Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Hi author, if you're here on HN please consider ditching sketchy extensions like Ghostery (sells your user data) and Adblock+ (participates in paid bypass of "acceptable ads" program) for the open-source and user-focused uBlock Origin (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock).

Also, if you haven't tried Firefox since the quantum days come back and give it another try.

Another point for Firefox over all the other Chromium based ones: Chromium is actively working on stifling extensions, especially ad and tracking blockers, dubiously so in the name of privacy and security of all things: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/ (primarily the deprecation of webRequest in favour of the severely, deliberately limited declarativeNetRequest).

While I suppose Brave with its integrated ad blocking is going to keep it working, I believe it will be wildly unsustainable for Chromium based browsers to keep the V2 APIs for extensions amidst the torrent of upstream changes coming from Chromium. So the only functioning blockers these browsers are probably going to have are built in ones - and only if they care enough.

Disclaimer: I work for Ghostery. I respond to protect my own name, not my employer.

Ghostery is not selling user data.

Let me point out a few facts:

All browser-side code is open source https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-extension and https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-dnr-extension.

Yes, Ghostery has a subscription based business model and that another reason to great care in protecting users privacy. Take a look on how we use blind tokens to authenticate subscribed users while searching on glowstery.com https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-search-extension (notice that even when you are a subscribed user there is no session cookie so queries cannot be linked).

Hope this sheds some light on the accusation. If that’s not enough, I do sincerely recommend uBlock Origin or AdGuard on Apple’s platform.

> Let me point out a few facts:

Ohhhh, let me too!

"Ghostery makes money by tracking the trackers while blocking them and selling data about third party trackers, which it calls Ghostrank."

"Ghostery calls it Consumer Messaging Platform, which allows the company to message users directly in the web browser. According to Ghostery, it will be used for product announcements and promotions. What makes this problematic is that it is enabled by default."

You aren't fooling anyone.

> All browser-side code is open source

Indirectly relevant - It is not the client source code that is ever the issue. It is the server side code and the business model that matters.

Client can be even closed source, if it is zero-telemetry. There is no danger for user privacy there.

But if the client is not zero-telemetry, and is phoning home, at the very least private information like IP address will be transferred and we have no way of knowing what is done with it.

The original post talks exactly about the problem with dependency on the server side which for a browser (and an ad blocker for that matter ) should ideally be zero with the option to opt-in for things like updates.

Firefox is truly amazing today. I keep a chrome instance for Google docs which seems to work better there, the rest I do in FF which is better for everything else...

I just tried Chrome after jumping on FireFox bandwagon 2 years ago and honestly, I was not impressed. Chrome feels “jittery” while Firefox feels “snappy”. It’s the way a page loads. Hard to describe.

Firefox is the top choice for me. I recommend it properly and not just for the sake of supporting Firefox. That said, please support Firefox. We should not be allowing Big Tech behemoths from taking away the window into the internet.

If I were to complain to Firefox team - please stop adding shit, I don’t want Pocket, I don’t want anything but just the way it currently is. Just allow us to browse. Fast.

I'm curious about the subjective jittery v. snappy experience you describe.

Perhaps Chrome shows more intermittent reflows so you observe more of the page rendering as it's taking place? Can you describe it in more detail? I presume Firefox is doing something right but what might it be?

> * I just tried Chrome after jumping on FireFox bandwagon 2 years ago and honestly, I was not impressed. Chrome feels “jittery” while Firefox feels “snappy”. It’s the way a page loads. Hard to describe.*

I am on a pretty powerful Mac and it's exactly the opposite, sadly. Firefox just... stutters. When downloading pages, when interacting with pages, it's there and it's super annoying.

Chrome in the meantime is just absolutely instant no matter what I do.

Doesn't help me wanting to stick with Firefox. :(

I have the opposite experience. Any non-chromium (i.e. non-V8) browser feels sluggish on JS-heavy workloads.

I think it's at least worth having the discussion about "acceptable ads". While reasonable people can disagree, I personally think that unobtrusive advertising that doesn't harvest your data should be a valid business model.

Maybe, but AB+'s acceptable ads program does not whitelist "acceptable ads", it whitelists "acceptable ads who have paid AB+ 30% of their ad revenue". Bonus points for the obvious conflict of interest of AB+ privately determining what "acceptable" means (where remember, if they say yes they make money).

AB+ "acceptable ads" exists to solicit bribes from websites to display their ads.

