Is agreeing to website cookies futile?

[Chris]

Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies seemingly
makes no difference to whether I'll see the message again. I always see
them again next time.

This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you can't see the
page without dealing with the cookie messages. Anyone got a good way to
deal with them? iphones don't have a way install blockers as far as I can
see.

[Andy Burns]

Chris wrote:

> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies seemingly
> makes no difference to whether I'll see the message again. I always see
> them again next time.

That sounds like your browser is set to clear all cookies on exit, which is a
good thing in my book, but by itself does lead to repeated cookie pop-ups

> This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you can't see the
> page without dealing with the cookie messages. Anyone got a good way to
> deal with them?

On a PC I use an add-on that just hides all the cookie pop-ups unanswered,
unfortunately it's no longer available on firefox mobile

[Tweed]

There’s an iOS app called hush that is supposed to get rid of cookie
messages. Not tried it yet.

[David Woolley]

On 08/01/2022 10:02, Chris wrote:
> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies seemingly
> makes no difference to whether I'll see the message again. I always see
> them again next time.

Some sites do remember. Some sites remember your choices, but that you
have been chosen. If they are re-prompting when you previously accepted
everything, that's bad. I could have explained, in a bad way, why they
might re-prompt if you had rejected some, as they might hope you would
eventually given up and just accept, just like many break the rule that
the obvious button to press, after you have changed a setting, is the
one that accepts the new setting.

The only other thing I can think of is that they haven't provided a
means to change your choices, so they only way of meeting the
requirement for that is to ask each time.

You should check that you don't have a browser option set to treat
persistent cookies as session cookies, as they use cookies to remember
whether you accepted cookies.

> don't have a way install blockers

Whilst some sites actually send the whole page before you answer, many
sites only send the teaser part of the page, or a redacted version.

I can see the EU having to go through another round of legislation to
achieve their objective of giving the user control, but that wouldn't
affect the UK, except in as much as the web sites might not want a UK
only variant.

[Martin Nicholas]

I've always believed that a website needs to set a cookie in order to
remember that you don't want cookies set. A circular argument, although
other surveillance technologies are available.

I delete cookies on shutdown, after which all the nag screens reappear.
I accept a minimal collection of them - "Essential cookies". I use both
Firefox (with containers) and Brave.

There is also the effect of the DNT header if set.
See: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DNT

--
Regards,

Martin Nicholas.

E-mail: reply-...@mgn.org.uk (Address will be valid throughout
January).

A smartphone is a toy with a computer inside.

[Woody]

The problem with ad and pop-up blockers is that more and more sites will
not let you in if you have one active. You have to manually exit your
browsing, switch the blocker off (which may of course be part of your
Internet Security (i.e. Kaspersky) package) and then view again -
leaving you potentially unprotected.

[Chris Green]

Using a 'blacklist' of unwanted web sites (i.e. the domains which
provide the ads) is much less likely to be detected. I use the list
from:-
https://github.com/notracking/hosts-blocklists

The only minor problem this produces is that sometimes links from
shopping search engines get blocked but it's usually fairly easy to go
direct to a web page manually.

--
Chris Green
·

[Lewis]

There are a couple of addons for Safari that do this.`

>> iphones don't have a way install blockers as far as I can
>> see.

Look harder.



--
Insanity laughs, under pressure we're cracking
Can't we give ourselves on more chance?
Why can't we give love that one more chance?

[Lewis]

No, you do NOT have to do that, and doing that is definitely the wrong
thing to do, The right thing to do is realize there are billions of
pages and you do not need to read this one.

If you care about the shitstorm of tracking, privacy invasion, big data,
and annoying ads, then run your blockers and avoid the sites that think
they have the right to track you, invade your privacy, and sell your
data. Or shut up, bend over, and take it.


--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Yes, I am!"

[Chris]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies seemingly
>> makes no difference to whether I'll see the message again. I always see
>> them again next time.
>
> That sounds like your browser is set to clear all cookies on exit,

Not a thing on a phone.

> which is a
> good thing in my book, but by itself does lead to repeated cookie pop-ups

I agree. I do this on my desktop, and it works predictably, but it's not
option on Firefox on iphone. I can see the list of all domains with stored
information in settings and can clear them manually.

>> This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you can't see the
>> page without dealing with the cookie messages. Anyone got a good way to
>> deal with them?
>
> On a PC I use an add-on that just hides all the cookie pop-ups unanswered,
> unfortunately it's no longer available on firefox mobile

Shame.

[Chris]

Just tried it and it's like night and day! Many thanks!

[Tweed]

There’s various ad blocker apps you can add as well. I use Ad-guard.

[sms]

Also annoying are all the web sites that demand that you turn off your
ad-blockers or subscribe (paid) to see the content that sites that are
promoted in searches on Google News. One nice thing in my area is that
almost all newspapers and magazines are available online through the
public library so there's no need for a paid digital subscription,
you've already paid for it through your property taxes.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies
> seemingly makes no difference to whether I'll see the message
> again. I always see them again next time.

I don’t get that. Are you flushing your cookies ?

> This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you
> can't see the page without dealing with the cookie messages.

Which mobile OS ? I don’t get that with Chrome on iOS.

> Anyone got a good way to deal with them?

I find Chrome works fine. I don’t use Safari
enough to know how well it handles that.

> iphones don't have a way install blockers as far as I can see.

Dunno, I don’t bother with those.

[Chris]

David Woolley <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/01/2022 10:02, Chris wrote:
>> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies seemingly
>> makes no difference to whether I'll see the message again. I always see
>> them again next time.
>
> Some sites do remember. Some sites remember your choices, but that you
> have been chosen. If they are re-prompting when you previously accepted
> everything, that's bad.

I know! That's why I posted here. It's driving me nuts even if I accept
them all, they keep asking me again each time I visit the site.

> I could have explained, in a bad way, why they
> might re-prompt if you had rejected some, as they might hope you would
> eventually given up and just accept, just like many break the rule that
> the obvious button to press, after you have changed a setting, is the
> one that accepts the new setting.

Yep. The regulation states that the default setting should always be
functional cookies only, but many places have all cookies in by default.

> The only other thing I can think of is that they haven't provided a
> means to change your choices, so they only way of meeting the
> requirement for that is to ask each time.
>
> You should check that you don't have a browser option set to treat
> persistent cookies as session cookies, as they use cookies to remember
> whether you accepted cookies.

Yes, I checked. There is no option on mobile Firefox.

