Integrate ad blocking into Pale Moon

[Heartfelt]

you want to start blocking ads, so you pick and choose which way (= which extension) allows you to do this most comfortably?

I wouldn't want to see ad-blocking being incorporated into Pale Moon.

I agree here. I'm a big fan of the extension model. In this way, a user is able to choose the functionality that works best for his or her workflow. The browser is free from unwanted bloat and there are varying methods and options to choose between. You aren't stuck with the vision that one developer had. You are able to choose your own best configuration. I would argue that ad-blocking isn't core browser functionality. We already see that there are users on the board who don't make use of it.

[Moonchild]

Well, bottom line is: Pale Moon is there to enable the download and display of web page content, not disable it.

My point about regex being: unless you want the list to grow to a silly size to be checked against for every single connection made (slowing the browser down more and more and more as time passes and more is blocked), you're going to have to use regex.

[dark_moon]

Maybe combine this thread with this one http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4149

[Moonchild]

Maybe combine this thread with this one http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4149

Not really, since they are about two different things - integrating an ad-blocking feature in the core versus which ad blocker to choose in the other thread. Although it's a good thing to look at the other thread as well

[mgagnonlv]

Agreed. The topic referred to by Dark_moon is one good reason why ad-blocking should be left to an extension. Besides, AdBlock Plus and AdBlock Edge work fairly well and they are the ones who integrate lists, update them, make sure they work, etc. I prefer that Moonchild continues to work on making the best browser...

If there is something I get from the recent article about memory consumption by Adblocker, it is that there might be some code optimization that needs to be done either on AdBlock Plus's side or on Firefox (and Pale Moon) side. But then, is it possible that the author of the article has some vested interest in a web full of ads? How many "scientific studies" do we see that state that "coffee is good" (subsidized by coffee growers), that wine is good (subsidized by some wine industries), etc. With the improper state of mind, it is easy to blow up a real but minor issue.

[nctritech]

I am happy to have brought about a discussion on this subject, and Moonchild, I appreciate where you are coming from on this. Thanks to everyone for entertaining my suggestion. I appreciate it!

[pmjack]

I'm still in favor of a built-in ads blocker, but only if it's disabled by default.

Let me make my case. Believe it or not IE, of all browsers, ships with a built-in ads blocker since IE8! Any IE user can go to Microsoft's http://www.iegallery.com/en-us/trackingprotectionlists and subscribe to several manged lists there including Easylist and EasyPrivacy. Albeit, it's rather basic and doesn't block connections made from plugins like Flash. So youtube flash videos still show ads.

However, a killer feature unique to IE is its additional heuristic blocking function. Any IE user can turn on "Personalized Tracking Protection List" and IE will automatically block external connections after an adjustable re-occurrence rate. This idea is rather clever and protect its users even if they don't subscribe to any ad blocking list.

If IE (which still has the largest browser market shares combined from IE8 to IE11 btw) ships with a built-in ads blocker with no repercussion from anyone because it's disabled by dfault, why not Palemoon?

[Moonchild]

If IE (which still has the largest browser market shares combined from IE8 to IE11 btw) ships with a built-in ads blocker with no repercussion from anyone because it's disabled by dfault, why not Palemoon?

Because Pale Moon already has the option (by way of extensions, something that IE doesn't have and therefore is forced to include everything in the browser itself that users might possibly need). From a user point of view, enabling ad blocking in a browser core or in an extension is the same amount of work. From a browser point of view, adding code that's going to be disabled by default is wasteful. Another point: Because of the "free market" of extensions, people have also been able to switch extension (e.g. some don't like ABP anymore and have moved to ABE - others prefer blocking with NoScript or BluHell, or similar) when they felt the desire.

[dark_moon]

And including an adblocker can have make more problems.
For example if a website check which browser use the user. Maybe the website block then content for this browser, because they now all user of this browser didn't bring them money.

[Moonchild]

And including an adblocker can have make more problems.
For example if a website check which browser use the user. Maybe the website block then content for this browser, because they now all user of this browser didn't bring them money.

Actually, good point as well. sites may start boycotting Pale Moon for undermining their business.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

And including an adblocker can have make more problems.
For example if a website check which browser use the user. Maybe the website block then content for this browser, because they now all user of this browser didn't bring them money.

Actually, good point as well. sites may start boycotting Pale Moon for undermining their business.

Uhh...