I'm not directly disputing what you're saying, just wanted to point out for context that (1) you have to reach some threshold before you have to start paying AB+ to whitelist you (I don't know much about the business of advertising so unclear how high a bar this is to clear); (2) technically an independent entity gets to determine what's "acceptable" (I don't know how independent it actually is in practice).

> AB+ "acceptable ads" exists to solicit bribes from websites to display their ads.

Surely you admit that the "acceptable" criteria are at least directionally correct? So even if you find the model icky, it's also "improving" the overall quality of ads (i.e. making them less intrusive/obnoxious/annoying)?

Given the shortcomings of AB+, what do you think is a better way of (1) defining acceptable ad standards; (2) generating enough revenue as an organization to build/maintain ad whitelists? Genuine questions to provoke discussion :)

> you have to reach some threshold before you have to start paying AB+ to whitelist you

Irrelevant. I (and 99% of other users) spend the majority of my time on the internet on websites large enough to meet the threshold.

> technically an independent entity gets to determine what's "acceptable"

Skimming the first page of that "independent" committee's bylaws: they self describe as being "hosted by eeyeo" (the developer of AB+).

> So even if you find the model icky, it's also "improving" the overall quality of ads (i.e. making them less intrusive/obnoxious/annoying)?

I don't care about via what mechanism advertisers improve their ads - that is their job to worry about not mine.

> what do you think is a better way of defining acceptable ad standards

I, the user, choose what is acceptable in my browser, not a for-profit company that benefits from bribes to whitelist ads. Believe it or not I do whitelist some websites with what I consider acceptable ads, but I do not and will never use an ad whitelist.

> generating enough revenue as an organization to build/maintain ad whitelists

Ad whitelists that generate revenue essentially always have a conflict of interest.

Web advertising's abysmal reputation isn't some freak accident. Websites and advertisers should work together to create actually acceptable ads rather than trying to bribe adblockers and hope users don't notice.

Just whitelist some pages that reasonably uses ads with ublock origin. Putting a profit-seeking entity into the picture is not a good idea.

Then let people who believe that go stare at ads. Submitting yourself to manipulation out of a sense of duty to the viability of a business model is deeply weird. Alternatively, if you believe those ads don't affect you then why does it matter whether they're displayed in your browser or not?

I do see potential value in being informed by an ad of a type of product I didn’t know existed.

The type of ads I strongly dislike for reasons beyond like, breaking pages and tracking, are ones that repeatedly show for something which I already know exists in order to promote a brand.

If someone wants to put up an ad for “we make any bronze parts”, well, I looked to see if any of them were cheap enough to get as a gag (none of them were, but still).

If a company wants to remind me over and over of their company name that everyone is already familiar with, that is irritating.

If you didn't have a pre-existing desire for that product which led you to search out its existence then why was having the desire for it instilled in you a good thing? Why deliberately create the hole of dissatisfaction within yourself?


You see a potential for dissatisfaction, I see a potential for opportunity.

Also, allocating time for “searching for products that I don’t know of but which seems like they might exist, which would improve things” seems, slow an inefficient?

Like, I previously had thought “it is bad that printers basically all have drm-ish ink cartridges.” When I saw an ad for a printer which instead had refillable ink tanks, I regarded that as an improvement. (As it happened the printer had some unfortunate bugs where it semi-frequently needs to be forcibly rebooted by unplugging it, but it is otherwise seems to work nice.)

I don’t see how this is not a benefit? It isn’t like I otherwise wouldn’t be using a printer, or like it increased average rate of printer purchasing non-negligibly . It mostly just changed which printer got purchased.

Like, I suppose if every time I thought “I wish there was a product such the [x]”, I put a description of that into a web form (in terms of keywords I guess?) and then when a product was released, the company releasing the product could send info to the company running the website demonstrating the novel properties, and then the website could notify all the people whose descriptions appeared to match, and that could be an alternative to ads?

I really do not buy many things, if your concern is that ads would compel me to buy too many things, in like, a consumerist way.

(Actually, the example with the printer was when I was living with my parents, so it was actually my dad who bought the printer after I pointed out it existed, and after he evaluated the price taking the ink into account.)

As a consumer you should ask yourself: do the ads provide any benefit to me? And if there is none, you should just block the them.

Sure it's nothing new that companies try to show you ads. But in the same spirit I always turned down volume or switched channel on TV when ads were on. This was in the past. These days I don't even bother watching channels with ads.