>> don't have a way install blockers
>
> Whilst some sites actually send the whole page before you answer, many
> sites only send the teaser part of the page, or a redacted version.
>
> I can see the EU having to go through another round of legislation to
> achieve their objective of giving the user control, but that wouldn't
> affect the UK, except in as much as the web sites might not want a UK
> only variant.

Yep. The EU are taking Google and Meta to court.

[Chris]

I don't mind ads on the whole. It's the whole cookies obscuring pages which
is a real pain.

[Chris]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies
>> seemingly makes no difference to whether I'll see the message
>> again. I always see them again next time.
>
> I don’t get that. Are you flushing your cookies ?

I don't get it either. I'm not flushing anything.

>> This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you
>> can't see the page without dealing with the cookie messages.
>
> Which mobile OS ? I don’t get that with Chrome on iOS.

Firefox on latest iOS.

[Jolly Roger]

Say what? iPhones definitely do have ad blockers. Did you even look? And
the one I use and highly recommend blocks cookie notices (in fact, I
can't tell you the last time I saw one on my Apple devices):

<https://1blocker.com>

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting
>>> cookies seemingly makes no difference to whether I'll see
>>> the message again. I always see them again next time.

>> I don’t get that. Are you flushing your cookies ?

> I don't get it either.

I meant I don’t get the cookies popup
every time I visit a particular site.

Only when I visit a new site.

But one of the survey apps on the iphone
does ask me every time I use it. That one
does appear to do that because I keep
refusing to allow them to track me.

> I'm not flushing anything.

But your browser may be.

>>> This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you
>>> can't see the page without dealing with the cookie messages.

>> Which mobile OS ? I don’t get that with Chrome on iOS.

> Firefox on latest iOS.

I don’t use Firefox much so I haven't bothered
to keep track of what it does about cookies.

[Michael Trew]

I've noticed the same, on desktop Windows/Firefox or iOS safari. I just
click off the thing as quickly as I can, and clear browser data regularly.

[Your Name]

AdGuard can easily turn the blocking on and off within the browser. You
can also specify certain page elements (e.g. a banner advert) to be
blocked. The desktop MacOS version also allows you to pause blocking
for 30 seconds.

[Rod Speed]

Michael Trew <michae...@att.net> wrote

> Chris wrote

>> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies seemingly
>> makes no difference to whether I'll see the message again. I always see
>> them again next time.
>>
>> This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you can't see the
>> page without dealing with the cookie messages. Anyone got a good way to
>> deal with them? iphones don't have a way install blockers as far as I can
>> see.
>
> I've noticed the same, on desktop Windows/Firefox or iOS safari.

I don’t with Chrome on both.

> I just click off the thing as quickly as I can, and clear browser data
> regularly.

That last is what you are doing wrong.

[David Woolley]

On 08/01/2022 23:13, Michael Trew wrote:
> I've noticed the same, on desktop Windows/Firefox or iOS safari.  I just
> click off the thing as quickly as I can, and clear browser data regularly.

If you give permission for everything, you are not just permitting
tracking by cookies, but by any identifier the page can construct from
what it can read from the device. The long term effect of accept all
then flush may be more tracking than refuse all.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.01.22 um 00:38 schrieb Your Name:

Adguard is a man in the middle. I would never want malware like Adguard
on one of my devices. I tried it once an kicked it out after some research.


--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.01.22 um 00:13 schrieb Michael Trew:

You are looking for "I'dont care about cookies" in Firefox:

https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-about-cookies/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=search

[Ant]

So, what do you use to block ads then?
--
It's winter again! So tired and achy even without any virus. Need more tree and hair cuts! Lots of spams again! 2022 isn't any better and different so far. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.01.22 um 08:55 schrieb Ant:

> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 09.01.22 um 00:38 schrieb Your Name:
>>> On 2022-01-08 12:51:10 +0000, Woody said:
>>>>
>>>> The problem with ad and pop-up blockers is that more and more sites
>>>> will not let you in if you have one active. You have to manually exit
>>>> your browsing, switch the blocker off (which may of course be part of
>>>> your Internet Security (i.e. Kaspersky) package) and then view again -
>>>> leaving you potentially unprotected.
>>>
>>> AdGuard can easily turn the blocking on and off within the browser. You
>>> can also specify certain page elements (e.g. a banner advert) to be
>>> blocked. The desktop MacOS version also allows you to pause blocking
>>> for 30 seconds.
>
>> Adguard is a man in the middle. I would never want malware like Adguard
>> on one of my devices. I tried it once an kicked it out after some research.
>
> So, what do you use to block ads then?

https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=search

https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/noscript/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=search

NoScript is only for more experienced users.

Let FF throw away all cookies and delete all cache data. Also activate
the fingerprint function.

[Chris]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting
>>>> cookies seemingly makes no difference to whether I'll see
>>>> the message again. I always see them again next time.
>
>>> I don’t get that. Are you flushing your cookies ?
>
>> I don't get it either.
>
> I meant I don’t get the cookies popup
> every time I visit a particular site.
>
> Only when I visit a new site.

The worst examples are HMRC and the NHS. I accept all cookies on one page,
click a link which open a new tab and the cookie popup reappears. Every
fucking time!

Fortunately the hush app is doing the trick :)

> But one of the survey apps on the iphone
> does ask me every time I use it. That one
> does appear to do that because I keep
> refusing to allow them to track me.
>
>> I'm not flushing anything.
>
> But your browser may be.

If it is it's doing it without me setting anything.

>>>> This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you
>>>> can't see the page without dealing with the cookie messages.
>
>>> Which mobile OS ? I don’t get that with Chrome on iOS.
>
>> Firefox on latest iOS.
>
> I don’t use Firefox much so I haven't bothered
> to keep track of what it does about cookies.

It's kinda moot on ios as all the browsers use the same engine AIUI.

[Andy Burns]

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> You are looking for "I'dont care about cookies" in Firefox:
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-about-cookies

For desktop that's what I use, but the current mobile firefox only allows
"whitelisted" add-ons and it isn't on the list (unless you run nightly).

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.01.22 um 11:43 schrieb Andy Burns:

Unfortunately the iOS-FF has practically nothing to do with the
desktop-version. Contrary to the Android-version I also use. On Android
the add-ons and the settings are taken over when syncing with the
FF-account.

