Generally, I agree - the two complement each other. The difference is that uBO is client side and its use can be detected. A DNS sink will work, no matter what was configured on the server end. Further, the DNS sink will hide elements - everywhere ADs are placed I see simple whitespace. Finally, scripts are blocked from even getting loaded - e.g. stats for the top scripts blocked today (2 hours in) for me:
> Further, the DNS sink will hide elements - everywhere ADs are placed I see simple whitespace.
I find those leftover empty spaces extremely annoying. Imagine being interrupted by a big portion of nothing in the middle of an article. uBO hides those empty spaces as well.
And no, I don't use or like Reader Mode. It's yet another click I need to do to just read an article.
> Finally, scripts are blocked from even getting loaded - e.g. stats for the top scripts blocked today (2 hours in) for me:
That doesn't look like individual script blocking to me, you're just blocking domains. If the script you want to block is part of the first party domain itself, you can't just block it using a DNS sinkhole.
At this point, I'd go as far as to say that a web browser which doesn't support the complete capabilities of uBO, considering things like CNAME tracking exist, is a user hostile web browser. This includes all Chromium based browsers.
Count:Type:Blocked Domain
4154:DNSBL_A:browser.pipe.aria.microsoft.com; 445:DNSBL_A:googleads.g.doubleclick.net; 421:DNSBL_A:www.googleadservices.com; 414:DNSBL_A:app-measurement.com; 356:DNSBL_A:in.treasuredata.com; 283:DNSBL_A:incoming.telemetry.mozilla.org; 254:DNSBL_A:reports.crashlytics.com; 239:DNSBL_A:config.inmobi.com; 146:DNSBL_A:telemetry.sdk.inmobi.com; 125:DNSBL_A:www.googletagmanager.com;