-
Do you use it in the default “easy mode”, or do you use one of the advanced modes (enhanced easy mode, medium mode, or hard mode)
-
Do you use any additional filterlists (beyond the default lists).
- If so, what other lists?
-
Do you use uBO in conjunction with another layer of blocking (such as a DNS/domain blocklist)?
1 Like
To Start things off:
- I use medium mode in my primary browser. On most other browsers and devices, I use enhanced easy mode
- I do use some additional filterlists. I’m currently revising the lists I use which is what prompted this post.
- Easylist Annoyances
- uBlock Origin Annoyances
- Block outside intrusion into LAN
- Adguard URL tracking Protection
- I Am Py’s uBlock Combo List which includes both anti-malware and anti-URL tracking lists.
- Yes, currently I use NextDNS (configured similar to Yokoffing’s recommendations). I am currently debating whether it makes sense to limit NextDNS blocking to exclude the browser.
1 Like
Mine’s not too exciting. I use default settings, default lists plus…
- AdGuard URL Tracking Protection
- Block Outsider Intrusion into LAN
…and no additional blocking 
I have some custom rules but they’re mostly just exceptions for my own websites (like I have to bypass the Block Outsider Intrusion into LAN list to access Plex for example)
1 Like
Nothing wrong with simplicity I’d like to pare down my lists somewhat. But personally I find the internet much more bearable with the “annoyances” list enabled, this isn’t really a privacy thing for the most part, just a cleaner less cluttered browsing experience.
If you’d like just a little strong protection (without the burden/effort that comes with using “medium” or “hard” mode) the “enhanced easy mode” is a nice middleground that is quite “low cost” (low cost in terms of it doesn’t require extra effort on your part, and it rarely breaks things).
Essentially ‘enhanced easy mode’ is the same as uBO in its default configuration with a few small tweaks. (1) you also block 3rd party iFrames, and (2) you optionally add a short blacklist of frequent privacy violators to your dynamic filters
1 Like
I used to use hard mode, but since i got a new computer i havent had time to set it up again. Currently im using the recommended filters by PrivacyGuides & also bypass paywalls filters
I also use Quad9 DNS for malware if thats at all useful, but i think ublock already covers all their filters.
1 Like
From what what I’ve seen Quad9 is extremely effective. Out of the tested configurations, the only DNS service that scored better than Quad9 in terms of malware blocking was NextDNS
I’m not sure how uBO would compare as this test (and the corresponding test script you can use to test your own setup) only compares DNS level malware blocking.
1 Like
Huh, I didn’t know that. Thanks for letting me know!
1 Like
- On Mullvad Browser, I don’t change any of the uBO settings for the reasons listed in Privacy Guides. (MB uses default easy mode.) On Firefox, I use medium mode. I also employ a short blacklist that you mention in this comment.
- MB’s uBO configuration comes with Adguard URL Tracking Protection and EasyList Cookie. On Firefox, I add the lists recommended by Privacy Guides.
- Since I use Mullvad VPN, I use the DNS content blockers that come with the VPN’s GUI app.
1 Like
I use default lists, no custom rules. I have hard mode enabled by default and I “downgrade” to medium or easy mode with a keyboard shortcut until the website I’m visiting is usable.
My thinking, based on nothing other than intuition, is that I’d “blend in” more than if I used custom filters, as I’m using default setups. But I only allow as many “layers of trust” as needed for each site
1 Like
I’d like to hear more about how you set up these keyboard shortcuts. It sounds like a smart approach.
1 Like
I’m not the person to whom you responded, but here’s a link to a (slightly outdated and incomplete) guide on configuring keyboard shortcuts in uBO: Keyboard shortcuts · gorhill/uBlock Wiki · GitHub
After following the steps in the link and clicking on Manage Extension Shortcuts, click on Show 2 More. The “Relax blocking mode” shortcut (sandwiched between Open the dashboard and Toggle cosmetic filtering) should be what you’re looking for.
5 Likes
By default I only use the ads and tracker blocker built-in my browser vivaldi. I trust my vivaldi browser privacy as per their action and description on their blog (no feature tracking etc).Instead of having to trust both the browser and an extension, I only have to trust tje browser.
It support some of the same list as ubo. I added easy cookie list, which remive known cookie acceptance popup. Its very useful!!!
Sometimes I do need more power (youtube or otber website), so I enable ublock extension when needed, and disabke it afterward
Hard mode and NextDNS. Don’t really need to rely on lists that way, and I mostly only visit selected sites anyway.
Instead of having to trust both the browser and the extremely well regarded open source [uBlock Origin] extension with a track record of doing the right thing, I only have to trust the proprietary [Vivaldi] browser.
ftfy
Meanwhile: https://privacytests.org/
Why so much red?
1 Like
Yeah, while I do understand the appeal of trusting 1 entity, not 2.
In this particular case it is a choice between:
- Trusting 2 very well respected, well established, opens source projects with stellar reputations and long public track records
- Or trusting 1 (and a half, if you count Google who make the browser that Vivaldi modifies) partially proprietary Chromium based browser that doesn’t have a particularly good (or particularly horrible) reputation within the privacy community as far as I am aware.
I don’t have any particular issues with Vivaldi (I haven’t used it and have only done minimal research into it) so my intent is not to criticize or attack Vivaldi. But for me the ‘trusting 1 entity instead of 2’ argument doesn’t resonate in this particular case as I already have a lot of respect and accumulated trust built over many years in both uBO and Firefox.
3 Likes
From an interview I remember privacytests testing browsers with their default settings. Vivaldi prompts the user on the first launch about what amount of tracking and ad blocking they want, where privacytests choose the lowest option.
1 Like
While true (and a valid criticism of Privacy Tests methodology) the same is true for other Browsers on that list which score more highly than Vivaldi.
(Unless they change their methodology that website should be understood to give you an indication of what Browser’s have the strongest default settings, but NOT indicate the quality or privacy/security of a browser overall.
I would like to see how a well configured Firefox+uBO would stack up in the comparison. It should be more or less on par with Librewolf I imagine, possibly a bit stronger in some areas.
1 Like
Yeah, Vivaldi is just in a weird position since they provide various levels in the setup, so what do you call “out of the box” in that case. Just proves that you shouldn’t use privacytests as your only source I guess.
1 Like
Good point. That doesn’t cleanly fit into either category.
However it is worth noting that–though the user is asked to make a choice–the pre-selected option is no tracking protection, no adblocking (the worst of the 3 options from a privacy perspective), and if I just close my eyes and click enter on the keyboard with no other interaction I get no protection. Obviously nobody should go through an installer that way, but it is still a mild dark pattern that Vivaldi has built in to the installer, blocking trackers by default and leaving it up to the user to decide on adblocking would be a much more sensible default.
In my mind, for a test like this, the test should assume the stronger option for any choice that is explicitly presented to the user, since the people who care about this type of test will virtually all choose the stronger option when given a choice