search

TachibanaGeneralLaboratories / download-navi

Free and Open Source software download manager
GNU General Public License v3.0
838 stars 87 forks source link

(Feature Request) Integration of Ublock origin or other Ad Blocking into Browser #130

Open DraconicNEO opened 4 years ago

DraconicNEO commented 4 years ago

I think it would be very helpful to have ublock origin integrated in the browser. It would help with privacy and safety because it allows users to block trackers and malware within the browser.

KaKi87 commented 4 years ago

You should use a system-wide adblocker, like AdGuard (my favourite) or Blockada 😉

DraconicNEO commented 4 years ago

DNS adblockers can't block ads that originate from the same page.

KaKi87 commented 4 years ago

AdGuard is not a simple DNS adblocker : it injects userscripts into web pages and filters HTTPS requests. Give me a link and I'll send you a screenshot.

DraconicNEO commented 4 years ago

Just go to a bunch of apk websites and try downloading some apks, eventually you'll come across some with a blank icon.

KaKi87 commented 4 years ago

AdGuard system-wide works as perfectly as uBlock browser-wide unless you can prove me otherwise.

DraconicNEO commented 4 years ago

FYI the biggest issue with Adguard is that it's paid. You're probably one of the people who think you can put a price tag on privacy, or you pirate Adguard and assume everyone else wants to do that. So don't tell me why people should just use Adguard tell me why you are opposed to Ublock Origin (Which by the way doesn't try to scam people out of their money, anyone who requires users to pay for an adblocker/privacy guard is a scammer in my books)

DraconicNEO commented 4 years ago

And please don't Just say something along the lines of "Just Pay the monthly Fee, You won't regret it" that honestly just makes you look like a shill.

KaKi87 commented 4 years ago

Well, I would have cracked AdGuard like any other app if necessary, but they're actually giving me beta keys, for both mobile and desktop. 😅 (I must re-ask for each device every year but they accept every year ^^)

Even the beta is very stable, but if you're afraid, know that the software doesn't even enforce me to install beta versions while I'm using a beta key.

Yes, I chose to install beta versions, because it is a product of great work so they deserve to receive the feedback they need, and I did reported a few small things from time to time.

HOWEVER, I have absolutely nothing against uBlock, and I use it at work. The reason why I use AdGuard on my personal PC and smartphone is because it blocks system-wide ads.

While I don't need that at work considering I'm only using professional software, I do need it at home considering I'm using apps that have in-app ads and trackers. And also just because I wanna disable my typing status on Discord and there's only AdGuard that can achieve that on Android xD

DraconicNEO commented 3 years ago

Is this idea being considered? FYI I'm leaving it open because I still think it's a better idea than just telling people to use Adguard (Which FYI is a Paid Service).

KaKi87 commented 3 years ago

I have no idea whether Navi's dev considered this feature. However, if I was the maintainer, I would not implement it. System-wide adblockers do their job very well. I already answered all your questions. Although, only because none of my friends asked for it, I can give you a legit key, which, like I said, I got for free using the beta application form. The key is valid until the beginning of May, I think.

DraconicNEO commented 3 years ago

I have no idea whether Navi's dev considered this feature. However, if I was the maintainer, I would not implement it. System-wide adblockers do their job very well. I already answered all your questions. Although, only because none of my friends asked for it, I can give you a legit key, which, like I said, I got for free using the beta application form. The key is valid until the beginning of May, I think.

I'm glad you're not Navi's Dev, I'd find it concerning for a developer of free open source software to be plugging paid software (Adguard) and citing it's existence for not adding a feature to the program.

DraconicNEO commented 3 years ago

@proninyaroslav What's your opinion of this idea? I think it's a good idea because it allows people to be block ads without having to pay a fee, like you have to do with Adguard (unless you're sponsored, have free beta keys, or have 'friends' who buy it for you).

KaKi87 commented 3 years ago

It's just not Navi's purpose to feature ad blocking. The implementation of this feature would take much more time than everything else while being less useful. Also, plenty of FLOSS are made to work with/for proprietary software. Proprietary !== evil.

DraconicNEO commented 3 years ago

It's just not Navi's purpose to feature ad blocking. The implementation of this feature would take much more time than everything else while being less useful. Also, plenty of FLOSS are made to work with/for proprietary software. Proprietary !== evil.

Just always want to have the last word don't you 😜

proninyaroslav commented 3 years ago

1) WebView doesn't have the ability to install extensions by design. Only GeckoView or something. 2) It's possible that some Chromium APIs simply do not work. 3) I think there will be problems updating this plugin as it will be "flashed" tn the code.

I'll leave this discussion for now, but I don't think it will be really implemented.

DraconicNEO commented 3 years ago

It would be nice if someone figures out a way to get a better form of ad/content blocking than the current one which is just some generic 'block trackers'.

Zehra commented 3 years ago

FOSS Browser has some decent ad blocking. (License is the same.) I'm not sure if it would be easier to implement it's ad blocking system or to write another from scratch however.

DraconicNEO commented 3 years ago

FOSS Browser has some decent ad blocking. (License is the same.) I'm not sure if it would be easier to implement it's ad blocking system or to write another from scratch however.

I suggested using Ublock Origin because it has the ability to configure filterlists. Many adblock browsers neglect this and thefore their ad-blockers become obsolete when Ad urls change.

Zehra commented 3 years ago

I suggested using Ublock Origin because it has the ability to configure filterlists. Many adblock browsers neglect this and thefore their ad-blockers become obsolete when Ad urls change.

It doesn't seem there is much, if any browsers which integrate UBlock Origin.(At least in F-Droid.) Most likely technical reasons won't prevent this feature from being implemented, but design decisions: #87 The good part is there is multiple free and open-source ad blockers, so perhaps there may be one with sufficient ad blocking capabilities.

DraconicNEO commented 3 years ago

I suggested using Ublock Origin because it has the ability to configure filterlists. Many adblock browsers neglect this and thefore their ad-blockers become obsolete when Ad urls change.

It doesn't seem there is much, if any browsers which integrate UBlock Origin.(At least in F-Droid.) Most likely technical reasons won't prevent this feature from being implemented, but design decisions: #87 The good part is there is multiple free and open-source ad blockers, so perhaps there may be one with sufficient ad blocking capabilities.

It doesn't actually need to be Ublock origin, it just can't have 1 single hard coded filter list, the real criteria for a good adblocker is the ability to add different filterlists from different sources as well as update them. This allows the ad blocker to be updated without putting that burden on the developer. It should also have the ability to hold multiple Filterlists (at least 40) and not just be a single filterlist. Most adblockers integrated in minimal browsers just have one filterlist hardcoded into them that must be updated with the browser, and as a result they are generally out of date most of the time and don't contain protection against anti ablocking or new forms of trackers not on the list.