uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

uBlock Origin maintainers say they will no longer chase Facebook’s constantly changing techniques to evade ad blocking, highlighting how far the platform is willing to go to ensure ads are displayed. Commenters describe Facebook’s DOM obfuscation making filter rules brittle, debate whether AI and computer vision could power a new generation of ad blockers, and argue over the ethics and feasibility of blocking ads versus abandoning Facebook entirely. The exchange broadens into concerns about surveillance-driven business models, regulatory responses, and whether a “free” internet funded by invasive advertising is sustainable or desirable.

uBlock vs Facebook: What Changed

  • Commenters say Facebook is aggressively obfuscating its DOM (deep div trees, split “Sponsored” text, random classes) to evade filter rules, making list maintenance exhausting and fragile.
  • Some report older XPath/ARIA-based uBlock rules worked for a while but now break within days as Facebook tweaks structure.
  • Many see uBlock’s retreat as rational burnout: it’s FOSS, and no one is obligated to fight an endless cat‑and‑mouse against a giant whose core business is ads.

Technical Counter‑Ideas

  • Several propose moving adblocking up a level:
    • Computer‑vision or LLM-based models that classify on-screen elements or screenshots as ads and mask them.
    • On‑device AI agents that synthesize new filter rules as Facebook changes markup.
    • Proxy approaches that render Facebook server‑side, strip ads from the DOM, then serve a “clean” copy.
  • Others note major downsides: performance/energy cost, latency, implementation complexity, and that Facebook can also use AI to generate ever‑changing layouts.
  • Some argue visual masking is insufficient because ads would still be fetched, enabling tracking and malware.

Workarounds and User Responses

  • Many advocate the “natural” solution: stop using Facebook; some have already quit and describe substantial time and mental‑health benefits.
  • Others are locked in by social or local dependencies (PTA, local government alerts, marketplace, hobby groups) and are frustrated there’s no viable alternative.
  • Common mitigations:
    • DNS- or firewall-level blocking of Meta domains, sometimes per-browser-profile.
    • Third-party extensions like F.B. Purity / Social Fixer, CSS tricks, or feed-eradicator tools.
    • Using Facebook only in constrained ways (Marketplace only, groups only, separate profile).

Ads, Surveillance, and Ethics

  • Strong view that modern web ads are effectively malware and surveillance infrastructure; blocking is framed as self‑defense, not freeloading.
  • A minority argue using adblockers on ad‑funded sites is unethical “taking without giving,” and users should either accept ads or pay.
  • Broad agreement that the dominant problem is tracking and data brokerage, not just visual clutter.

Monetization and the “Free Internet”

  • Debate over alternatives:
    • Some suggest subscriptions, donations, or small, hobbyist‑run communities instead of massive ad‑funded platforms.
    • Others counter that at global scale most users will not pay, and networks like Facebook/Reddit would collapse without ads.
  • Several see Facebook’s hostile anti‑adblock stance as another sign large platforms dominate users and erode real “personal computing.”

Regulation and Long‑Term Outlook

  • Some call ads “pollution” and argue for regulatory action, at least where Facebook is effectively critical infrastructure (e.g., public information, classifieds).
  • Others push back: Facebook owns its product and is entitled to show ads, unless and until law says otherwise.
  • A recurring theme: if platforms keep escalating anti‑user tactics (anti‑adblock, DRM, TPM‑tied AI), users will either resort to increasingly adversarial tools (AI adblockers, overlays, proxies) or abandon those platforms.