I've had a pi-hole for about 2 or 3 weeks, and I wanted to share my results since I think it's beneficial on different levels.

For the unware, it's basically a DNS server that blocks specific DNS queries (mainly those associated with advertising, like ads.mopub.com, graph.instagram.com, etc.) By default, comes with a blocklist of around 130k domain names.

Setup is very easy: I installed it on an old Pi (1 B i think), gave it a static reservation in DHCP on my router, and set that IP as primary DNS in DHCP. It can very easily handle DNS for a home network.

So ads are blocked on any device connected to my home network. That's nice, but the nicer part is that websites load a bit faster, and I save a bit on monthly bandwidth.

Around 43% of all DNS queries are blocked on average! That's a lot of blocked traffic, I was expecting much less.

We all hate the fact that DSL plans are very limited in Lebanon, so having a pi-hole can definitely help.

Does anyone here have a setup similar to this? If so, how much traffic are you blocking/saving?
Hi
It is a brilliant idea, from where you get it? Did you program it or it comes already programmed?
what kind of ads are blocked?

sponsored ads on facebook?
google ads on websites?
popup ads (or vids) on mobile apps?
30 sec ads on youtube/facebook vids?
Most ads in mobile apps, websites, popups, etc.

The only ads I've seen since installing the pi-hole are mostly some Youtube 5-sec skippable ads.
I think it would be impossible to block these completely since youtube is probably serving them from the same domain names as their main content as a countermeasure, so blocking them would effectively block videos as well.

I've seen a reduction of I'd say 90% in ads of all types on all platforms.
You do know that the majority of web content sustains itself financially through ad revenue, right? And that blocking those ads is ultimately depriving content creators of such revenue, particularly if they offer an ad-free version that you now have no incentive to go for since you already do not see ads? Have you given this some thought?
You are absolutely right and I did think about this. Eventually, it leads to a moral dilemma: I, as a consumer in this scenario, have the right to decide what I want to download; While platforms/advertisers/content creators/developers have a right to display ads.
(As a side note, I do pay for a small number of ad-free versions like anghami) edit: irrelevant to this discussion
nxnjz wroteYou are absolutely right and I did think about this. Eventually, it leads to a moral dilemma: I, as a consumer in this scenario, have the right to decide what I want to download; While platforms/advertisers/content creators/developers have a right to display ads.
(As a side note, I do pay for a small number of ad-free versions like anghami) edit: irrelevant to this discussion
Breaking this down into a battle for primitive rights only serves to further complicate a very simple, straightforward matter.

1) Web content hosts serve you content for free.
2) These hosts, to cover their costs / make a profit, serve you ads.
3) The hosts expect that you see the ads and that a certain percentage of users would click through, generating ad revenue.
4) You choose to block those ads. While the hosts still expects you to be receiving (and seeing) those ads, you are not. You never click through. When hosts figure out a way to detect ad blockers, they can easily stop you from seeing their free content. If they did not, then that means they either did not equip themselves for this or simply did not detect your usage of an ad blocker.
5) You get web content that is only for free *because* of potential ad revenue for free with no strings attached.
6) The hosts are deprived of their ad revenue often without which they cannot even cover their costs, let alone have an incentive to bring you free web content without anything in return.

Tell me how this is fair.

I don't like to summon arguments that stem from verstehen, but I'll entertain this now: if you were a web host and your audience was primarily that which would not pay for your content, expecting it, as with *everything on the web*, to be free (a delusion spun about by the state of the early web), and you instead chose to go for advertisements - on a scale of 1 to 10, how much would you appreciate it if a significant portion of your userbase ended up blocking out your ads yet leeching your *free* web content?
yasamoka wrote
nxnjz wroteYou are absolutely right and I did think about this. Eventually, it leads to a moral dilemma: I, as a consumer in this scenario, have the right to decide what I want to download; While platforms/advertisers/content creators/developers have a right to display ads.
(As a side note, I do pay for a small number of ad-free versions like anghami) edit: irrelevant to this discussion
Breaking this down into a battle for primitive rights only serves to further complicate a very simple, straightforward matter.