Apple is simply a big mouth as far as security and privacy on the iOS
devices is concerned. That worries me looking down the road.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-09, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 09.01.22 um 00:38 schrieb Your Name:
>> > On 2022-01-08 12:51:10 +0000, Woody said:
>> >>
>> >> The problem with ad and pop-up blockers is that more and more
>> >> sites will not let you in if you have one active. You have to
>> >> manually exit your browsing, switch the blocker off (which may of
>> >> course be part of your Internet Security (i.e. Kaspersky) package)
>> >> and then view again - leaving you potentially unprotected.
>> >
>> > AdGuard can easily turn the blocking on and off within the browser.
>> > You can also specify certain page elements (e.g. a banner advert)
>> > to be blocked. The desktop MacOS version also allows you to pause
>> > blocking for 30 seconds.
>
>> Adguard is a man in the middle. I would never want malware like
>> Adguard on one of my devices. I tried it once an kicked it out after
>> some research.
>
> So, what do you use to block ads then?

I've already mentioned 1Blocker, and it is most excellent:

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting
>>>>> cookies seemingly makes no difference to whether I'll see
>>>>> the message again. I always see them again next time.
>>
>>>> I don’t get that. Are you flushing your cookies ?
>>
>>> I don't get it either.
>>
>> I meant I don’t get the cookies popup
>> every time I visit a particular site.
>>
>> Only when I visit a new site.
>
> The worst examples are HMRC and the NHS. I accept all
> cookies on one page, click a link which open a new tab
> and the cookie popup reappears. Every fucking time!

I don’t get that with either with Chrome on iOS or
with Safari or FireFox either. All the latest versions.

> Fortunately the hush app is doing the trick :)
>
>> But one of the survey apps on the iphone
>> does ask me every time I use it. That one
>> does appear to do that because I keep
>> refusing to allow them to track me.
>>
>>> I'm not flushing anything.
>>
>> But your browser may be.
>
> If it is it's doing it without me setting anything.
>
>>>>> This makes browsing the web on a mobile a real pain as you
>>>>> can't see the page without dealing with the cookie messages.
>>
>>>> Which mobile OS ? I don’t get that with Chrome on iOS.
>>
>>> Firefox on latest iOS.
>>
>> I don’t use Firefox much so I haven't bothered
>> to keep track of what it does about cookies.
>
> It's kinda moot on ios as all the browsers use the same engine AIUI.

I don’t believe that with Chrome particularly.

And when say putting NHS or HMRC into the search bar, you
get a quite different result at the top of the hit list with Safari.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 10:02:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Whatever I do whether I agree or disagree to accepting cookies seemingly
> makes no difference to whether I'll see the message again.

Oh it gets worse than that (if you truly care about your privacy that is).

a. I have all my browsers set to delete cookies upon closing.
b. Hence I get that message _every_ time (as Chris astutely noted).
c. However, most of the time it's in a foreign language.

Why?
Because I use privacy based browsers (such as Opera) and VPNs.

Interestingly, I've learned for the most part you can expect two things
1. If you say YES, you get _all_ the cookies (or most of them).
2. But if you say "Let me look", you can then choose which cookies you get.

Of course, like Chris, I don't want to pick and choose all the time, but
what happens in practice is they have _another_ yes button on the bottom of
that selection dialog, which basically allows all (or most) of the optional
cookies to be set to off.

What that means, in practice, is the following physical process
A. You say "Let me look" in whatever language is presented
B. But then you say "OK, I'll take that" to the options they present.

It's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with so far.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 13:34:53 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

> Using a 'blacklist' of unwanted web sites (i.e. the domains which
> provide the ads) is much less likely to be detected. I use the list
> from:-
> https://github.com/notracking/hosts-blocklists
>
> The only minor problem this produces is that sometimes links from
> shopping search engines get blocked but it's usually fairly easy to go
> direct to a web page manually.

There are other issues with blacklists than just that one.

My hosts file is something like fifty thousand lines long, but when I use
Epic, for example, it's not even consulted when it comes to ad blocking
(although Epic comes with its own ad blocking chrome extension of course).

Hence I'd augment what Chris Green said by saying there's another problem
with the blacklists such as MVP Hosts
<https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm>
which is that the "proxy-based" browsers (usually called "VPN privacy
browsers") such as Opera and Epic (or even The Tor Browser) don't make use
of them.

For those who want privacy browsers on either Android or iOS, here's a list
*iOS Epic Privacy Browser*
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epic-privacy-browser-w-vpn/id1502032811>
*Android Epic Privacy Browser*
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epic.browser>
*iOS Opera Privacy Browser*
<https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/opera-browser-fast-private/id1411869974>
*Android Opera Privacy Browser*
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.opera.browser>
*iOS TorProject Official Tor Browser*
<Apple doesn't allow that level of anonymity>
*Android TorProject Official Tor Browser*
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.torproject.torbrowser>

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:38:59 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> AdGuard can easily turn the blocking on and off within the browser. You
> can also specify certain page elements (e.g. a banner advert) to be
> blocked. The desktop MacOS version also allows you to pause blocking
> for 30 seconds.

The problem with browser-based ad blocking is that most people don't use
only one browser so they have to maintain multiple ad blocking extensions.

An easier solution is system wide ad blocking that makes use of a hosts file
for those who don't already use privacy-based browsers like Epic or Opera.

Unfortunately that kind of privacy is not allowed on either the Google or
the iOS App Stores but you can get NetGuard's system-wide ad blocking here.
*Enable NetGuard's Hidden Ad-Blocking Feature*
<https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/enable-netguards-hidden-ad-blocking-feature-your-android-phone-0176386/>

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 08:35:15 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Adguard is a man in the middle. I would never want malware like Adguard
> on one of my devices. I tried it once an kicked it out after some research.

Which AdGuard are these people talking about above that they say sucks?

Since u.t.m is a group composed of both Android & iOS users, it's important
to always talk about AdGuard sucking either as the fully functional Android
AdGuard which you claim sucks, or the crippled iOS AdGuard which you claim
sucks (as these two AdGuard apps are completely different in functionality).

*AdGuard for Android*
<https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html>
AdGuard is a unique no root system-wide ad blocker
that removes ads in both your apps and in your web browsers

*AdGuard for iOS*
<https://adguard.com/en/adguard-ios/overview.html>
AdGuard is an ad blocker that only works in Safari.

The kind of ad blocking privacy you need is not available to iOS users.
--
Apple never advertises the hundreds of ways where iOS lacks privacy.