I personally would not be sad if the whole ad industry became less significant and we had more paid services. They also tend to be longer-lasting than many ad-sponsored services. Also I am the customer and can demand certain things, whereas with a free service I can demand nothing and I am not the customer.

As a student I made a few small Android games with ads. They brought in a few hundred bucks. Then I was blocked by Admob for whatever reason. At this point I learned what a crooked business this is and I swore that I will never make an ad-sponsored app again. If I have an idea for a product/service that will only work in that setting it will not even go on my list.

There’s no free lunch, the ads provide you with the ability to see things on the internet for free.

I think FLOSS people ought to disagree with you.

Also, this very site has no ads. Neither does wikipedia. Nor librivox, or Project Gutemberg...

Many of these projects are funded by sponsors that couldn’t exist without internet ads.

HN has ads for YC companies.

As I said.. I would prefer to pay for valuable content. Then the rest splits into two categories. Truly free (maybe with donations, or totally free) and a load of crap content I don't need to see anyways.

What's an "acceptable ad"? The text only ads Google sold way back in their infancy seemed acceptable but the goalposts were constantly shifted towards the distracting, privacy disrespecting, security nightmare which is now an integral part of the hellscape that is the "modern web". Why should I trust the advertising industry again?

Is advertising a valid business model? For some apps and services perhaps, but it's not the only option and in many cases serves the business and users poorly. I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the best products I've used recently have actually put some thought into how to monetize.

Static pictures or text, no JS, and nothing more is such a big change for current ads people they can't even comprehend it.

There is e.g. https://www.ethicalads.io/ which I have chosen to allow in my uBlock Origin settings, since their ads aren't too obtrusive and they (at least claim that they) only target ads using IP geolocation and site keywords. But I'm sure it's hard for them to grow their business, since most people in the target audience will probably be using an ad blocker in which they will have to make a specific exception.

I agree, which is why I run Privacy Badger, which only blocks domains performing tracking and ignoring my "do not track" preference. Turns out that just doing that blocks 99% of ads and triggers anti-adblock detection. Which begs the question, of course.

Advertising shits in your head.

It was a surprise to me, but there is a group of people - possibly native to tech circles, possibly a broader group - who appear to be genuinely angry about the existence of advertising as a thing. Let alone if they personally have to view ads.

It is a bit confusing to be honest. There seems to be something very upsetting happening but exactly what is causing that response I can't pick out.

The problem is not "ads". The problem is in the "ad-funded" business models. The ad-funded economy is one of the main contributors to the destruction of the fabric of our communities.

Ad-funded business models make it impossible for the people to "vote with their wallets", so all of the good things about any kind of market dynamics are removed, and we are left only with its disadvantages.

- It treats everyone as "eyeballs", removing any need for a content producer to care about quality. As long as it generates clicks it goes. It has turned even the most reputable of media channels into tabloids.

- By having no regard for quality, it's a tragedy of the commons.

- By removing any chance of nuance, it makes all of the audience to be bucketed into "pass/filter" algorithms, and the only concern is to make sure that the content is so bland and innocuous that no one within their bubble reach can complain about it.

- It has taken mass-consumerism and general public conformity to 11.

- Big Tech turn all of that crap into profit no matter what.

- It is feeding and coddling the coming and current generation of techies into lame drones with no imagination and will to affect actual change. It's creating an army of people who think that the status quo is good.

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think of how the "ad supported" content economy is correlated with the increased polarization of people, the growing tribal divide and the isolation of individuals. I honestly think that we should be treating the majority of "ad supported" websites as heavy polluters of our minds and our societies.

You can't pick out the issue with large corporations sinking billions of dollars into trying to manipulate your behavior?

No, I can't. There are many things that influence my behaviour and that is low down on the list of influences that worry me. Even Hacker News is probably a worse influence than the average ad. What do you think is the problem here?

And it isn't billions, you need to normalise by audience size. Any company spending billions to influence my behaviour is bankrupt, I don't have enough money for them to make that back.

Okay, so you actually can pick out the issue. You just don't mind being manipulated by corporations. Fine, but strange that the angle you took was "aw shucks geez guys I'm so confused about all this".

If a dog gives someone puppy eyes, the common response is to play with the dog. If a corporation waves something that people want at them, the response is to buy it.

But one of those things would get a broadly supported "aw, how wholesome!" from the crowd. The other appears to get actual, honest, anger. It is unclear to me why the difference in responses is so large.

