> newspaper online, I even subscribe for home delivery. Over the course of
> the past few months the LA Times website has gone completely nuts with
> advertisements. Please check it out and observe what happens over, say,
> 3 minutes (www.latimes.com).

I used uBlock Origin for general ad/track blocking (instead of, say,
Adblocker Plus). I also use uMatrix (same author) to block off-domain
scripts. It is configured to allow on-domain scripts (those from the
domain the *I* chose to visit), images, and other features. I only use
it as a script blocker.

Hence I do not see any strange or unexpected behaviors.

> I don't have this problem with any other websites so I assume this isn't
> due to malware.

So what is the so-far-undescribed problem? Something about ads and some
behavior you don't like but it's not described.

> A restart with add-ons disabled makes no difference.

If the unwanted behavior is scripted within the page, disabling add-ons
would only eliminate them interfering with how that page is rendered;
i.e., disabling NoScript would means scripts would *no longer* get
blocked. You could disabled Javascript in the web browser (about:config
javascript.enabled = False).

> Logging-in to my subscriber account makes no difference. Memory use
> climbs from 140MB (immediately after restart w/ disabled add-ons) to
> over a gig after several minutes.

Mine keeps hovering around 300 MB for firefox.exe; however, I'm just
sitting at the home page to which you provided a URL (I'm not bouncing
around their site to other pages and off-domain scripts are not running,
either).

The off-domain scripts that uMatrix is blocking are from:
ensighten.com, googletagservices.com, trbas.com, and tribdss.com. The
trb*.com domains are for Tribune Publishing, Chicago, Illinois who also
owns the LA Times. It allows 1st party (on-domain) scripts from
latimes.com. Note that allowind off-domain scripts often results in
other 3rd party domains showing up (which will, for me, get blocked by
default). uBlock Origin is only blocking off-domain scripts from
ensighten.com.

I would have to decide which off-domain resources to allow running their
scripts to get the page working more; for example, to get their videos
working.

> These are not nice unobtrusive ads like the NY Times or Washington Post
> websites have. These are pop-overs specifically for LA Times or "Our
> Partners" products (newsletters, diapers from Walmart). Occasionally,
> the page will reformat to make room for an inline video ad.

onhover events are defined in Javascript. Since I don't see any, their
sources are off-domain and uMatrix has blocked those. I do not have
Javascript disabled for the 1st party domain (where I chose to visit) so
the onhover events are in scripts retrieved from elsewhere.

I enabled their off-domain script sources (for domains owned by Tribune
Publishing), starting with trbas.com, and refreshed the page. I found
no onhover (popup) events defined ... yet. As mentioned, allowing one
script resource often incurs triggering [attempt to] access to other
off-domain scripts. After enabling scripts from trbas.com, new 3rd
party domains showed up and were blocked: krxd.net, rubiconproject.com,
google-analytics.com, chartbeat.com, and cloudfront.net. uBlock Origin
did not block all of those but uMatrix was blocking their scripts. I
then enabled scripts from trbdss.com and refreshed the page. I then got
their blue-colored subscription ad at the bottom left corner of the page
with an "X" to remove it. I still found no onhover (popup) events
defined in their scripts (I moved the mouse cursor around various
elements of their web page but never got an onhover-triggered popup).

So the onhover-triggered popups you mention are due to Javascript
delivered from other off-domain sources. I didn't bother to enable them
since I already know they are for tracking, analytics, and ads. I did
momentarily disable uMatrix to allow all scripts leaving only uBlock
Origin to decide what to block. I still got no onhover-triggered
popups. The ad sources were still getting blocked by uBlock Origin.

If you want to eliminate ads and their too-often nasty behaviors, get an
adblock add-on. I use uBlock Origin. Some users have Adblock Plus. An
adblocker will sometimes block scripts from "bad" sources but it should
not be considered a robust script blocker.

[Mayayana]

"Lance" <lltb...@link-earth.net> wrote

| Thanks everyone for their help. Mayayana gets special mention for
| reminding me of Hostsman.
|

I didn't know about that one. But I'll accept the
honorable mention. What do I get? A coupon for
half-off dinner-for-two, maybe? :)

I just edit HOSTS by hand. I also use Acrylic DNS,
which has its own HOSTS file that accepts wildcards.
(The regular HOSTS file does not.) Very handy. I
added two yesterday from LATimes that I hadn't seen
before:

127.0.0.1 *.ensighten.com
127.0.0.1 *.rubiconproject.com

It only requires maybe 100-200 entries to stop most
ads and tracking because they're distributed by massive
middleman companies.