[Andy Burnelli]

On 9 Jan 2022 16:25:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> So, what do you use to block ads then?
>
> I've already mentioned 1Blocker, and it is most excellent:
>
> <https://1blocker.com>

Jolly Roger always seems to advocate clusterfucks like this one is.

What does Jolly Roger use to block ads in the _other_ web browsers?
And what does Jolly Roger use to block ads in apps like YouTube?

Why not use a single system-wide free ad blocker instead of adding a
different ad blocker to each and every app that you install on the phone?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 09:26:39 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> NoScript is only for more experienced users.
>
> Let FF throw away all cookies and delete all cache data. Also activate
> the fingerprint function.

I used to try to keep Firefox clean but with every release, even the ghacks
fellows are hard pressed to keep up with the privacy based user.js settings.
*Control Firefox System Add-ons with the Ghacks user.js file*
<https://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/30/control-firefox-system-add-ons-with-the-ghacks-user-js-file/>

Why not instead just install the FOSS official Tor Project Tor Browser which
has critical fingerprinting-protection & privacy & anonymity set up for you?
<https://www.torproject.org/download/>

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:48:32 -0800, sms wrote:

> Also annoying are all the web sites that demand that you turn off your
> ad-blockers or subscribe (paid) to see the content that sites that are
> promoted in searches on Google News. One nice thing in my area is that
> almost all newspapers and magazines are available online through the
> public library so there's no need for a paid digital subscription,
> you've already paid for it through your property taxes.

I concur with Steve for how it works in California (where we both live).

Apparently you can access the digital collection of almost any public
library in the state (if that library accepts funds from the state, which
most apparently do), no matter _where_ you actually happen to live.

What that means is they will give you a card to almost any library in the
entire state so you pretty much have access to all sorts of free services
such as audio books, videos, podcasts and books (ask me how I know this).

There is only one catch (well, maybe two catches), which are (AFAIK)
a. You have to pick up the card in person (to prove who you are)
b. Most (if not all) expire, so you have to renew it every few years

Once you have the card, of course, you only need the numbers on the card.

Given the size of California is bigger than many countries, you have pretty
much access to almost anything that any public library _can_ access (AFAIK).

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 10:01:38 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Fortunately the hush app is doing the trick :)

It's good that the Hush app is working for Chris on Firefox on iOS.
<https://oblador.github.io/hush/>

It's apparently also available for the Mac based on this URL.
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/hush-nag-blocker/id1544743900>

However, when I looked up how Hush worked, there are critical flaws that
people should know about before they rely on hush to do what it advertises.
*Hacker News: Noiseless Browsing for Safari* (daringfireball.net)
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25892588>

If you're on iOS you may be stuck with it, but if you have a smartphone
platform that allows greater privacy than Apple will allow, there appear to
be far better system-wide solutions, only some of which are listed below.
AdBlockPlus <https://adblockplus.org/>
AdGuard <https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html>
BlockThis <https://block-this.com/>
NetGuard <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/>
--
And, for those few who happen to be rooted
AdAway <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.adaway/>

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:09:49 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Apple is simply a big mouth as far as security and privacy on the iOS
> devices is concerned. That worries me looking down the road.

Any intelligent person knows that Apple only advertises privacy.
You can't get the kind of privacy you want & need on any iOS device.

The real problem is that the world is filled with idiots who _believe_ only
what Apple feeds them (they have no independent sources of information).

I can't blame Apple for only advertising privacy because it's far easier to
advertise anything than it is to actually deliver it, particularly privacy
and particularly privacy on a cell phone.

Of course, Google doesn't even bother to advertise privacy to the length
that Apple stretches the truth and certainly Google isn't goign to help you
on privacy - but the good news about Android is that the _market_ is who
will help deliver greater privacy to you.

The Apple problem is that the market isn't _allowed_ to deliver that privacy
because Apple _prevents_ the market from providing the privacy you need.

As just one of hundreds of examples where Apple won't allow the user the
type of privacy that Google can't prevent the user from having, look here.
*Can I run Tor Browser on an iOS device?*
<https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-3/>
"We recommend an iOS app called Onion Browser, which is open source,
uses Tor routing, and is developed by someone who works closely with the
Tor Project. However, Apple requires browsers on iOS to use something
called Webkit, which prevents Onion Browser from having the same privacy
protections as Tor Browser."

This is just one well respected case where Apple simply advertises iOS
privacy but Apple never tells you the hundreds of cases where you can't get
the kind of privacy that _all_ other platforms (including Mac) provide you.

[Ant]

In iOS?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 19:40:04 -0000 (UTC), Tweed wrote:

> There's various ad blocker apps you can add as well.
> I use Ad-guard.

To augment Tweed's point on using the Ad-Guard ad blocker, these
are all well-respected free vpn-based no-root system-wide ad blockers.
AdAway <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.adaway/>

AdBlockPlus <https://adblockplus.org/>
AdGuard <https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html>
BlockThis <https://block-this.com/>
NetGuard <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/>

Regarding NetGuard, if you want to use it to block ads, do not use the
Google Play version (use either F-Droid or GitHub versions instead).
<https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases>
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/>

Once installed, follow these instructions to enable system-wide ad blocking
<https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md>

Essentially, the steps for system wide ad blocking in an unrooted phone are:
1. Install the F-Droid or Github NetGuard (not the Google Play version!).
2. Press the three dots (hamburger) in the top right of the app screen.
3. Go to "Settings > Advanced options" & turn "Filter traffic" on.
4. Make sure "Block domain names" is also turned on in those settings.
5. Go to "Settings > Backup > Download hosts file"

Be advised that NetGuard is preconfigured to download a specific hosts file
<https://www.netguard.me/hosts>
But you can import any hosts file you are comfortable with, for example
<https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt>
You can also import/append any hosts file that is already on your device.
"Settings > Backup > Import hosts file"
"Settings > Backup > Import hosts file (append)"

Note that NetGuard automatically deletes duplicates for your convenience.

To test whether the ad blocking is working, NetGuard supplies a test page:
<https://www.netguard.me/test/>

Most web browsers allow you to create a homescreen shortcut to that test.
For example, Ungoogled Chromium is a classic Chromium-based web browser.
<https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-android/>

However, if you can't find the setting inside the browser, this creates one.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.deltacdev.websiteshortcut>
--
Apart from using a hosts file, you can block most in-app ads by blocking
this address in the access list of Google Play services:
googleads.g.doubleclick.net/443

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 15:57:34 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>>> iphones don't have a way install blockers as far as I can
>>> see.
>

> Look harder.