Everything a person encounters influences them, and generally people are comfortable with good and bad influences in their lives. The fact that corporations are motivated to sell things doesn't even mean their influence is bad. The fact that I bought a rice cooker because it was being advertised to me doesn't change the fact that I am better off owning the rice cooker. I bought it because it improves my life. So why the hate on ads?

Ads are a plague, no doubt. That’s why they need to use such heavy handed tactics to get you to see them, like holding your attention hostage before you can see the video clip that you actually wanted to see.

You have just normalized this absurdity because it’s been around for so long. Ads are terrible for people’s mental health, because the best way to sell a product is to create a need for it. In other words, by making you feel incomplete and insufficient.

I don't want ads on my web pages and TV in the same way I don't want ads in my novels, on my bedroom ceiling, in my bathroom, in my car, in my mail, the same way I don't want to be proselytised to, recieve junk mail, spam, view propoganda, etc.

once you understand not desiring one, you can understand not wanting the rest, since they're all fundamentally the same thing.

The thing is: you paid for your bedroom ceiling, your bathroom and your car. You also paid for your computer & screen, but you did not pay for the content you're watching on it.

I am entirely with you on not wishing any ads at all, anywhere. I just think that it's not realistic to remove ads entirely on the open web today.

This should not be an excuse for the way ads are being run today. It is fundamentally broken. Incentives and attributions should be changed.

There's a couple of issues with this line of thinking, but I'd also just observe that this split is technically an additional tangent. My point up above was that of course people understand why people don't like advertising, and that most people don't like advertising themselves. It's not some unknown or alien thing on which to feign ignorance. Indeed it borders on universal human experience. Like the old quip about "everyone understands atheism, I just believe in one less god than you", practically everyone understands an inherent distaste for advertising, some just want less advertising than others and some actively want to produce and push it on others while not having it forced upon themselves. After we've established that, now we get into if or when it's ok or justified.

Firstly, I'd urge everyone to deny the initial premise. The right or desire to be free of or avoid advertising has nothing inherently to do with the act of paying money or being able to amass or claim property rights over things. That's not why i hate junk mail. That's not why I don't want to be proselytised to. That's not why i shouldn't have to view propoganda. Of course, the addition of private property rights issues is one more barrier that advertising would have to overcome in order to be deemed acceptable, but on the contrary, i think a better premise is to start with WHY or WHEN advertising should be allowed, given that it is almost universally loathed or objected to. I wouldn't want to live in a world where people are subjected to advertising because they haven't payed for things or own things or content. That's dystopian.

At the very least, I think people should have the ability to say no, and for that desire to be respected and not interferred with. I think there's good grounds for advertising, or at least many types of advertising, to not be allowed in many public areas or via many public resources. I have no problems with companies or organisations not delivering material or allowing access to general consumer goods as a consequence of saying no to advertising, but that's different to users saying "no i don't want ads and I don't want to be tracked" and having the companies go "but I'm gonna do it anyway and you shouldn't be ad blocking".

Finally, I always come back to what the web is, or at least what it was, in that I deny the underlying unspoken premise that the web is there to run business models or pay money for content to be put on it. If businesses can make it on the web, good for them. But if they can't, the web is more important than business.

To be clear, the internet and web and content came first, then the businesses arrived and co-opted it for their purposes. Now the narrative is trying to be rewritten so that you can't possibly let people consume material on the web for free without people paying for it via advertising.

So let me be clear: I pay for my computer. I pay for the bandwidth of my ISP. This allows me access to a public network of computers where I can make requests to other computers on the network to send me information. People can also pay to put content up on that network to be requested by others, but no one forces them to do so, AND, no one forces them to answer my computer's request for content. When i use an ad-blocker, the main activity is for me to determine client-side that there are certain computers I don't want to talk to, and certain content I don't want to see. In an ideal world I wouldn't be tracked also, but that's just an additional abuse or manipulation of the system.

Several years after this whole system had been operating just fine, companies arrived and started trying to make money, and today we have a feigned victim-complex retcon narrative about how people not paying for content should view ads.

On the contrary, if companies do not want me viewing their content: don't put it up on a public open network that's publicly searchable, publicly addressable, and that responds to my requests for that content. Put it behind a paywall, put it behind authorisation, put it on your own intranet or network.

