is uBO Lite actually better than uBO because you can configure it to be less invasive?
>>107868239Yes blocking less ads is good for you
>>107868272but you have the same filter lists in lite
>>107868239Not really. Adblockers have to be invasive to work, because any technology available to the website author is usable for creating what could reasonably be considered an advertisement. With that said if gorhill wanted to draw a somewhat useful trustliness distinction he could have a tier above basic and below optimal that contained only dNR and CSS rules and no scriptlets.
Are you smarter because your room temperature IQ produces less thoughts and is therefore less wasteful?
>>107868239It doesn't work for me on youtube for some reason.
>>107868239>t. what makes uBO lite lite?
>>107869331Basic network filtering doesn't work on youtube, you need optimal or complete mode.
>>107868239i switched to edge the second ublock origin stopped working on chrome. I am inclined to switch back if it lite actually works though. Any ads slipping by?
>>107870080I tried Chrome for a few days with uBOL and didn't notice any ads, but then again I don't use many websites. I'm back to Firefox uBO now though.
>>107868239>because you can configure it to be less invasive?"Invasive" how? "Oh no, gorhill might be stealing my data" (with this open source app that anyone can verify isn't doing that)? I personally consider every website I visit tracking everything I do and logging it to be more "invasive". But I guess if google says otherwise, who are you gonna believe?