Andy may have meant that iPhones don't have any way to install _system-wide_
ad blockers (which block in-app ads in addition to all web browser ads).

As Apple only advertises privacy without actually ever delivering any of it.

On Android, Andy is well aware there are _system-wide_ ad blockers but I
just read that even they aren't necessarily needed to block in-app ads.

I just noticed this line in the NetGuard help which says most people can
block in-app ads WITHOUT installing or configuring _any_ ad blocker.
<https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md>

"Apart from using a hosts file, you can block most in-app ads
by blocking this address in the access list of Google Play services:
googleads.g.doubleclick.net/443"

Like most people, I keep both Google Play & Google Play Services disabled by
default on my phones (and the phone seems to work just fine without them).
*How to block in-app ads WITHOUT using an Ad Blocker application*
<https://i.postimg.cc/hvGsD2SV/googleplayservices01.jpg>

I'd have to enable Google Play Services in order to implement that though.

However, if I re-enable Google Play Services, I can test that advice out.
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/Vl0wja0SShw>
But maybe someone on this ng _already_ knows more about this than I do?

For those few on Android in this ng who have Google Play Services enabled
can you tell us what steps you used to add that suggested line to GPS?
"googleads.g.doubleclick.net/443"

Based only on NetGuard help claiming that alone blocks many in-app ads.

[Chris Green]

It works if your phone is using WiFi on your LAN and the DNS server on
the LAN is what has the Ad blocking list.

This is another advantage of the Ad Blocking DNS server, if it's the
DNS for your LAN it blocks Ads for everyone using the LAN (unless they
use their own DNS of course).

--
Chris Green
·

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 10:07:52 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

> It works if your phone is using WiFi on your LAN and the DNS server on
> the LAN is what has the Ad blocking list.

That's an interesting observation where someone who knows more than I do
about how each type of smartphone resolves DNS when on Wi-Fi will have to
explain how it actually works.

It "was" my understanding that the DNS resolution on Android, for example,
is _always_ done on the phone itself (but I could well be wrong on that).

> This is another advantage of the Ad Blocking DNS server, if it's the
> DNS for your LAN it blocks Ads for everyone using the LAN (unless they
> use their own DNS of course).

Like most people, I'm all for ad blocking in any way that works well.
I don't know offhand which platform you're on (as u.t.m can be either).

I'm on both iOS and Android so I can test whatever you are on, where if they
can offload their DNS lookup to the DNS server of your SOHO router, that
would indeed be a great solution to "system-wide ad blocking", which is the
only kind that is worth spending energy on (in my humblest of opinions).

If you have a reference for how to set that up, I can test it for the team.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 06:29:33 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> As just one of hundreds of examples where Apple won't allow the user the
> type of privacy that Google can't prevent the user from having, look here.
> *Can I run Tor Browser on an iOS device?*
> <https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-3/>

Since credibility is the most precious attribute of a person on Usenet, I
belatedly realized that the example I showed above didn't prove my point of
a. The _market_ is who decides what privacy you get
b. Not Apple
c. Not Google

In the case of the Tor Browser, for example, Apple won't allow that kind of
privacy in WebKit, but Google _does_ allow that kind of privacy; hence the
official Tor Browser from the Tor Project is on all platforms _except_ iOS.

However, there are _other_ cases where not only Apple doesn't allow the kind
of privacy the _market_ can provide, but even Google doesn't allow it.

A classic example of that has already been noted is "NetGuard", where the
Google Play version won't allow you to block ads system wide, but the
non-Google play versions provided by the FOSS market do allow ad blocking.
<https://netguard.me/>
<https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard>
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard>

Notice here that Google won't allow the ad blocking you want, but the
_market_ can provide it because Google can't stop the open source market.

Another example are the YouTube ads, which can all easily be eliminated
using the FOSS NewPipe app, which again is privacy that is not allowed by
either Google or Apple and yet the FOSS market easily provides the privacy.
<https://newpipe.net/>
<https://f-droid.org/packages/org.schabi.newpipe/>
<https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe>

Given these facts, what's a big worrisome is that most iOS owners I know
actually _believe_ everything that the (rather clever) Apple advertising
team feeds them to believe - and even some Android owners believe what
Google feeds them to believe (although Google doesn't try to claim privacy
that doesn't exist as much as Apple does - which is one reason why Apple
sells so well - which is they can advertise bullshit the best in the world).

The problem really isn't Apple as you _expect_ bullshit from Apple & Google.
The problem, as I see it, is a typical Apple customer is gullibly clueless.

Sigh. You can't fix stupid.

People compare Apple to Google but what they need to realize is not so much
that both Apple and Google do not have your best interests in mind, but that
*Apple prevents the _market_ from supplying what you need; Google can't.*

[Your Name]

On 2022-01-10 10:07:52 +0000, Chris Green said:
> Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:38:59 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>> AdGuard can easily turn the blocking on and off within the browser. You
>>> can also specify certain page elements (e.g. a banner advert) to be
>>> blocked. The desktop MacOS version also allows you to pause blocking
>>> for 30 seconds.
>>
>> The problem with browser-based ad blocking is that most people don't use
>> only one browser so they have to maintain multiple ad blocking extensions.

<snip>

Completely wrong, as always.

You and your five geeky friends may use more than one web broswer. As
usual, what you do is not even remotely close to what everyone else
does, or even "most" other people do.

*Normal* people only bother to use one web browser - most of them the
one that comes with the OS since they don't even know there are any
others. They might totally switch over to Firefox (so still only one
web browesr) if they want to use a website that complains Microsloth's
useless "Edge" browser isn't usable with the website and it suggests
Firefox instead.

[nospam]

In article <sri5om$1qes$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Sigh. You can't fix stupid.

with you being the best example of that.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 16:05:31 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Sigh. You can't fix stupid.
>
> with you being the best example of that.

The point remains critically relevant for _anyone_ comparing the platforms:

*Apple prevents the _market_ from supplying what you need; Google can't.*

A classic example where _both_ Apple & Google prevent the market from
supplying what you need is a case of their respective profitable App Stores.
a. Apple prevents the non-jailbroken user from accessing any other App Store
b. Google can't.

The reason Google can't is the _market_ is who provides app functionality!
*Who decides what FUNCTIONALITY you get on your smartphone anyway?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/BD4inMcPXng>

A case in point is the Aurora Store which _is_ a Google Play Store client on
steroids (same repository - but a much better GUI than Google will provide).
<https://auroraoss.com/>
<https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraStore>
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/>

Just as with Apple's official App Store client, the official Google Play
Store client won't allow you to save the APK after downloading it (but
before installing it so that you have an automatic archive of all apps).