Keep the open web as the web. Keep it open. Keep it in good faith and respect user's explicit preferences. The hosting computer decides what content it wants to make available and who it wants to talk to. And my computer decides who it wants to talk to and what content it wants to see.

And in an ideal world, advertising should be delegated to the bare minimum of places because the starting assumption should be that most users, rationally, justifiably, and understandably, don't want it.

How is it confusing? Some people don't want ads in their faces. Especially when they are generally bullshit.

Many of the best and brightest minds of our time are being employed by megacorps that exist solely to devise new ways to trick grandmothers into clicking on an ad that claims “This one weird trick that doctors don’t want you to know”. How is that not pathetic? How is that not a giant waste of human potential? If the Soviet Union had funneled their computer science students to thinking of ways to manipulate boomers, we would call it evidence of their moronic inefficiency.

And our names were Tyler Durden.

Yea this confuses me too. Many advertisements have made me aware of things that I would be interested in but didn't know about. Marketing and advertising can be valuable to those on the receiving end.

If people genuinely thought this, there could be a market where people pay money to be advertised to or targeted towards.

In many ways this is what trade magazines are/were, but the absence of a general market for such generalised interest is so absent its the kind of witness evidence that is deafening in its silence.

Online ads benefit the little guy. Nike and others can afford billboard and TV ads. If you've ever tried starting up a small Shopify business, online ads are all you're going to get.

The problems are the power Facebook and Google have over the ad market, that increases ad costs for businesses by a lot (I've read, one third, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more). But online ads are a lifeline for small businesses. Regulate the big players, and keep the ads flowing. Some people here want ads to be abolished, but you'd just strengthen existing brands, i.e. huge multinationals. That's all it would achieve.

That's why real issue with Brave, frankly. I still use Brave as my default browser because it's the only one that allows me to allow all ads by default, and only turn on Brave Shields for specific websites. Even uBlock Origin deprecated their default-allow, and it now breaks many websites completely if you try it. But I don't like "anti-ad" sentiment.

Sad state of affairs. But people who oppose Big Tech domination, and also want ads abolished, don't realize that doing so would prevent millions of small businesses from getting off the ground. Chrome's killing the open web, but might be saving the "open economy" by trying to disincentivize adblocking (by blocking "annoying ads" by default, and implementing ManifestV3). It's a mess.

I think noone argues against ads being useful, when dosed properly. Same like sleeping pills for example. The problem is that ad-based business can not resist the temptation to "overdose" the user. This is how we got in the situation that infuriates so many people (almost a billion devices use an ad-blocker). People just do not want to see so many ads everywhere.

Let's take Brave for example. Open home page of brave.com and you get:

"The best privacy online

Browse privately. Search privately. And ditch Big Tech."

And a nice screenshot.

The problem is this is not what Brave works/looks like when you open it the first time.

By their own research [1], on your first run Brave will immediately "phone home" 80(!) times. The original post discussed here talks about mundane features like installing an extension not working without contacting their servers about it.

Then, the user is immediately welcomed by ads for several crypto services right there in the browser on the right hand side (curiously hidden on their home page screenshot). I guess that:

"Browser that shares your private information with us and shows you ads you do not really want" would not fly well as a tagline.

Having this behavior turned on by default is where user frustration begins and is later then just amplified by even worse behavior, again incentivized by the fact that the business model is simply dependent on ads, like the other big tech.

[1] https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/

They could have been, but there's too much abuse going on in the advertising space. In regards of online advertising: it's distracting, manipulative, infringes privacy and wastes bandwidth. Online life without ads is like going out to a park, out of the city center. You just can't believe how noisy it was before.

It is possible to do ads acceptably, but pre-loading a list of offenders who get around your choices is not it.

If you want to do ads online, here are the initial rules of engagement: https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html

FYI, when I tried to follow your link, Safari on Mac blocked your link with a warning that the certificate is invalid. Oddly, the "details" section (which helpfully cannot be cut-and-pasted) mentioned that "the website's certificate will be valid 0 days from now". I'm guessing this means there is a clock or timezone error, either on your end or my laptop. Ignore or look into at your option.

Well that's funny, the cert is valid until 2022-01-16.

It might have something to do with the LE intermediate root rotation - Chrome variants and Firefox are happy with the chain, but Safari's CA trust store may not have the new intermediate CA in place.

I'll upgrade the system over the holidays in any case, and the new lighttpd finally has native support for CA chain inclusions. That should make all the clients happy again.

