I found I could browse and read really fast if I just controlled DNS^1
I did not use an ad blocker.
What I did was limit the available DNS information to a single domain, www.independent.co.uk
I experienced no significant delays or resource usage.
I was able to read the news no problem, fonts and formatting looked fine
There generally were no ugly image placeholders just white space
I tried blocking the ICO(1), PNG(2) and WOFF2(24) files. The page still looked great
The images are hosted on static.independent.co.uk
The video I suspect is hosted on a third party site, tracked and linked to adtech
I can easily download the images if I am really curious to see them but most images on news pages, unless they are photojournalism, are garbage, IMO
Anyway, I think it is quite easy to avoid all the tracking and ads, even without an ad blocker or disabling JS
The only things that "broke" on this website was the image display, offsite video sourcing and comments. Basically all the cruft :)
1. Truth is I did not even use DNS, the IP address was loaded into the memory of a loopback-bound proxy. No cookies were sent. No user-agent was sent. The only headers sent were Host and Connection
I would like to do this too, how did you go about doing it?
Are you familiar with running daemons? There are many different ones that can suffice.
The other question is browser you are using. I always assume the browser will ignore /etc/hosts. Otherwise the HOSTS file can provide a quick way to try this out.
- donations from small patrons
- donations from large patrons
These cover a lot of different business models.
If you want to make money at journalism (or just keep the lights on), focusing on ads when they've been a declining source of revenue for decades is kind of crazy. And that's not due to ad blocking.
Only extremists had an issue with the standard JPG banner ad at the top of every page.
Though those little rectangle GIFs were mint back in the day
What led you to that conclusion? (You may be right. I don't know.)
Not every problem is technical. Modern journalism is still just a participant in capitalism.
This is a business model problem, and figuring out how to build a healthy company and news organization with a reliable stream of revenues to allow long-term planning. Add in the pressure that most journalism is now private sector with growth expectations, such that the BBC and NPR are outliers.
uBlock Origin and rampant infotheft it is. And that's okay, I don't really care if they live or die. Just like they don't really care if I live or die.
It’s not your responsibility, you can simply not visit their site if you don’t wish to participate.
> Can we fund them with taxes (in a non-dystopian way that keeps political interference out of the equation)?
How can this possibly work?
Agreed, this is the best answer. If I don't agree with a sites choice in terms of background scripts/privacy/funding method, I just stop visiting it.
These companies have sucked all of the value out of journalism. Normally I'd be fine with that, but the tragedy of the commons on an entire vital industry seems to large to ignore here.
I'm working on a tool called amna (https://getamna.com). It manages your Chrome Windows for you as part of tasks. However, it does so by giving you a new profile of Chrome to work with Amna, without any extensions. Kind of like a brand new browser.
It's funny because most people who try Amna are like , whoa, how did you make Chrome so fast? They just don't realize that they have all of these unused and bloated extensions slowing them down. And ofc, after logging into Google, it syncs all their extensions and you're back to a crawl.
> Without ad-blockers per-page CPU time is 17.5 seconds.
This is completely insane. Of course it's a small fraction of that with good ad blockers.
Back when Firefox Mobile was near-unusably slow, ad blocking made it competitive. Overall, the experience (speed and UX annoyances) were roughly the same in both (the removal of ads making up for the clunky Firefox UI).
> In last year's tests, Save to Pocket injected one small stylesheet into every page, but this had no noticeable impact on performance.
Probably a good time to start using Pockets bookmarklet:
It might not be firefox's fault and I believe we should not endorse website browser exclusivity, but the fact is that if you have to use teams for instance, it is either the terribly inneficient and bug riddled app or the browser version which only supports calls on chromium based browsers.
Maybe you have to use Chrome and you have to use that particular extension.
Also, ADP (timesheets and paycheck system) frequently breaks for Firefox. Sometimes it just won't load any of its forms or grids when I'm using Firefox. I think they only test with Chrome.
Stop encouraging this behavior and cancel your service, then.
> Also, ADP (timesheets and paycheck system) frequently breaks for Firefox. Sometimes it just won't load any of its forms or grids when I'm using Firefox. I think they only test with Chrome.
Was the last time you checked like 10 years ago? Haven't seen this happen in quite some time.
No, ADP was broken for Firefox just a few months ago. My workplace is on the ESR release channel, so maybe it broke for the slightly older ESR version of Firefox?
The only way this will change is if their customers actually say something.
And I already upvoted the support ticket for firefox:
However, teams was just an example. Just to say that sometimes people can't just use firefox despite their efforts. Trust me I tried for months, and in both the companies I worked, either teams or Palo Alto VPN freak out with firefox. Had to adopt Brave for the working environment. I use firefox for everything else, though.
Sums up my experience not only on Dark Reader but a lot of other Dark mode extension. To the point I simply give up and use some specific CSS extensions. ( However I still get a white screen flash and then turn dark with every refresh or page load, wonder if anyone has a solution to that ).
The same with Ad Block. I just use NextDNS now and it is so much better.
I am not surprised. Dark Reader have to wait for the whole page downloaded before doing all the calculation on a page with lots of animations and other graphics image over features and CSS layout. ( And it is worst if the image has a white background and not transparent ) There are some page that are just problematic. So generally speaking it is not a very good browsing experience.
Aside from that, I found that using blue light safety glasses (e.g. Uvex) reduces the pain I get from white flashes significantly.
However, it was good to see that UBlock Origin is consistently performing better than most of the other "security" extensions.
Edit: It appears that this anchor is used more than once on that page so it takes you to the wrong link! This  is the image I wanted to link to!
 - https://www.debugbear.com/blog/chrome-extension-performance-...
 - https://dbb-dev.imgix.net/blog/2021-chrome-extension-perform...
Just that requires 112KB? Seems easily an order of magnitude bigger than it ought to be.
Each time you refresh, only the client is reloaded. To reduce loading times, you should have small clients and let the server so the heavy lifting.
All depends what sites you compare.
In terms of additional on-page CPU activity on example.com (and therefore likely on every page):
1Password +3 ms
ThinkVantage +5 ms
Enpass +15 ms
Bitwarden +25 ms
KeePassXC +28 ms
Dashlane +80 ms
RoboForm +121ms (also delays render by 115 ms)
LastPass +127 ms (also delays render by 105 ms)
NordPass +156 ms
Keeper +206 ms
Avira +219 ms
I would guess Apple's ecosystem (Safari, Keychain, iOS) would have similar functionality?
AFAIK it also leaks the list of all your logins (or rather the sites) through their favicon caching server. To turn this off you first have to login (wtf?).
Do you have more info on this?
this is an excellent write-up