Just as with the Apple App Store client, the Google Play Store Client won't
allow you to anonymously spoof yourself, your phone, your OS version, and
even your language.

Worse, just as with the Apple App Store client, the Google Play Store client
won't allow you to set persistent filters to block all mothership apps, all
apps with the google services framework in them, all apps that have ads in
them, all paid apps, etc. (which is pretty much the first search ever run).

The point is that neither Google nor Apple will allow you the kind of
functionality and privacy that you want, but the critically huge difference
which many people don't seem to realize is this.

*Apple successfully prevents App Store client functionality; Google can't.*

That single critical difference is why my free Samsung phone will always
have more app functionality than even the most expensive iPhone of the
future can possibly have.

*Apple restricts what the app market can provide; Google can't.*
--
If a person is unaware of that, then they known nothing about smartphones.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-10, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2022 16:25:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> So, what do you use to block ads then?
>>
>> I've already mentioned 1Blocker, and it is most excellent:
>>
>> <https://1blocker.com>
>
> Jolly Roger always seems to advocate clusterfucks like this one is.

Arlen (aka Andy Derpello) can't resist trolling the Apple news groups.
It's his only hobby, after all. In fact he is so distracted and consumed
by trolling that he completely lacks the sensibility and ability to
distinguish between a good app and a cluster fuck of an app on his best
day.

> What does Jolly Roger use to block ads in the _other_ web browsers?

AdBlock, of course:
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579?uo=4&at=11l6hc&app=itunes&ct=fnd>
Prediction: Arlen will find something about this app to bitch about
next.

> And what does Jolly Roger use to block ads in apps like YouTube?

Vinegar, of course:
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303229?uo=4&at=11l6hc&app=itunes&ct=fnd>
Prediction: Arlen will bitch and moan that this is supposedly nowhere as
good as his favorite solution next.

> Why not use a single system-wide free ad blocker instead of adding a
> different ad blocker to each and every app that you install on the
> phone?

Because 1Blocker is more extensible than the aforementioned AdBlock, and
Vinegar is more effective as well.

The real question is: why does Arlen give a shit what apps the rest of
us use? Answer: because he can't resist trolling the Apple news groups,
even if his trolls are lame as fuck. ; )

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-10, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>

> most people don't use only one browser

Bullshit.

[Chris Green]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 10:07:52 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>
> > It works if your phone is using WiFi on your LAN and the DNS server on
> > the LAN is what has the Ad blocking list.
>
> That's an interesting observation where someone who knows more than I do
> about how each type of smartphone resolves DNS when on Wi-Fi will have to
> explain how it actually works.
>
> It "was" my understanding that the DNS resolution on Android, for example,
> is _always_ done on the phone itself (but I could well be wrong on that).
>
> > This is another advantage of the Ad Blocking DNS server, if it's the
> > DNS for your LAN it blocks Ads for everyone using the LAN (unless they
> > use their own DNS of course).
>
> Like most people, I'm all for ad blocking in any way that works well.
> I don't know offhand which platform you're on (as u.t.m can be either).
>

It doesn't matter what OS (or OSes) I'm using.

> I'm on both iOS and Android so I can test whatever you are on, where if they
> can offload their DNS lookup to the DNS server of your SOHO router, that
> would indeed be a great solution to "system-wide ad blocking", which is the
> only kind that is worth spending energy on (in my humblest of opinions).
>
> If you have a reference for how to set that up, I can test it for the team.

My 'router' doesn't provide my LAN's DHCP/DNS, the DHCP/DNS server is
a Raspberry Pi. One place that describes how to set this up is:-

https://github.com/notracking/hosts-blocklists

--
Chris Green
·

[David Woolley]

On 10/01/2022 20:43, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> A classic example of that has already been noted is "NetGuard", where the
> Google Play version won't allow you to block ads system wide, but the

Being served ads isn't, in itself, an invasion of privacy. Ads which
follow you around, indicate an underlying invasion of privacy, as do ads
targeted based on accesses to other sites, etc. If the advert is
sourced from the advertisers site, there may be an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, blocking adverts doesn't prevent an invasion of
privacy, as Google, etc., may already have been told about your web
access in order to nominate the adverts to be sent to you, and if the
adverts are sent as iframes, or AJAX, from the advertiser, the
advertiser might also be told something about you.

Being served ads may be annoying, and a waste of bandwidth, but it is
how you pay for the service being provided by the editorial content.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-10, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>

> Like most people, I'm all for ad blocking in any way that works well.

Bullshit, you're not all for ad blocking in any way that works well, as
shown by your own words right here in this very thread:

---

From: Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,uk.telecom.mobile
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 05:35:46 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server

On 9 Jan 2022 16:25:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> So, what do you use to block ads then?
>
> I've already mentioned 1Blocker, and it is most excellent:
>
> <https://1blocker.com>

Jolly Roger always seems to advocate clusterfucks like this one is.

What does Jolly Roger use to block ads in the _other_ web browsers?

And what does Jolly Roger use to block ads in apps like YouTube?

Why not use a single system-wide free ad blocker instead of adding a
different ad blocker to each and every app that you install on the phone?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:34:17 +0000, David Woolley wrote:

> Being served ads isn't, in itself, an invasion of privacy.

I understand your point of view and I can't disagree with the fact that
simple being served the ad isn't, in and of itself, the invasion that
occurs.

The invasion is _how_ they gather the data to serve those ads, of course.

> Ads which
> follow you around, indicate an underlying invasion of privacy, as do ads
> targeted based on accesses to other sites, etc. If the advert is
> sourced from the advertisers site, there may be an invasion of privacy.

Yes. We agree. The ad itself "can" be entirely innocuous, e.g., the ad could
be a photo of someone with babes drinking beer on the beach where you're
supposed to infer that brand of beer is what will get you those babes.

However, don't some (many, most?) of those ads also persist in collecting
data about our activities (specifically an ad in webpage1 can collect data
about you such that webpage2 can use that data)?

I admit openly that I need to know more about how any one ad, in and of
itself, can lead to an invasion of privacy (by a cavalcade of events).

Since I block all ads by design, I "assume" (perhaps all too innocently so)
that the ads can't invade my privacy by that cavalcade if I can stop them at
the start. But I leave wide open the possibility that I'm wrong.

