Don't a majority of them also use Chrome? Because they're going to find that their adblockers are less and less effective.
That’s yet another reason to use a DNS as blocker, and not let your browser use DNS over https.
I haven’t done it myself yet, but I figure that sooner or later I’ll need to update my router to block all outbound DNS that doesn’t go through my DNS ad blocker. Some devices try to use their own hardcoded DNS to get around them…
I mean... you could just use Firefox and uBlock Origin. Works great.
DNS blocking is about the only way to block ads & tracking on things like streaming devices. You can’t install Firefox or uBlock on an Apple TV for example. You can block ads on many of the apps on the Apple TV as well as all the telemetry they try to collect with a well configured pi-hole and selected DNS blocklists.
True, but using a computer with an adblocker and a second gen Chromecast (which you don't need Chrome for) also eliminates that.
DNS-based ad blocking is unfortunately much less effective. It's still better than nothing though, that's for sure.
A multi-layered approach is the best approach. My pi-hole blocks advertising domains, malware domains, etc. That helps tremendously with all the “smart” devices that include DVRs, streaming devices, etc. where you can’t install something like ublock. I also make sure something like ublock is installed wherever possible.
Yup. I've got DNS, IP lists, zenarmor, and browser extensions
Why shouldn't you let your browser use DNS over HTTPS?
Because then it can bypass your ad-blocking DNS
DNS over HTTPS was a great idea for privacy if left in your hands, but immediately ran into the reality of intrusive advertising
Because dns ad blocking is typically done with something like dnsmasq which doesn't support DNS over HTTPS, though it's easy enough to setup a resolver/forwarder that does
No, it's another reason to use Firefox. A Brower that is not owned and managed by an advertisement company.
Don't a majority of them also use Chrome? Because they're going to find that their adblockers are less and less effective.
That’s yet another reason to use a DNS as blocker, and not let your browser use DNS over https.
I haven’t done it myself yet, but I figure that sooner or later I’ll need to update my router to block all outbound DNS that doesn’t go through my DNS ad blocker. Some devices try to use their own hardcoded DNS to get around them…
I mean... you could just use Firefox and uBlock Origin. Works great.
DNS blocking is about the only way to block ads & tracking on things like streaming devices. You can’t install Firefox or uBlock on an Apple TV for example. You can block ads on many of the apps on the Apple TV as well as all the telemetry they try to collect with a well configured pi-hole and selected DNS blocklists.
True, but using a computer with an adblocker and a second gen Chromecast (which you don't need Chrome for) also eliminates that.
DNS-based ad blocking is unfortunately much less effective. It's still better than nothing though, that's for sure.
A multi-layered approach is the best approach. My pi-hole blocks advertising domains, malware domains, etc. That helps tremendously with all the “smart” devices that include DVRs, streaming devices, etc. where you can’t install something like ublock. I also make sure something like ublock is installed wherever possible.
Yup. I've got DNS, IP lists, zenarmor, and browser extensions
Why shouldn't you let your browser use DNS over HTTPS?
Because then it can bypass your ad-blocking DNS
DNS over HTTPS was a great idea for privacy if left in your hands, but immediately ran into the reality of intrusive advertising
Because dns ad blocking is typically done with something like dnsmasq which doesn't support DNS over HTTPS, though it's easy enough to setup a resolver/forwarder that does
No, it's another reason to use Firefox. A Brower that is not owned and managed by an advertisement company.