• willyaA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    Blocking is far better on the VPN routing level then bothering with a browser extension.

    • T0RB1T@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Cool! Are you talking about something like pi-hole or something else? In what way is it going to lead to better outcomes? I already have a pretty much flawless experience with my adblockers (especially when it comes to easily creating custom rules, using the element zapper, and testing new blocklists).

      I find that my suite of browser extensions serves me really well, and it keeps working even when I enable my VPN, but something like pi-hole stops working if you do that.

      How does the solution you’re talking about differ? How does it provide a better experience?

    • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s the other way around. DNS based filters are more efficient since connection attempt is simply dropped, but browser based adblocks are a lot more feature rich allowing blocking specific HTML elements not just domains. Additional CPU power to have such extension is miniscule compared to what you gain.

      • willyaA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I use a combo as I like the blocks happening within apps as well.

        • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Same here, but I have disabled it for Firefox and let uBlock handle browser. Some sites detected and disliked DNS level blocking.