[EE]

Or you could use an ad blocker with subscriptions, such as Adblock Plus,
Ublock, or Ublock Origin.

[Jan-Peter Rühmann]

Hello

I am using the Hosts File only to disable the most terrible Sites I stumble upon on a
daily base.

such as:
Bild.de
Yahoo.com
Facebook.com
....

For the normal ad-blocking I am using AdBlock-Plus and NoScript
This works fairly well for me.

Good luck,

--

-=============================== Jan-Peter Rühmann & Kuma ===============================-
Gubkower Str.7 [ Tel.: +49 (38205) 65484 ] jan-...@ruehmann.name
18195 Prangendorf [ FAX: +49 (38205) 65212 ] http://www.ruehmann.name
[ Tel.: +49 (38205) 65215 ]
[ Mobil: +49 (162) 1316054 ] IT-Servicetechniker
Skype: jan-peter_ruehmann / ICQ: 288192920 / WhatsApp: 491621316054 / Twitter: @JPRuehmann
-========================================================================================-
Die Verwendung der Daten zu Werbezwecken ist verboten.

[Mayayana]

"Jan-Peter Rühmann" <jan-...@ruehmann.name> wrote

| I am using the Hosts File only to disable the most terrible Sites I
stumble upon on a
| daily base.

| For the normal ad-blocking I am using AdBlock-Plus and NoScript
| This works fairly well for me.
|

That's up to you, but why wouldn't you add other
sites to HOSTS, whether or not you use adblockers?
Why do you see it as either/or? There are sample
HOSTS files online. It's not a lot of work to set up.

There are numerous sites that can never be legitimate:
Almost everything Google (which is a lot), Doubleclick,
Scorecardresearch, 1e100, realmedia, valueclick....
Putting together a basic HOSTS file will block most
tracking and ads, so that you don't need to trust the
ad blockers to get it all. Nearly all commercial websites
have at least Google analytics links for tracking.

I haven't seen ads for many years, yet I don't block
ads and have never even tried an adblocker. If any
website shows honest ads -- an image or text that's
actually on their webpage that I visit -- then I'll see
their ad. That's what Google ads used to be -- text
ads on a search page with no spyware. Unfortunately,
it no longer works that way. Instead, sites add links
and script-snippets for ad servers like Google/Doubleclick
and then let the ad servers "have their way with you".
Under normal circumstances, Google will know about
nearly everything you do online. Does your adblocker
stop that? Why not make sure with HOSTS? Then you
can also use the adblocker to get anything HOSTS might
miss.

One caveat, though: There's been a trend toward
spyware/adware adblockers. Adblock Plus is one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus

They've become an ad middleman, taking kickbacks
from the likes of Google in order to let through "acceptable"
ads. Given that such software acts like a mime filter
and can track your behavior in detail, while also
communicating with ad companies, do you really
want them riding alongside when you're using Firefox?

I'm blocking the following from Google alone, in my
Acrylic DNS server HOSTS file:

127.0.0.1 *.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 *.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 *.googlecommerce.com
127.0.0.1 1e100.com
127.0.0.1 1e100.net
127.0.0.1 *.1e100.com
127.0.0.1 *.1e100.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 *.googletagservices.com
127.0.0.1 *.googletagmanager.com
127.0.0.1 *.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 fonts.googleapis.com
127.0.0.1 googleadapis.l.google.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.gstatic.com
127.0.0.1 plusone.google.com
127.0.0.1 cse.google.com
127.0.0.1 www.google.com/cse

Some people might want to allow Google fonts.
Aside from that, none of those URLs is legitimate
in the sense that I have never, and would never,
choose to visit them. Those and
scorecardresearch.com are ubiquitous. Does your
Adblock Plus block them all? Or is it only blocking ads
and tracking from companies that haven't paid them?
Do you want to have to constantly keep up with
that issue?

[Mark12547]

In article <mailman.691.1490273979.10543.support-
fir...@lists.mozilla.org>, maya...@invalid.nospam says...

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus
>
> They've become an ad middleman, taking kickbacks
> from the likes of Google in order to let through "acceptable"
> ads.
>

AdBlock Plus has an option to block even the "acceptable" ads.

