Posted by StrLght 12/7/2025
I have used them both paid and free and they are not good. I will pick just one point - support. It's pathetic. Maybe because it's non existent. I stopped paying for it, started using free, then removed it altogether.
uBlock Origin really is that good as others are saying. I haven't really needed anything else. Ads in other apps? Well, that's a hit or miss but then a lot of my finance/investment related apps anyway don't work if I use any ad blocking on local network or device label, sadly. Tweaking around it is how I needed support with NextDNS and then realised I've been paying for something with essentially no support.
I'm pretty aggressive with the block lists I have selected and expect to fiddle with it lots, but I have a second (much more "reasonable") profile that family uses and it works great (still catches a huge amount of stuff that browser adblockers miss) despite never needing any fiddling. It's been great for me.
Mobile: Blockada to prevent apps from reaching their ad servers. NewPipe.
Desktop: Freetube.
uBO has the bonus to have an element picker that I use to remove the empty areas where ads would show. I do it for sites that I use often. I also remove some useless menus and headers. I particularly hate sticky ones.
Could you please share what exactly is wrong? I haven't used AI to write this post, that's just my style. I am still figuring it out, so I'd love to hear any feedback
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
Just pretend "this is AI slop" is also in the list. Don't complain about that; complain about the information being wrong or something else insightful. Discuss the conclusions that were included in the article. Assume (also per the guidelines) that the author reviewed the article before posting; they are signing off on its validity and therefore any callouts, AI-related or otherwise, should be calling that validity into question rather than simply saying that a particular tool was used for getting the words on the page.
I admit it is perhaps unkind of me to not provide the laundry list of AI-tells in their article, but I see their response to me as being a direct lie ("I haven't used AI to write this post, that's just my style") so what explanation do I owe them?
Not literally, but this was the thesis of your comment, regardless of your four words of validation.
> I admit it is perhaps unkind of me to not provide the laundry list of AI-tells in their article
Please don't do this. It doesn't matter.
> what explanation do I owe them?
What explanation do they owe you?