Happy user for several years now. I prefer this over other more popular blockers because Privacy Badger doesn't directly go after ads. It just blocks the tracking aspect; which in 99% cases of today's web advertising also prevents the ad from showing up.
In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden. The exception is if the site owner keeps the lights on by incorporating non-tracking advertising, it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content. On the other hand tracking users is an active hostile move and blocking it is the right choice. At least that's my reasoning for choosing Privacy Badger.
Same here. I use it for anti-tracking, and uBlock Origin for primary ads, and PiHole for anything that slips through those two.
Ads are a plague. They waste screen space, they're often virus-laden traps, they look ugly and ruin the look of a good website, they're often scams, etc.
I pay for the the internet service that sends the ads to me, the screen the ads show up on, the computer that requests the ads and the electricity that powers the computer.
I am not paying for all that just to get ads shoved in my face. If they want donations or a subscription, fine. Understandable. But no ads.
I'm totally fine with ads as long as they aren't intrusive (pop-ups are the worst). Sites should be able to finance themselves without requiring a subscription, since it allows access to those with less financial means. I just don't want them to track what I do on the internet and as long as they do, I'll block all of them.
> it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content
Nothing is scummier than web site owners thinking they are entitled to our attention, to say nothing of selling it to the highest bidder without our consent.
There is zero obligation on our part to pay attention to ads. Zero. There is absolutely no shame in not wanting to be subjected to such noise. They'd very much enjoy it if we paid attention but they aren't entitled to make a single cent off of us without our consent.
> In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden.
I agree.
> The exception is if the site owner keeps the lights on by incorporating non-tracking advertising, it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content.
I disagree - if content cannot survive without advertisement, then we're better off without it anyway. Non-tracking advertising is less bad than advertising, but it's still intrusive and not-called-for, just like all advertising.
You mean if the content does not cater to people who are well-off enough to pay for it with money?
There are many people who simply don't have the financial means to support all the content they like. Does that content not deserve to exist? Should quality internet content really be a class question?
> I prefer this over other more popular blockers because Privacy Badger doesn't directly go after ads. It just blocks the tracking aspect
This is the exact reason why I use DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials instead of an ad-blocker. Whenever I mention that I don’t block ads out of principle, I get down-voted a lot :-D
I use it and Decentral Eyes and uBlock Origin but it does get tiring how often these extensions break critical functionality on websites.
Especially when I don’t discover the problem until I’m half way into a multipart form submission that can’t be refreshed, or an e-commerce transaction fails because it rapidly hands off between multiple third-party servers and one of them in the middle of the chain had some critical JavaScript path blocked.
I've been encountering more and more sites that will only work completely in Google Chrome. T-Mobile and Motorola.com are some of the larger examples I've come across.
Agreed. Between browser extensions and DNS-based products (PiHole) the number of websites that simply refuse to function is quite high. Deciphering which part of my environment is breaking the site is more time consuming than I wish.
Not so weird. I unblocked all the important parts of the sites I use most (examples: Stripe's, PayPal's and my credit cards payment forms that sites redirect to) but I got a problem recently with a site that accepted an order but failed to redirect to some different payment processor. I had to send mail to cancel the order and place it again with Chrome on the next day. All it usually take is whitelist some site in uBlock and reload because usually sites accept orders only after getting a payment. That one was optimistic.
While there is likely to be overlap between the various advertising/tracker lists and Privacy Badger, regardless of whether you enable learning locally, Privacy Badger can automatically discover new trackers that list-based blockers don’t know about.
Besides automatic tracker blocking, Privacy Badger comes with privacy features like click-to-activate replacements for potentially useful trackers (video players, comments sections like Disqus, etc.), and link cleaning on Facebook and Google.
Privacy Badger is also a political tool. By using Privacy Badger, you support the Electronic Frontier Foundation [1]. Privacy Badger sends the Global Privacy Control [2] signal to opt you out of data sharing and selling, and the Do Not Track [3] signal to tell companies not to track you. If trackers ignore your wishes, Privacy Badger will learn to block them. The idea isn't to block all advertising but rather to promote a better Web.
Has there been any study as to how closely Privacy Badger converges to list-based blockers like uBlock Origin given enough time? Is that at all a metric you use in development?
Cookie-AutoDelete. Click it to whitelist a website so that its cookies and local data aren't deleted.