Anyone who wishes to edify me is welcome to do so as we all learn from each
other. This is particularly important because I advocate system-wide ad
blocking which targets entire domains, and not app-by-app ad blockers.

> On the other hand, blocking adverts doesn't prevent an invasion of
> privacy, as Google, etc., may already have been told about your web
> access in order to nominate the adverts to be sent to you, and if the
> adverts are sent as iframes, or AJAX, from the advertiser, the
> advertiser might also be told something about you.

Agreed. If Google _already_ knows you are looking for golf equipment, by the
time the ad for any specific brand of golf clubs shows up, it's too late (in
terms of privacy invasion).

Even Apple does this serving of targeted ads on iOS, which Apple openly
admits, based on your activities on the iPhone, so it's both Apple & Google.

My assumption however, whether justified or not remains to be seen, is that
by blocking the ads, we block the methods by which the mechanism targets us
since we're blocking entire domains in reality (with system-wide blockers).

> Being served ads may be annoying, and a waste of bandwidth, but it is
> how you pay for the service being provided by the editorial content.

I think it's like the people who die for their country.
You don't want to be the one doing the dying; let others do that for you.

I can't remember the last time I saw an inserted ad in a youtube for
example, nor have I seen an ad inside of any given free app as another.

Yet I don't doubt your acumen when you say _someone_ must be seeing those
ads (which is what often makes the product available to all of us).

Just like with wars - someone has to be the cannon fodder... I agree.
I just don't want it to be me. That's all.

If other people wish to pay for that product for me, then who am I to
complain about their willingness to pay more for what I pay less for.

We both end up with the same product (e.g., a youtube video) in the end.
Only they see the ads and I don't (which I consider a fair trade indeed).

[Andy Burnelli]

On 10 Jan 2022 21:32:01 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> And AdBlock *is* system-wide, dip shit:
> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579

Hi Jolly Roger,
It's good that you have the adult sense to bring up an astute point.
We can all learn from each other, where I took a look at that app.
$2 payware *AdBlock* by FutureMind
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579>

Interestingly, the blurb says "Protect your privacy", which is a point that
David Woolley and I were just moments ago discussing, where it would be
interesting to read how they protect your privacy just by blocking ads.

What's a bit confusing is there are other iOS apps of the same name, e.g.,
Freeware *AdBlock* by Adblock Inc.
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock-for-mobile/id1036484810>
But that is only available for Safari so it's not all that worthwhile.

Then there's the similarly sounding free app called AdBlock Plus
<https://blog.adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-for-ios-9-finally-here-and-pssst-it-s-free>
Which, also to David Woolley's point, says it protects your privacy
"Protect yourself from Malvertising"
"And better protect your privacy"
<https://eyeo.to/adblockplus/ios_safari_install/abp-website>
*Adblock Plus* by Eyeo GmbH
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock-plus-for-safari-abp/id1028871868>

Back to your specific suggested payware AdBlock by FutureMind
<https://www.futuremind.com/portfolio/adblock-ios>
"AdBlock app provides ad-blocking on websites and inside apps
within any Wi-Fi and GSM services. Simply add whatever you want
to the blocked domains list. It works in browsers (e.g. Safari, Chrome)
and apps (e.g. games) as well."

Thanks for suggesting this payware which also has extension hosts files
<https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BlackJack8/iOSAdblockList/master/Hosts.txt>

[Andy Burnelli]

On 10 Jan 2022 21:36:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Bullshit, you're not all for ad blocking in any way that works well, as
> shown by your own words right here in this very thread:

Hi Jolly Roger,

Thank you for being the only one to point out the FutureMind payware.

I know you'll defend everything Apple does to the death no matter what.
Worse, you'll fabricate imaginary functionality for iOS time and again.
Just because you don't like when an iPhone can't do something simple.
(For example you fabricated an iOS ability to graph wifi over time.)

But Usenet is water under the bridge.
The fact you incessantly fabricate imaginary iOS functionality is past.

The good news is you acted like an adult in your previous post where
you _did_ point out that on iOS you can _purchase_ the kind of privacy that
Android has long always had for free for years, which is good to know.

$2 payware *AdBlock* by FutureMind
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579>

Interestingly, the blurb says "Protect your privacy", which is a point that

David Woolley and I were earlier today discussing, where it would be
interesting to learn how they protect your privacy just by blocking ads.

For Android, there are a plethora of FOSS apps that do the same thing, e.g.,

AdAway <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.adaway/>
AdBlockPlus <https://adblockplus.org/>
AdGuard <https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html>
BlockThis <https://block-this.com/>
NetGuard <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/>

Really there's not much to disagree with other than the _previous_
suggestions you provided of using <https://1blocker.com> is what I termed a
"clusterfuck" simply because to expect users to download specific ad
blockers for each and every web browser and app is just ridiculous.

Only _after_ I explained your suggestion was a clusterfuck, did you bother
to change your suggestion to the much better system-wide payware solution.

I'm _happy_ you found a _better_ solution than the 1blocker.com clusterfuck.

This iOS payware solution you found "should" work as well as the FOSS
Android ones, at least based on my quick reading of the developer claims.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:58:18 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> *Normal* people only bother to use one web browser - most of them the
> one that comes with the OS since they don't even know there are any
> others. They might totally switch over to Firefox (so still only one
> web browesr) if they want to use a website that complains Microsloth's
> useless "Edge" browser isn't usable with the website and it suggests
> Firefox instead.

I think this "Your Name" is perhaps forever stuck on an iOS-only train of
thought, because you're kind of stuck on iOS with Safari as the only choice
in the walled garden, whether you like it or not (as your default browser).

But not everyone on smartphones is stuck in a prison cell of Apple's doing.

On Android, not only can you change your default browser, but you have more
choices (e.g., you can use the real Tor Browser for example) than on iOS.

Those choices provide safety, privacy, anonymity, & tons of functionality.

However, even Android follows Apple in that most Android devices come with
Chrome (which can and likely should be replaced with "Ungoogled Chromium")
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungoogled_chromium>

Likewise, most branded Android phones may come with the brands' own Internet
Browser (e.g., my free Galaxy A32-5G came with Samsung's own web browser).
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sec.android.app.sbrowser>

Besides, when it comes to ad blocking, it's not just browsers that have ads.
That's why the only sensible solution appears to be system wide ad blockers.

Luckily FOSS system-wide ad blockers exist in droves for Android platforms.

