![Ghostery for ie 11 and windows 8](https://kumkoniak.com/27.jpg)
![ghostery for ie 11 and windows 8 ghostery for ie 11 and windows 8](https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/reviews/06YlFK4WsFxCJEJNVSEzEh7-8.fit_lpad.size_625x365.v1569481908.png)
How is Privacy Badger different from Disconnect, Adblock Plus, Ghostery, and other blocking extensions? That’s the piece of legalese the majority of users accept without reading or thinking about.
![ghostery for ie 11 and windows 8 ghostery for ie 11 and windows 8](https://static.thinkmobiles.com/assets/uploads/reviews/ghostery-8.jpg)
In some cases that’s even a desired behavior (or they wouldn’t install extensions like WoT in the first place), but the store operator may simply tolerate it as long as the extension’s behavior is spelled out clearly enough in the privacy policy. It may be possible for operators of the major web-browser extension stores to filter out actively malicious offers from being publicly available, but the same cannot be said about those extensions which track the user. The latter point is the one major reason why I think news articles like this one are so important. We all know what happened with uBlock after Chris Aljoudi took over the project (for which he is still asking for donations today on the official uBlock website, despite not having updated or maintained the software for almost two years), but I’m quite sure there are also several other forks on the Chrome Web Store that are less than trustworthy. That said, since the code is entirely GPL, it’s legal for others to use the code-base and release it under a different brand name with who knows what modifications that may be detrimental to the user. The guy is a proponent of open source software and development and even goes so far as to decline donations for his excellent work. As long as gorhill (Raymond Hill) remains the owner of uBlock Origin, it is very very likely, that nothing like that will ever happen.
![Ghostery for ie 11 and windows 8](https://kumkoniak.com/27.jpg)