Why would I allow all websites I visit to store things on your computer? I have about 20~ domains whitelisted (which I've added and maintained over years). The rest will be forced to forget me and not be allowed to create profiles and sell my interests and habits to the highest bidder.
Works great with Firefox Multi-Account Containers: this lets me be stayed logged into an account (eg Google) but only for a subset of services (Google Drive, Gmail) – not Google Search: why would I want Google to keep an history of my queries?
Works great with https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu (I really don't care about them since they're auto deleted anyway). I wish uBlock, Cookie Auto Delete and I don't care about cookies would be installed by default with Firefox.
Firefox has this feature natively, no need for an add-on.
In Privacy & Security settings set it to clear all browsing data when Firefox closes, and simply add exceptions for whichever domains you want. This also has the advantage of clearing some things CAD is unable to due to limite of the WebExtension APIs.
i have made it a habit to use firefox in private browsing mode all the time. i know i can use "private browsing.autostart", i was a big user of that for many many years but ineed some persistent logins.
private browsing i do as in, i start my pc, firefox starts on its own so i do ctrl+shift+p.
then i go about my day using this window and more such windows.
whenever i have to wind down for the day or want to get rid of a session, i just close the windows and i am clean.
i understand people use cookies auto delete like you mentioned but for my use case, i dont even bother. i can sign in, do what i need to do and i dont care about signing out or even being tracked across sessions because sessions are not persistent across logins
Maybe not for just "regular joe" but Arkenfox maintains a good list of extensions to use for privacy, and more importantly, which ones really don't add that much with recent Firefox updates:
> If as you browse the web, the same source seems to be tracking your browser across different websites, then Privacy Badger springs into action, telling your browser not to load any more content from that source. And when your browser stops loading content from a source, that source can no longer track you. Voila!
So, for example, does it stop loading fonts? Or CDN-hosted assets?
Last I checked they relied on DNS-level blocking , like ublock origin, in addition to some fancy replacements for widgets like disqus. I don't think privacy badger blocks loading content from most CDNs but it may block cookies from them.
I used it for short time few years ago, but stopped after it was breaking sites by blocking regular images from CDN. I guess I could have made a whitelist or otherwise tweak its behaviour, but I don't have time to babysit software which probably brought only marginal benefits over uO filters anyway.
I had to stop using Privacy Badger as a lot of sites would break. This was specifically when shopping, booking tickets or using government/banking sites. Extremely frustrating as most of the places it would break would be important sites where i really didn't want it to happen.
Hi, Privacy Badger dev here. I hear you, and we're working on breaking fewer sites while blocking more trackers. For what it's worth, Privacy Badger now is better at both things than it was years ago, and it will be better yet next year.
I've had more issues with some filter sources in ublock origin's default list. In particular Fanboy's lists, and some others, that just block classes, IDs and URLs with certain names and patterns that are "commonly" used for annoyances or ads, but are so aggressive they often overdo it.
Didn't realize endcards were a thing on youtube until a year ago because of it, and many sites break in subtle to unsubtle ways.
You can just disable it for some sites, or play around with their trackers to see enabling which fixes your website. I've seen it break some shopping sites too, but that's been mostly on rare occasions for me.
I know and I did that. But when I daily had it break sites it got too annoying. When important sites break half way through using them, it was more a hassle than a help.
I love Privacy Badger and have been using it for years now. If I ever do see an ad, that ad is completely irrelevant and has no idea what I want, which I just love. I hate the advertising industry in general but at least being able to keep the creepiness is a big plus.
I have no illusion that true anonymity is even possible on the internet these days but if by any chance I can mildly inconvenience the marketing parasite with running a simple extension why not?
Readit News
In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden. The exception is if the site owner keeps the lights on by incorporating non-tracking advertising, it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content. On the other hand tracking users is an active hostile move and blocking it is the right choice. At least that's my reasoning for choosing Privacy Badger.
Ads are a plague. They waste screen space, they're often virus-laden traps, they look ugly and ruin the look of a good website, they're often scams, etc.
I pay for the the internet service that sends the ads to me, the screen the ads show up on, the computer that requests the ads and the electricity that powers the computer.
I am not paying for all that just to get ads shoved in my face. If they want donations or a subscription, fine. Understandable. But no ads.
Nothing is scummier than web site owners thinking they are entitled to our attention, to say nothing of selling it to the highest bidder without our consent.
