This might seem silly, but is there a particular whitelist I should be using?
Or are the defaults good enough?
I’m use to AdBlock Edge in Firefox and I’m trying to find a solid ad blocker in Chrome.
Please don’t suggest AdBlock Plus, I am not a fan of “paid for” whitelist(s).
I’ve never added a white list. Using it out of the box without any problems on both Firefox and Chrome.
uBlock is a great adblocker, I liked it immediately when I found it. The default of 51.639 networkfilters ＋ 33.312 cosmetic filters works like a charm and it is lightweight and does not slow the browser much like ABP does.
Whenever you wanna do some tweaking and you are an advanced user go to the uBlock Dashboard.
I incorporated this list there and it works like I thought: http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?showintro=0;hostformat=hosts
Enjoy this great adblocker not only to block ads but also as a protection against malvertisers and additional malware. Yes, a decent adblocker is a must for every user that want to stay secure online. 
polonus
Thanks!
@ polonus
Peter Lowe’s list is “on” by default.
I honestly don’t mind Adblock Plus. I know about this whole scandal with Paid Whitelists. But that and NoScript keep me relatively protected from the dangers. Plus common sense of course.
I do not mind ABP either, but uBlock is better and there is another reason - ABP is known to slow your browser down considerably, while uBlock isn’t. The weight on the old cycles that is the thing that counts most for me, the whitelisting that can be made undone is a second matter. uBlock is also more versatile. Also works well next to uMatrix.
I have been a long time user of Palant’s ABP, but now I have met uBlock I won’t look back.
polonus
I too have no issue with ABP - I don’t mind what they do in regard of whitelists, provided I’m allowed to override them.
Same thing ‘Known to slow your browser down’ I certainly haven’t noticed this phenomenon. Many of these so called faster/slower statements (not necessarily in relation to this) you would need a stopwatch to determine any appreciable difference.
Don’t get you ad blocker of choice get over laden with multiple lists.
Hi DavidR,
The concept is different as we learn from a thread on the ABP forums.
lewisje there says:
μBlock does not support regex filters, in case those are important (this is a major reason it's so resource-efficient), and I don't think it supports $sitekeyGreiner there says:
Actually, µBlock is more comparable to Disconnect than to Adblock Plus since µBlock's primary focus is not on adblocking (quote: "My main goal with µBlock is to help users neutralize as much as can be privacy-invading apparatus"). An important thing to consider when looking at stats is that blocking more doesn't necessarily mean blocking the right things. sitekey (only used in the Acceptable Ads initiative). (info from the ABP user forum).LyleS says:
I prefer Ublock over Adblock Plus for one reason: A significant portion of conventional Internet advertising streams including those paying for white listing with Adblock plus are inadvertantly delivering malicious content. Ad-blocking is not just a page layout convenience, it is a necessity. There is no such thing as a trusted advertising source so long as custom content delivery is a permitted part of that service and they must not gain access to the browsers they target. Ublock is just one tool for reducing risk and it does to a greater degree than Adblock Plus.So there is more to it than at first site - so uBlock is more privacy driven and also more focused on blocking malvertising - protection.
polonus
This is where there is some cross over with other add-ons with NoScript and RequestPolicy blocking third party sites there will already be a good deal of blocking on these supposed ad delivery systems.
So many of these requests to ad servers won’t even get a look in, so may not even trigger AdBlockPlus. I have been considering doing some tests in this regard by disabling AdBlockPlus and see how effective NoScript and RequestPolicy would be at blocking ads.
Quite a history here of malvertising campaigns involving Doubleclick, read this article and updates: https://blog.malwarebytes.org/malvertising-2/2014/09/large-malvertising-campaign-under-way-involving-doubleclick-and-zedo/
link article author = JÉRÔME SEGURA.
So a good adblocker without particular Doubleclick non-intrusibe ads whitelisting is recommended to be secure.