In the Firefox flavor of AdBlock Plus, click on the icon (the ABP in an
octagonal region (what we in the U.S. know as the stop-sign shape)),
Filter Preferences, "Filter Subscriptions" tab, and at the bottom is a
checkbox for "Allow some non-intrusive advertising".

In Firefox, it can also be reached through Tools -> Ad-Ons ->
Extensions, click on the "Options" button for "AdBlock Plus", then click
on "Filter Preferences", and then the "Filter Subscriptions" tab.

Just unchecking that "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" will block
ads from companies that have paid AdBlock Plus.

(AdBlock Plus for Google Chrome likewise has the "Allow some non-
intrusive advertising" checkbox.)

[Roger Fink]

I sometimes go to the LAT for the Sunday puzzle and you're right, it's a
mess, including fake pop-ups to upgrade Firefox, which I've emailed them
about (they seemed surprised to hear about it and requested a screenshot
[yeah right]).

Since the puzzle can't be downloaded without flash, I need to use it,
but if all you want to do is read articles, disabling flash may get rid
of a lot of your problems. The way I do this is with the prefbar
extension (I don't know if it is a signed extension for FF or not - I
have it installed on other Moz-based browsers). Among its many
user-selectable features is a checkbox to enable/disable flash. This can
be placed on the user interface. Keep it unchecked, i.e. disabled, and
see if life on the internet improves. It did for me.

[Mayayana]

"Roger Fink" <fi...@manana.org> wrote

| I sometimes go to the LAT for the Sunday puzzle and you're right, it's a
| mess, including fake pop-ups to upgrade Firefox,

While malware traps are increasingly being set
up through ad servers, you shouldn't assume
something like a fake Firefox notice is at the
website. It's more likely to be due to malware
on your own system. Especially if you see them
at other sites as well.

[Kingdaddy 2]

I get it only from one site...
dailycaller.com, and it's probably once a week, or less.

It is always the same Firefox, and all I have to do is close it.

[Roger Fink]

Actually you probably shouldn't assume that I'm assuming something
1) I'm not assuming anything.
2) It's from the website, or it traveled from its point of origin
through the website to my screen.

[Lance]

Roger Fink wrote on 3/23/2017 08:12:
> -------- Original Message --------
>> Firefox 52.0.1 32bit on Windows 10 64-bit.
>>

>> Can someone suggest an ad blocker for the Los Angeles Times website?

> I sometimes go to the LAT for the Sunday puzzle and you're right, it's a
> mess, including fake pop-ups to upgrade Firefox, which I've emailed them
> about (they seemed surprised to hear about it and requested a screenshot
> [yeah right]).
>
> Since the puzzle can't be downloaded without flash, I need to use it,
> but if all you want to do is read articles, disabling flash may get rid
> of a lot of your problems. The way I do this is with the prefbar
> extension (I don't know if it is a signed extension for FF or not - I
> have it installed on other Moz-based browsers). Among its many
> user-selectable features is a checkbox to enable/disable flash. This can
> be placed on the user interface. Keep it unchecked, i.e. disabled, and
> see if life on the internet improves. It did for me.

If it's of interest to anyone, I checked the HTML source code when an
LATimes ad popped over a story I was reading and saw "interstitial" and
"pop-overlay" frequently.

I've seen many discuss "fake pop-ups to upgrade Firefox" and I haven't
seen a single one - period (and I really do mean "period"). So I don't
have a clue about it.

Using a Hostsman & MVPS hosts file (over 13,000 hosts) provided a
painless, almost-instant fix for me. If it slows anything down I sure
don't notice it. It fixed my problem so I'm happy.

I do have occasions for using Flash so it's set to "Ask...". I look
forward to the day when we don't need Flash, Java and others anymore. It
still scares me that the Java install screen says "3 Billion Devices Run
Java".

[Mayayana]

"Roger Fink" <fi...@manana.org> wrote

| 2) It's from the website, or it traveled from its point of origin
| through the website to my screen.

You don't know how it popped up but you're sure
it came from latimes, and you're not assuming?

Okey doke.

To anyone else reading this, it may be
worth not making asumptions if you see Firefox
popups and checking your system to be on the
safe side. While the problem can have different
causes, it's not uncommon:

https://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-fake-urgent-firefox-update-virus/

https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Firefox/Possible-Fake-Firefox-update-notice/m-p/769633