There is zero obligation on our part to pay attention to ads. Zero. There is absolutely no shame in not wanting to be subjected to such noise. They'd very much enjoy it if we paid attention but they aren't entitled to make a single cent off of us without our consent.
I agree.
> The exception is if the site owner keeps the lights on by incorporating non-tracking advertising, it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content.
I disagree - if content cannot survive without advertisement, then we're better off without it anyway. Non-tracking advertising is less bad than advertising, but it's still intrusive and not-called-for, just like all advertising.
There are many people who simply don't have the financial means to support all the content they like. Does that content not deserve to exist? Should quality internet content really be a class question?
Goodbye, niche knowledge sites, I suppose
So radio and TV should have never existed?
Google wouldn't exist if it couldn't support itself.
Neither would 99.99% of websites available.
Think of how many sites, are available just because they can cover their costs by putting adds on their site.
You don't even have to go that far. They're attempted fraud. They are by and large lies intended to trick you into giving someone money.
"Need a plumber in $TOWN? Call $TOWN Plumbers at 555-1212."
Others simply advocate for a cause:
"Vote Yes on $TOWN Proposition #4!"
Ads like those above do add cognitive burden, but they can provide utility to a community and are demonstrably neither fraud nor lies.
This is the exact reason why I use DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials instead of an ad-blocker. Whenever I mention that I don’t block ads out of principle, I get down-voted a lot :-D
Especially when I don’t discover the problem until I’m half way into a multipart form submission that can’t be refreshed, or an e-commerce transaction fails because it rapidly hands off between multiple third-party servers and one of them in the middle of the chain had some critical JavaScript path blocked.
I still do it but it is a pain.
While there is likely to be overlap between the various advertising/tracker lists and Privacy Badger, regardless of whether you enable learning locally, Privacy Badger can automatically discover new trackers that list-based blockers don’t know about.
Besides automatic tracker blocking, Privacy Badger comes with privacy features like click-to-activate replacements for potentially useful trackers (video players, comments sections like Disqus, etc.), and link cleaning on Facebook and Google.
Privacy Badger is also a political tool. By using Privacy Badger, you support the Electronic Frontier Foundation [1]. Privacy Badger sends the Global Privacy Control [2] signal to opt you out of data sharing and selling, and the Do Not Track [3] signal to tell companies not to track you. If trackers ignore your wishes, Privacy Badger will learn to block them. The idea isn't to block all advertising but rather to promote a better Web.
[1] https://www.eff.org/ [2] https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ [3] https://www.eff.org/issues/do-not-track
[0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/privacy-badger-changin...
Has there been any study as to how closely Privacy Badger converges to list-based blockers like uBlock Origin given enough time? Is that at all a metric you use in development?
Why would I allow all websites I visit to store things on your computer? I have about 20~ domains whitelisted (which I've added and maintained over years). The rest will be forced to forget me and not be allowed to create profiles and sell my interests and habits to the highest bidder.
Works great with Firefox Multi-Account Containers: this lets me be stayed logged into an account (eg Google) but only for a subset of services (Google Drive, Gmail) – not Google Search: why would I want Google to keep an history of my queries?
Works great with https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu (I really don't care about them since they're auto deleted anyway). I wish uBlock, Cookie Auto Delete and I don't care about cookies would be installed by default with Firefox.
In Privacy & Security settings set it to clear all browsing data when Firefox closes, and simply add exceptions for whichever domains you want. This also has the advantage of clearing some things CAD is unable to due to limite of the WebExtension APIs.
https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/02/23/total-cookie-pr...
private browsing i do as in, i start my pc, firefox starts on its own so i do ctrl+shift+p. then i go about my day using this window and more such windows.
whenever i have to wind down for the day or want to get rid of a session, i just close the windows and i am clean.
i understand people use cookies auto delete like you mentioned but for my use case, i dont even bother. i can sign in, do what i need to do and i dont care about signing out or even being tracked across sessions because sessions are not persistent across logins
https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions
> Protects you against tracking through "free", centralized, content delivery.
https://decentraleyes.org/
https://www.localcdn.org/
So, for example, does it stop loading fonts? Or CDN-hosted assets?
Didn't realize endcards were a thing on youtube until a year ago because of it, and many sites break in subtle to unsubtle ways.
Youtube's endcards are not blocked by default in uBO, and I can't find a list in the set of stock lists which blocks them.