Those are automated unit and integration tests with controlled filter data as inputs. That's the only practically useful kind of test for an adblocker.
Neither of those solve the problem of “is my adblocker on”. Maybe the Brave people should have done some research on why people use these sites rather than making a long blog post explaining why they are bad, actually, while not providing any alternatives for the things people want.
The article attacks the notion of acceptance testing on websites due to a nebulous fear that good != perfect and testing against the moving target of advertisements is too time consuming and potentially misleading, and instead suggests to test+rate adblockers based on a set of hand picked criteria that suits the product they're advertising. Unsurprisingly, half of the reasons are due to the advantages of adblock being first class native in their product vs a second class extension.
It sure isn't hard to be #1 in some category if you get to define it, but the comparison is kind of muddled for me when you consider the significant amount of time and effort towards maintaining and monetizing an entire platform of security vs maintaining an extension on an already popular platform. Harm reduction isn't a zero sum game.
What do you expect from an advertising blog post? Of course they're going to shit on everyone else while claiming theirs is best in class. Otherwise, what would be the point. Does anyone other than bots/scrapers read these things? This is a classic marketing ploy that's just a twist of "repeat the lie often enough it becomes truth".
If you really wanted to know, most of the tests for Brave's adblock engine are at https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust/tree/master/tests
Those are automated unit and integration tests with controlled filter data as inputs. That's the only practically useful kind of test for an adblocker.
They offer some testing sites at the bottom of the article: "Brave will continue to work with legitimate testing sites like https://privacytests.org and https://coveryourtracks.eff.org"
Neither of those solve the problem of “is my adblocker on”. Maybe the Brave people should have done some research on why people use these sites rather than making a long blog post explaining why they are bad, actually, while not providing any alternatives for the things people want.
"Will continue to work with"
That's like saying bulletproof glass makers working with gun makers. How can you trust either when both are "working together?"
This comes across as some sites make Brave look bad, and they are calling them out for whatever reason.
--
Also of note - De Beers owns the diamond certification company, which is convinient because why not.
Are you suggesting that the EFF shouldn't be trusted because Brave works with them to suggest new tests and point out broken ones?
1 reply →
The article attacks the notion of acceptance testing on websites due to a nebulous fear that good != perfect and testing against the moving target of advertisements is too time consuming and potentially misleading, and instead suggests to test+rate adblockers based on a set of hand picked criteria that suits the product they're advertising. Unsurprisingly, half of the reasons are due to the advantages of adblock being first class native in their product vs a second class extension.
It sure isn't hard to be #1 in some category if you get to define it, but the comparison is kind of muddled for me when you consider the significant amount of time and effort towards maintaining and monetizing an entire platform of security vs maintaining an extension on an already popular platform. Harm reduction isn't a zero sum game.
Right, either release a better quality Adblock tester or stop whining? People need to test somehow.
What do you expect from an advertising blog post? Of course they're going to shit on everyone else while claiming theirs is best in class. Otherwise, what would be the point. Does anyone other than bots/scrapers read these things? This is a classic marketing ploy that's just a twist of "repeat the lie often enough it becomes truth".