Or Firefox?
Comment on [deleted]
Engywuck@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Browsers with in built adblocker or system wide AdGuard.
iopq@lemmy.world 1 year ago
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 1 year ago
Those are trash and DNS adblocking does not work on YT either. Garbage advice 0/10
Engywuck@lemm.ee 1 year ago
No, you’re wrong.
Flying_Hellfish@lemmy.world 1 year ago
porque no los dos? I use both and there are things uBlock can catch/block that AdGuard doesn’t seem to be able to. That said AdGuard makes mobile pages readable, when most these days are a complete nightmare of ads
Engywuck@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I was talking about AdGuard, not AdGuard Home.
Flying_Hellfish@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I misread system wide as network wide. My mistake.
cmhe@lemmy.world 1 year ago
DNS ad blockers are not sufficient to block all ads and often overly broad. So they have much higher rate of false positives and negatives compared to in-browser ad blockers. Differentiating between ads and useful content based on domain names will become more and more difficult. Both might use some url from the same cloud provider, and blocking those breaks a lot of stuff.
Engywuck@lemm.ee 1 year ago
AdGuard is not a DNS blocker
generic_computers@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
It’s both a browser extension and a DNS filter.
cmhe@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You where talking about “system wide AdGuard”, which is not the browser addon, but an app that uses DNS blocking, be it by either letting people set DNS servers manually, or automatically through VPN. Their VPN does not break TLS connection by inserting custom certificates and MITM proxies, so they cannot read/modifiy content.
It might be possible to use TLS breaking proxies for systemwide ad blocking, but even that wouldn’t help, because nowadays a lot of content and ads are loaded dynamically via javascript. So a browser is required to filter ads.