Paper detail

Who Filters the Filters: Understanding the Growth, Usefulness and Efficiency of Crowdsourced Ad Blocking

Ad and tracking blocking extensions are popular tools for improving web performance, privacy and aesthetics. Content blocking extensions typically rely on filter lists to decide whether a web request is associated with tracking or advertising, and so should be blocked. Millions of web users rely on filter lists to protect their privacy and improve their browsing experience. Despite their importance, the growth and health of filter lists are poorly understood. Filter lists are maintained by a small number of contributors, who use a variety of undocumented heuristics to determine what rules should be included. Lists quickly accumulate rules, and rules are rarely removed. As a result, users' browsing experiences are degraded as the number of stale, dead or otherwise not useful rules increasingly dwarf the number of useful rules, with no attenuating benefit. An accumulation of "dead weight" rules also makes it difficult to apply filter lists on resource-limited mobile devices. This paper improves the understanding of crowdsourced filter lists by studying EasyList, the most popular filter list. We find that EasyList has grown from several hundred rules, to well over 60,000 rules, during its 9-year history. We measure how EasyList affects web browsing by applying EasyList to a sample of 10,000 websites. We find that 90.16% of the resource blocking rules in EasyList provide no benefit to users in common browsing scenarios. We further use our changes in EasyList application rates to provide a taxonomy of the ways advertisers evade EasyList rules. Finally, we propose optimizations for popular ad-blocking tools, that allow EasyList to be applied on performance constrained mobile devices, and improve desktop performance by 62.5%, while preserving over 99% of blocking coverage.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.