1) Web content hosts serve you content for free.
2) These hosts, to cover their costs / make a profit, serve you ads.
3) The hosts expect that you see the ads and that a certain percentage of users would click through, generating ad revenue.
4) You choose to block those ads. While the hosts still expects you to be receiving (and seeing) those ads, you are not. You never click through. When hosts figure out a way to detect ad blockers, they can easily stop you from seeing their free content. If they did not, then that means they either did not equip themselves for this or simply did not detect your usage of an ad blocker.
5) You get web content that is only for free *because* of potential ad revenue for free with no strings attached.
6) The hosts are deprived of their ad revenue often without which they cannot even cover their costs, let alone have an incentive to bring you free web content without anything in return.

Tell me how this is fair.

I don't like to summon arguments that stem from verstehen, but I'll entertain this now: if you were a web host and your audience was primarily that which would not pay for your content, expecting it, as with *everything on the web*, to be free (a delusion spun about by the state of the early web), and you instead chose to go for advertisements - on a scale of 1 to 10, how much would you appreciate it if a significant portion of your userbase ended up blocking out your ads yet leeching your *free* web content?
People who choose to block ads are not likely to click them in the first place.

Pages get bad performance due to ads, do a search and you will see how much they slow the webpage down.

if the ads are non intrusive then i can see why it's unethical to block ads, but that is not the case, they track you, and are designed to draw your attention so much that you will have a poor web browsing quality.
yasamoka wroteI don't like to summon arguments that stem from verstehen, but I'll entertain this now: if you were a web host and your audience was primarily that which would not pay for your content, expecting it, as with *everything on the web*, to be free (a delusion spun about by the state of the early web), and you instead chose to go for advertisements - on a scale of 1 to 10, how much would you appreciate it if a significant portion of your userbase ended up blocking out your ads yet leeching your *free* web content?
I would find a better-suited business model for my audience (paid subscriptions, patreon, donations, crowdfunding, content sponsorship, event sponsorship, etc.). There is no use about complaining about ad-blockers. It's an arms-race that historically has been won by the blockers, not the advertisers. It's on you as a publisher to figure out creative, non-intrusive ways to serve sponsored content.
Ads are ruining the internet, a couple years back I didn't see any ads on Facebook now even their videos have ads.
Might look into getting this, thanks.
yasamoka wrote
nxnjz wroteYou are absolutely right and I did think about this. Eventually, it leads to a moral dilemma: I, as a consumer in this scenario, have the right to decide what I want to download; While platforms/advertisers/content creators/developers have a right to display ads.
(As a side note, I do pay for a small number of ad-free versions like anghami) edit: irrelevant to this discussion
Breaking this down into a battle for primitive rights only serves to further complicate a very simple, straightforward matter.

1) Web content hosts serve you content for free.
2) These hosts, to cover their costs / make a profit, serve you ads.
3) The hosts expect that you see the ads and that a certain percentage of users would click through, generating ad revenue.
4) You choose to block those ads. While the hosts still expects you to be receiving (and seeing) those ads, you are not. You never click through. When hosts figure out a way to detect ad blockers, they can easily stop you from seeing their free content. If they did not, then that means they either did not equip themselves for this or simply did not detect your usage of an ad blocker.
5) You get web content that is only for free *because* of potential ad revenue for free with no strings attached.
6) The hosts are deprived of their ad revenue often without which they cannot even cover their costs, let alone have an incentive to bring you free web content without anything in return.

Tell me how this is fair.

I don't like to summon arguments that stem from verstehen, but I'll entertain this now: if you were a web host and your audience was primarily that which would not pay for your content, expecting it, as with *everything on the web*, to be free (a delusion spun about by the state of the early web), and you instead chose to go for advertisements - on a scale of 1 to 10, how much would you appreciate it if a significant portion of your userbase ended up blocking out your ads yet leeching your *free* web content?

I do agree with you to a certain extent, ad-blocking is not nice towards publishers, is it morally wrong? I'm not sure. But most ads also aren't nice to most viewers.

If I were hosting content, and I chose to run ads, I definitely wouldn't like it if my audience blocked them. But I also would have had that in mind.
People that block ads are the same people that ignore the ads, and are the same ones that worry about their privacy.

So I don't find this hurts anyone, less useless bandwidth being saved on both ends.

Ads have become really intrusive by following you everywhere and have clearly become a problem with invading your privacy.
I have setup my Pi hole on a small vpn if anyone wants to use pi hole DNS am happy to share it