Those with script blockers and third party request blocking are also secure - ScriptSafe/UMatrix combination in Google Chrome and NoScript, RequestPolicy in firefox, eventually Policeman extension for firefox.
polonus
There are also other ways to tackle particular forms of ads here a script to remove forced download accelerators, managers, and adware on supported websites, called Adware Atomizer by noname120
It can be worked sandboxed inside Google Chrome installed via an extension called Tampermonkey (to run particular user scripts inside Google Chrome). When you have Tampermonkey installed install the script from here: https://greasyfork.org/nl/scripts/4294-antiadware
Similar specific user scripts: to Fight Naughty Ads, Go Fight For Your Right! AdsFight! by daYOda (THRSH), download here: http://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/89322
And very interisting AdsSkipper: http://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/118033
or use: https://adsbypasser.github.io/releases/adsbypasserlite.user.js
Scripts are very light and play a particular role to assist in your ad-blocking. ;D
Only allow user scripts to run inside the Tampermonkey Greasemonkey sandbox that you trust,
there is something for everyone and every taste, also as I like it security related user scripts,
for instance to check on the jQuery versions websites run, etc. etc.
polonus
I guess I shall switch over to uBlock.
This might convince you:
With AdBlock Plus memory usage was 175,932KB and fell to 99,900KB.Quote from AMReynolds on Lifehacker…a website with 15 trackers, the list of trackers I would not expect Lifehacker would have:With uBlock memory usage was 59,516KB and fell to 35,704KB.
I was quite stunned. They have exactly the same success rate in blocking ads. Needless to say, I’ve switched ad blockers.
Anyway, uBlock is cute and effective…
Damian
(For Pol):
As I've been following this topic, I was just curious if you happened to know the memory usage stats for [b]Adblock Edge[/b] (ABE), compared to the others you mentioned?
Much obliged for any info! 
Pete
Hi Pete,
About half the size of ABP, yes ABP is a sort of memory hog,
also consider the additional lists you have installed naturally…
a quite good alternative on firefox to ABP as uBlock is on Chrome.
uBlock has been ported for firefox add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/ublock/
Damian
Thanks very much for that info and the link, Pol!
I’d switched from ADP to ABE a short time ago. (I did so based on some info in another topic here along similar lines of what this one is discussing).
Cheers!
Pete
Please not the following from their ad-ons site:
This addon will be discontinued on June 2015
Reason: Discontinued in favor of Ublock, a general purpose blocker, that not only outperforms Adblock Edge but is also available on other browsers and, of course, without “Acceptable Ads Whitelist”.*
Yep, bob3160, good advice. Since we started to comment on uBlock I had quite some users here switch over to this great adblocker, the more conservative users amongst us will follow later ;), as we all know “the unicorn is rather shy”.
Damian
Thanks very much for the additional info, Bob and Pol!
I wasn’t aware that ABE was going to be discontinued in June. For the time being anyway, I re-installed ABP. From what I’ve read at Mozilla’s site, ublock, (at this time) has only been reviewed “preliminarily” by them, & it indicates ublock is still in beta.
Being my tech abilities/understanding of applications like ublock doesn’t come anywhere close to either of yours, I’ll just be one of those conservative “unicorns” you referred to Pol, and stay with ADP for the time being. (And continue monitoring the comments here and at Mozilla about ublock’s development).
Best regards!
Pete
Hi kls490.
All out on this list are being blocked by uBlock filters or the odd one out via uMatrix: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
When I want a good adblocker I like to put it to the test. Like to see a continuous “ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT” there to know I am safe or rather my browser is.!
Example wXw.scambiobanner.tv blocked by μMatrix
and with a reason: https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/scambiobanner.tv?utm_source=addon&utm_content=popup
and here: uBlock₀ preventied the follwing page from loading:
htxp://digitalmediaonline.us.intellitxt.com/
Because of the following filter
||intellitxt.com^
Close window Why it better stays blocked ->: https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/digitalmediaonline.us.intellitxt.com
By te way, I have this blocked as well inside the Chrome browser, re:
http://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MX3BNW - ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT
but not this one: https://www.google.com/tagmanager/ what can be blocked there is (https://fonts.googleapis.com) with css 3
(as it isn’t a public site)
pol