AdAway <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.adaway/>
AdBlockPlus <https://adblockplus.org/>
AdGuard <https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html>
BlockThis <https://block-this.com/>
NetGuard <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/>

And Jolly Roger kindly dug up a payware system-wide ad blocker for iOS.
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579>

Given system-wide ad blockers exist, there's really no good reason to bother
with fumbling around with the clusterfuck solutions of installing an ad
blocker for each and every app you own that has a tendency to display any
ads (e.g., youtube, gasbuddy, and the various browsers you use daily).

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-10, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 10 Jan 2022 21:32:01 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> And AdBlock *is* system-wide, dip shit:
>> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579
>
> Hi Jolly Roger,

You were wrong and can't admit it as usual. Fuck off, Arlen. Almost
noone bothers reading your garbage posts for good reason.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-11, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2022 21:36:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Bullshit, you're not all for ad blocking in any way that works well,
>> as shown by your own words right here in this very thread:
>

> I know you'll defend everything Apple does to the death no matter
> what.

Troll fail - none of the apps I mentioned are made by Apple, nor was
Apple a topic of my comment:

* 1Blocker isn't made by Apple. Neither is AdBlock. Neither is
* Vinegar.

Three strikes - you're out, trollboi. Your insane hatred of all things
Apple prevents your from staying on topic as usual.

[Andy Burnelli]

On 11 Jan 2022 16:24:04 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Troll fail - none of the apps I mentioned are made by Apple, nor was
> Apple a topic of my comment:
>
> * 1Blocker isn't made by Apple. Neither is AdBlock. Neither is
> * Vinegar.
>
> Three strikes - you're out, trollboi. Your insane hatred of all things
> Apple prevents your from staying on topic as usual.

Hi Jolly Roger,

I find it rather interesting that Jolly Roger insists that only apps made by
Apple are of any use on an iPhone (which is a patently false assumption).
*It doesn't matter _who_ makes the app.*

Why JR wants to make his _entire_ argument the fact that Apple does or does
not make an app just shows JR likely bought too many specious arguments.
*It doesn't matter _who_ makes the app.*

The fact remains I commended Jolly Roger for finding a system-wide ad
blocker for iOS (albeit payware) which _nobody_ else in this thread did.
*The _functionality_ is what matters* (/not who made it/).

iOS system-wide ad-blocking payware functionality:

*AdBlock* by FutureMind <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579>

Android system-wide ad-blocking open source freeware functionality:
*AdAway *<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.adaway/>
*AdBlockPlus* <https://adblockplus.org/>
*AdGuard* <https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html>
*BlockThis* <https://block-this.com/>
*NetGuard* <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/>

The point to be made to Jolly Roger that he doesn't seem to yet comprehend
is that the single-app clusterfucks such as <https://1blocker.com> are _not_
system wide ad blocking, even as people like Jolly Roger think it may be.

To espouse a strategy of adding these single-app clusterfuck ad blockers
such as "1blocker" to each and every app on your device that can serve ads
(e.g., gasbuddy, youtube, safari, chrome, etc.) is just ridiculous.

[Andy Burnelli]

On 11 Jan 2022 16:19:33 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> You were wrong and can't admit it as usual. Fuck off

Hi Jolly Roger,

It's always useful to dig into how your brain works in the main, which is
why I appreciate all your posts (because you're an average iOS user).

Understanding how _you_ think tells us how an average Apple user thinks.

I find it interesting that I explained that it was patently ridiculous to
espouse a solution to ad blocking of adding a specific ad blocker for each
and every app on the mobile device - and you now claim that "I'm wrong" ???

It's obvious to everyone else that a system-wide solution to ad blocking has
a better chance of working on all apps than digging about trying to find a
specific ad blocking tool for each and every app that happens to serve ads.
(e.g., youtube, gasbuddy, safari, chrome, firefox, facebook, twitter, etc.)

Why do you, Jolly Roger, feel so strongly that a system-wide ad-blocking
solution is "wrong" even as you yourself proposed an existing working one?

iOS system-wide ad-blocking payware functionality:

*AdBlock* by FutureMind <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579>

Android system-wide ad-blocking open source freeware functionality:

*AdAway* <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.adaway/>

*AdBlockPlus* <https://adblockplus.org/>
*AdGuard* <https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html>
*BlockThis* <https://block-this.com/>
*NetGuard* <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/>

The point to be made to Jolly Roger that he doesn't seem to yet comprehend
is that the single-app clusterfucks such as <https://1blocker.com> are _not_

system wide ad blocking, even as people like Jolly Roger think they are.

To espouse a strategy of system-wide ad-blocking tools is _not_ "wrong", no
matter how much Jolly Roger wishes to claim the single-use solutions better.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-11, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 11 Jan 2022 16:24:04 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Troll fail - none of the apps I mentioned are made by Apple, nor was
>> Apple a topic of my comment:
>>
>> * 1Blocker isn't made by Apple.

>> * Neither is AdBlock.
>> * Neither is Vinegar.

>>
>> Three strikes - you're out, trollboi. Your insane hatred of all
>> things Apple prevents your from staying on topic as usual.
>

> Jolly Roger insists that only apps made by Apple are of any use

Troll fail again. Nothing I said above equates to what you claim I
supposedly said. Arlen continues to prove he is incapable o addressing
what is actually said, due to his insane little Apple hate boner. None
of the three apps I mentioned are made by Apple, yet useless trollboi
*has* to try to make this about Apple in order to continue his lame-ass
trolling. Just pathetic.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-11, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 11 Jan 2022 16:19:33 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> You were wrong and can't admit it as usual. Fuck off
>

> It's always useful

Nothing you post here is useful - it's all trolling.

Eat shit, Arlen.

[wall of useless repetitious text rightfully omitted and ignored]

[Andy Burnelli]

On 11 Jan 2022 21:48:52 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Eat shit

What's visibly apparent is Jolly Roger instantly regressing to his combative
fifth-grade-bully personality the instant JR can't respond to basic facts.

People like Jolly Roger are somewhat akin to a fifth grade bully who still
believes in the Santa Claus that is highly advertised - where people like
Jolly Roger believe those advertisements to the point that if any of the
more aware kids say otherwise, Jolly Roger tells them to "eat shit."

It's interesting to see how the minds of these strange apologists work when
confronted with facts they have no ability to respond to in an adult manner.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-01-11, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 11 Jan 2022 21:48:52 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Eat shit
>

> My trolling is transparent

Yes, it is, Arlen.

Enjoy your "Last Word" party of one, loser.