Would it be convenient? Yes. Would it cause a backlash that could undermine the legitimacy of Pale Moon as a true contender in the market? Yes. Would if Pale Moon saw significant market share cause the ad providers to be even more aggressive in defeating ad blockers? Yes. You could see sites in response even blacklist Pale Moon or any browser that blocks ads from even being served as a worst case.

[Moonchild]

Sorry for repeating a point already made because I didn't recall. You'll have to excuse me, I've been trying to do a lot of things at once here, with a code overhaul and having to take over Linux building. The hot weather not helping brain function ;P

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Sorry for repeating a point already made because I didn't recall. You'll have to excuse me, I've been trying to do a lot of things at once here, with a code overhaul and having to take over Linux building. The hot weather not helping brain function ;P

Off-topic:
Well come to think about it what I did wasn't exactly the best course of action. So don't apologize dude! Melty brain is hard to deal with! Besides, as community members and Pale Moon users who are passionate about the product and project it is our responsibility to help. Also remind me about the linux thing next time you are in jabber.

[avada]

Part of Pale Moon's core mission is to provide an as neutral and unbiased browser as possible. Providing people with integrated ad-blocking would go directly against that, because I'd have to make decisions on a per-provider and per-site basis what to display and what to block. That would be creating (strong) bias in the browser itself, and it would impact all sites visited, large and especially small.
Don't underestimate the legitimate income for small site owners. Do I want to support undermining those sites? No.

So, I won't be putting an ad-blocker in Pale Moon's core, and instead let every user decide for themselves if, what and how to block on sites they visit.

You don't have to provide any blocking rules. Just users to make rules themselves or load rulesets. It'd also be useful for blocking other stuff than ads. (Sot it could be called a content blocker/filter) A lot of websites have a lot of heavy garbage that wastes performance and impairs usability. I often hide such with ABP element hiding helper.

As an aside to the OP: Compiled JS code is about as fast as c/c++ code these days. There's no large difference. Large parts of the browser front-end are written in JS and variants.

I seriously doubt that. I never saw anything made in JS/XML/HTML with some degree of complexity that wasn't sluggish, crappy and memory hungry. The FF frontend being a prime example of these properties. Actually I think all of these should be dropped for something that integrates a bytecode format (JAVA/.net/pnacl like) for code and a graphics layer (opengl/dx/mantle like) for graphics. (+Add some standard framework atop so that the common bloke can make a webpage too)

[Moonchild]

I seriously doubt that. I never saw anything made in JS/XML/HTML with some degree of complexity that wasn't sluggish, crappy and memory hungry.

I suggest you look again, then. In addition to JITing hot scripts, Pale Moon also supports Odinmonkey (specific optimizations for asm.js which aims to close the gap between JS and native even further). Javascript is treated as managed code. It hasn't been treated as interpreted code for a long time with the exception of one-shot or few-shot scripting (where compiling would take longer).
And if you want to make a point, I suggest you don't mention "js is memory hungry" and "java" as an alternative in a single breath

[Vaka+]

Try https://addons.mozilla.org/ru/firefox/addon/urlfilter/ this addon.

[jangdonggun1234]

Hi
If you want to use the best and fastest AdBlocking software, take a look at Privoxy.
I can do Element Hiding Helper with CSS injection, Greasemonkey with JS injection and much more.

[Moonchild]

Hi
If you want to use the best and fastest AdBlocking software, take a look at Privoxy.
I can do Element Hiding Helper with CSS injection, Greasemonkey with JS injection and much more.

Nice idea but using a proxy has a lot of drawbacks as well, not in the least the lack of site-specific control, and up to breaking secure site connections.

[nctritech]

It seems that the biggest objection to adding ad blocking to the browser core is that "ad blocking" has a lot of sociopolitical attachment involved. Instead, how about a "filtering engine" that filters pages and just happens to use the same rule definition "language" as ABP? Don't provide any rules by default, obviously (maintain neutrality) but allow the user to "subscribe" to published filtering rules in the same way ABP does and to right-click and create new rules based on the current page content. Effectively the same user-facing functionality that ABP offers but with no default filtering configuration and none of the stickiness that comes with calling it "ad blocking."

One of my favorite extensions is called Nuke Anything Enhanced; it's terribly useful for removing transparent GIFs stretched over images to apply click-for-next-image navigation (but having the side effect of right-click not clicking the image). Market it that way: allowing users to customize their view of a web page by selectively removing elements.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

That has no place in in the core of a web browser. It is NOT the job of the web browser to filter content. This is what add-ons are for. Such as Adblock Latitude.