hosts

Not OP but read about it on this hosts config [0]. From that page: > We prefer to use 0.0.0.0, which is defined as a non-routable meta-address used to designate an invalid, unknown, or non applicable target. > Using 0.0.0.0 is empirically faster, possibly because there's no wait for a timeout resolution. It also does not interfere with a web server that may be running on the local PC. [0] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

This might help: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts Apart from adware and malware it offers to block url's falling into other categories like fakenews, social, gambling, and porn.

[] https://github.com/liamsomerville/facebookblocklist/blob/mas... [] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/blob/master/alternates/...

> simple text files called Tracking Protection Lists (TPLs) to allow or block third-party requests from specific domains Sounds like a hosts file, and the same end result could be achieved in any browser/system-wide by using a curated one such as: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts Or is Edge Tracking Prevention more effective in some way?

I just periodically update my host file with - https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts which blocks most of the ad serving domains gmail/youtube etc work fine

sticking OPNSense on one of these [1] was probably the best LAN decision i've made, besides a Synology backup NAS. it acts as a pihole and a lot more (firewall, device vlan isolation, vpn termination, etc). i have these hosts files [2] loaded into its DNSmasq config. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072ZTCNLK [2] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

This has already been added to the excellent host block file of StevenBlack. https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/1083

Setting aside the rewards program, people can and will use ad-blockers. Even if those were illegal for some reason, there are lists available (such as hosts, https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts) where you can make known tracking/advertising/etc hostnames non-routable Are you saying that site owners should feel violated by folks installing ad-blockers (or using host files)?

There's the option for hosts-based blocking, too; unified hosts[1] for example [1] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

Hosts file blocklists work well for known domains. https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

> And on linux I always set up local SSH servers on everything which comes with its own maintenance baggage. It sounds like you need to invest a little time in automating basic networking stuff (shell scripts do fine). I do not think there is a royal road with effortless magically secure configuration and authentication for random devices, but once you have IPv6 with dynamic DNS for all your machines on your own domain with SSH public keys (this all gets automated by the shell scripts), things get really nice. rsync, Unison, TRAMP, remote shells, SSH port forwarding/SOCKS proxies, whatever else you can think of, just works. The Internet is a surprisingly nice place when you get rid of NATs and VPNs. No IPv6 from your ISP? Start looking for a new one, but in the meantime grab a unique local IPv6 prefix for your home network (I find that us

I use AdGuard Pro in combination with StevenBlack/hosts [0] and a custom DNS. This is used for system wide (not just Safari) ads/tracker blocking. Adding custom filters as and when required. - [0] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

In my experience, the size of the hosts file matters on some devices, and some os. On older versions of Windows, for example, networking and browsing slows noticeably as the size of the host file increases. The same can be said for rootable mobile devices, though it’s less noticeable off WiFi because cellular latency is so much higher. I would guess, marginal consumer and home routers will suffer with larger hosts files, but I don’t have sufficient experience to claim this for certain. Background: years of discussions and issues at https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts, which I maintain.