browser site blocker that doesn't read the sites you use

March 3, 2023 2:39 PM

I'm looking for something that will block a site or list of sites completely without needing me to give the extension/add-on permission to read the contents of the sites I use. I need it to be free and available for both Chrome and Firefox and it cannot use administrative privileges (i.e., I can't edit the /hosts file). I am on Windows. The ideal would be a setting within Chrome and/or Firefox itself to implement this behavior. Does this exist, or is it a hopeless cause?
posted by peppercorn to Technology (8 answers total)

Best answer: This'll probably be a longshot, since not having admin means you probably couldn't drop policies.json into the Firefox install folder, for example, and both use policy control to handle this sort of thing. If you had access to your router, you could set up the block there, but I'm guessing that might be out as well.

Chrome could potentially support this, as the new ManifestV3 extension API does offer declarativeContent & declarativeNetRequest which don't require host permission. However, the rollout of this has been rather controversial, & Firefox support is still in developer preview.

I don't know of an extension which already does this, but it looks like it's possible for one to exist eventually.
posted by CrystalDave at 4:03 PM on March 3, 2023 [1 favorite]

Can't you use the Hosts file for this? You look up on the web where the hosts file is for your operating system (It's literally called 'hosts'), and edit it with notepad or a straight text editor, like this:
0.0.0.0 Facebook.com
That means you can't access facebook. That's all there is to it.
There's a ton of help for this on the web.
posted by AugustusCrunch at 6:07 PM on March 3, 2023

I was about to write a comment saying that you need admin privileges to edit the hosts file, but I guess there are workarounds (I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information on that site).
posted by alex1965 at 6:18 PM on March 3, 2023

The OP has already said they can't edit the hosts file.
posted by nebulawindphone at 6:32 PM on March 3, 2023

Best answer:

I guess there are workarounds

None of those approaches negate the need for Admin privileges; it'd be a massive security hole if non-admins could edit that file, given the amount of power it gives you. In Windows, an admin user will see a UAC prompt doing any of these actions, and if you don't have admin, you're SOL unless you can supply admin credentials.

Given what I know about developing web extensions, seconding CrystalDave on the feasibility. Unfortunately I don't know a way to easily see what permissions an extension will ask for on the Chrome Web Store, but at the moment Chrome is the only browser where what you're asking for might be possible, and even then I don't know whether there are any Chrome extensions that work that way, or if there's something about the way these extensions work that would make it difficult to accomplish even with ManifestV3.
posted by Aleyn at 8:20 PM on March 3, 2023

Best answer: Maybe uBO Lite supplemented with a custom (ie, not the OS's) hosts file of your creation blocking the offending sites could work?

You'd need to host that file somewhere on the web because I don't think uBO accepts a file:// URL as blocklist source.
posted by Bangaioh at 5:07 AM on March 4, 2023

Response by poster: Thanks Bangaioh-- besides being a great answer to the question as stated (as soon as I figure out how to add a custom filter list on uBO Lite) this has also made me realize if I'm willing to trust uBlock Origin more generally (on which I am undecided!) I can just use it itself as a site blocker by blocking, like, the entire page container as an ad on a given site. You and the other users who mentioned the new extension functionalities are a peach and I'm marking this resolved.
posted by peppercorn at 11:21 AM on March 4, 2023 [1 favorite]

The Block Site add in can be used to block domains in Firefox
posted by Lanark at 2:01 AM on March 5, 2023