Comment by mnarayan01 | Hacker News Reader

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by mnarayan01 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Via https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/a4d380ad1a3b33a0... by one of the Easylist maintainers:

> If it is a Circumvention/Adblock-Warning adhost, it should be removed from Easylist even without the need for a DMCA request.

Anyone know why he's saying this?

Edit: I guess he's referring to the following via https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adblock-guide-for-site-a...:

> Anti-Adblock should only be challenged if the system limits website functionality or causes significant disruption to browsing

I didn't realize that anti-adblock lists were generally maintained separately, and this comment tipped me off to it.

If you're using something like uBlock, it might be worth going into Settings -> 3rd-party filters. There's a few lists in there which are not enabled by default that are curated to work around anti-adblocking technologies. For example, "Adblock Warning Removal List".

If you're going into uBlock's settings, don't forget to add the domain this whole this is referring to (functionalclam.com) to your custom block filters.

Could this comment alone be considered infringement and be subject itself to a DMCA takedown? You are instructing someone how to potentially bypass security measures for copyrighted works? /s

Some adblocker lists maintain blocks for anti-adblock messages separate from blocks for ads, which allows people to choose which they block.

> Anyone know why he's saying this?

Because their business model depends on it working.

I believe EasyList only accepts ad servers onto their list as a general rule, not adblock warnings/blockers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com