Do ad blockers now block first party images, or something? I'm fine with a site just hosting static images by itself. Typically I think the bad behavior comes from the third party ad networks. So, the way to get acceptable ads is for everyone to run an ad blocker. If we block the abusive entrants from the market, it might give the good ones room to grow.

isn't that for the consumer of the data to decide?

in fact, I'll go so far as to say that's exactly what most proper ad-blockers are: user implemented acceptable ads. if the user wants to view ads, they have it in their power to whitelist a site or domain.

perhaps a business could be made where you provide a list of acceptable ads and people can pay money to view them. on the one hand, I think that's a more reasonable business model than the one you've suggested, as at least it aligns the user's interest with their own explicit actions.

of course, there is the little problem that such a business model would probably never work, because fundamentally, most people don't want ads. they tolerate them because they don't know they could have a choice otherwise...

The only acceptable ads are those that are unobtrusive and people have opted-into seeing while not being incentivized to see them (for example being paid to see ads as this is a perverse incentive).

For example when I share this link to my favorite ad:


and you decide to check it out, it satisfies the above criteria.

That sounds exactly like what Brave is trying to do. They're pretty upfront about that, unlike Adblock, last I checked. It's not hard to check out of this in Brave in any case.

I'm not sure the author has checked the same for the alternatives he mentions. The closed source nature of Vivaldi (their tarballs only contain their copy of Chromium) makes it a weird recommendation, in any case.

For example, the text advertisements on the side of Advent of Code. It wouldn't feel right to block those.

As long as that discussion begins by defining "acceptable ads" as "ads that I accept", not "ads which the advertiser doesn't think are quite that bad."

And by "ads that I accept" I mean "ads that I can turn off".

At the current state, I don't think there is such thing as "acceptable ads".

I can see why you would say that, but remember ads are ultimately paid for by the person watching the ad. If the company didn’t have to pay marketing expenses, it would be able to sell the product cheaper.

"Acceptable ads" still track you. Now it's only a racket run by the current owners of AdBlock.

Cool. Then websites can sell direct placement banners hosted on their own servers.

uBlock origin put Ghostery lite in list of good replacement for people on safari so I'm confused now.


uBlock for Safari is run by some mostly unrelated third party, and what you linked specifically is an issue by "ghost".

“ghost” is GitHub’s deleted user placeholder, not somebody affiliated with Ghostery.

I wasn't intending to imply it is (tbh I internalized that as common knowledge), my intended point is the issue with this Ghostery recommendation was created by some random unknown and presumably unrelated Github user.

impact > intent

You are not being attacked by parent. Parent is merely pointing out the difference so other users are aware of it. You could just thank them for the clarification and move on.

I know, the link I refer to is original uBlock origin repo talking about that and suggest to use couple of alternative where Ghostery lite is one of them.

And was approved and even pinned.

Hi, author here. Thanks for the suggestions.

1. I haven't followed Ghostery, AdBlock+ devs since I started using Brave. Sad to learn of their status. I will look at uBlock Origin. 2. Firefox was a memory and CPU hog and I always usef it as a test browser or a secondary browser, until Brave. Then I started using Chrome as secondary and dropped Firefox. I will give Firefox another try. Thanks again.

You could try out GNU IceCat, it's the FLOSS version of Firefox. Normal FireFox seems to have memory leaks or something that would use a lot of cpu/ram.

I want to use Firefox as my daily driver, but the inability to remap the keyboard shortcuts for tabs prevent me using it. On Linux Firefox maps Alt+# to tabs.

I have two problems with that. Firstly on Windows Firefox uses the Control key, so now I have to remember a different shortcut for my work PC vs my gaming PC. Secondly I run i3wm and alt is my mod key.

> Secondly I run i3wm and alt is my mod key.

Out of curiosity, why do you use alt instead of super?

What about PrivacyBadger and Disconnect? Are they even needed at this point?

I have a PiHole with a fairly huge block list (~1.2M entries) and uBlock Origin and I keep wondering if I stay only with them, will it be enough?

Pi-Hole and uBO are enough by themselves.

> To benefit from uBlock Origin's higher efficiency, it's advised that you don't use other content blockers at the same time (such as Adblock Plus, AdBlock). uBlock Origin will do as well or better than most popular ad blockers. Other blockers can also prevent uBlock Origin's privacy or anti-blocker-defusing features from working properly.


Thank you. Uninstalled everything else, let's see how it goes.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact