Running Unbound on my gateway with a curated adblock list. Easy setup, network-wide ad blocking on every device / browser.

▲

gruez 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

DNS based adblockers have strictly worse adblocking capabilities than manifest v3 adblockers. I mean, sure they have their uses (eg. blocking ads/telemetry in apps or whatever), but bringing them up in this context doesn't really make sense.

▲

NeutralWanted an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'd rather have 100% of devices on my network have near 90% of all ads effectively ad blocked than deal with installing ad blockers on all possible clients. Sure, I use an ad blocker on my personal machine with firefox, but none of the phones besides mine does. None of the family that visits do. Barely any of my friends that come over do. None of the TVs and streaming devices and whatnot do. I am blocking more ads from ever reaching my network than the majority of people who only use browser based adblockers do.

▲

hnuser123456 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I thought the whole issue with manifest v3 is that prevented extensions from being able to block connections? That DNS blocking is actual blocking, while the extension can only do filtering after the connections are made.

	▲	gruez 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>I thought the whole issue with manifest v3 is that prevented extensions from being able to block connections? No. See: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/d... >The chrome.declarativeNetRequest API is used to block or modify network requests by specifying declarative rules. This lets extensions modify network requests without intercepting them and viewing their content, thus providing more privacy.
	▲	Daedren 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They can block, it just has to be declarative unlike before. It's better than DNS adblockers since you can still do content filtering, CSS/JS injections and whatnot.

▲

cmeacham98 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Some ads (e.g. I know YT ads used to be this way, haven't looked recently) can't be blocked at the network level because they are served from the same domain/servers as the content.

▲

NeutralWanted 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, but have YT Premium for the family. Don't know how anyone can use YT without it. And it blocks 90% of ads, the rest are tolerable / go mostly unnoticed.

▲

Cider9986 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>Don't know how anyone can use YT without it.

With an adblocker..

Why would you need yt premium with an adblocker?

▲

soniczentropy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The funniest part of this is that you're paying to still see 10% of the ads. I use Firefox and see 0% of the ads for free

▲

microtonal an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use a browser with a built-in blocker (Brave Origin) and I don't see ads in YouTube.

	▲	Izkata 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Same with ublock origin on firefox, been years since I've seen any ads. There was a period where they tried to break through the blocking and occasionally I'd see one, but it kinda seems like they gave up.

▲

layer8 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You’re just saying that 90% of your internet usage is YouTube?