There are a lot of things that are missed by safari content blocker extensions, and it's been getting a lot worse recently. Many obvious ads are not blocked anymore. And I'm using adguard too.
You need the power of a rules engine like uBlock Origin, which is able to do multiple types of filtering, pre and post rendering. There is a reason why uBlock origin insists on that model, because no other model really effectively works.
Eventually although, if adblock becomes very universal, all ads are going to be served internally from the same url / server as the webpage itself, with line noise identifiers and your going to start needing ML content recognition to start blocking ads effectively again.
But we've already had examples of ad-blocking companies doing deals with advertisers to whitelist URLs and I simply don't trust them not to on-sell my browser history.
So you may criticise Apple for their position but I would rather have a 90% effective ad-blocker and a guarantee that my privacy is intact. With so much data reselling going on it's simply not worth the risk.
>But we've already had examples of ad-blocking companies doing deals with advertisers to whitelist URLs and I simply don't trust them not to on-sell my browser history.
Luckily, 100% of those malware plugins can already be avoided by voluntarily choosing to not install them.
This isn't a decision for apple or any other manufacturer to make.
If you need an authority figure to babysit you while you use a computer then you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place, you should be in a nursing home.
it is a weird country that where people are scared that their data is at the mercy of an open source completely auditable browser extension, that adults have the choice to install or not install upon inspection, and oppose to it, but when it's about real threats that actually kill people (including kids) nothing gets done in the name of "freedom of choice" and against "baby sitting by the government"...
Not scared of those extensions. The malicious web sites that force you to install malicious extensions are the problem. The average user isn’t immune to those problems.
I’ve cleaned out enough extension infested chrome browsers in my time…
> The malicious web sites that force you to install malicious extensions are the problem.
while the malicious Company that profits from the 30% cut on in game items sold to kids (and non kids) on their platform, that is ok!
> The average user isn’t immune to those problems.
The average user is not immune to bullets too, we don't force people to wear vests though (even though in USA that should probably be a requirement, given how little they are able to do to stop the shootings)
> I’ve cleaned out enough extension infested chrome browsers in my time…
that's funny, because in 25 years of web browsing and fixing other less tech savvy people's mess, what really changed everything was the invention of ad blockers, like uBlock origin. It immediately made the web a better place, safer, lighter and immensely more enjoyable.
Those "web sites that force you to install malicious extensions" disappeared in an instant and voila, problem solved.
> To be fair most countries deal with this via very strong national gun laws
That's true, but not the entire story.
Most countries don't escalate the issue to the level of public guns VS private guns and don't consider being armed a right, not even for some law enforcement officials.
So the real situation is that people are free to chose to buy arms, but the process is complicated enough that casual shooters won't even bother and criminals, well, criminals don't buy legal weapons anyway.
Most countries disincentivize buying and using guns.
In this context Apple decision is patronizing: you are entitled to spend thousands of dollars on my products because a bank approved the transactions and think you're fit to spend your money however you want, but I'll decide what you can or can't do because even though your government believes you can drive, have a family, raise kids, be a responsible citizen and also shoot guns, I'm sorry to inform you that according to my analysis you're too dumb to use a different web browser than the one provided by *me*. [1]
Even though you're probably already doing it on countless other devices and environments (another smartphone/OS/HW at work/school/library etc.)
Apple is not disincentivizing people from visiting malevolent websites, they are not making it harder for people to be scammed on the web, they are disincentivizing people from using the web because it harms their profits.
In this context, ad blockers protect users, so in theory they should be allowed by Apple that claimed more than once to be sensitive to privacy issues, but they could be used to make web browsing a better experience on iOS, which is against Apple interests. [2]
[1] of course the real reason is they want to control the platform 100% and want every single bit of information to pass through their pipes, not others' pipes.
[2] not differently from what Google does on Android, but at least on Android I can install alternative (for real) browsers. That's why OS vendors should not be allowed to dictate the browser platform, we know it's wrong since 1998 and the antitrust case against MS bundling IE, but here we are again...
After 30 years of surfing porn, warez and dodgy hacking websites I have never been prompted to install a malicious plugin, mainly because decent (ie not Apple's allowed garbage) adblocking blocks it
They just need to agree to work without needing me to supply them the content of every web page I visit and every URL I click. Apologies for putting my privacy first.
And so you get back to the original point above...
> So you may criticize Apple for their position but I would rather have a 90% effective ad-blocker and a guarantee that my privacy is intact. With so much data reselling going on it's simply not worth the risk.
> But we've already had examples of ad-blocking companies doing deals with advertisers to whitelist URLs and I simply don't trust them not to on-sell my browser history.
As I recall, uBlock Origin originated as a direct response to ad-blockers engaging in exactly this behavior.
Content blockers are nice, but I’m going to have to agree they are necessary but insufficient on my phone. uBlock Origin as it exists in say Firefox is pretty much exactly what I want and I’d be able to probably uninstall every other ad-blocking extension. I appreciate that Apple tried this approach initially but it’s time to change course and allow more powerful ad-blockers to also exist.
Yeah but the point of this discussion is that _Apple doesn't even give you the choice here._ If you want to do it this way, please do, but this is not a reason to prevent other people from doing things differently.
Can you give me an example? I use Wipr and I don't see ads when I browse the web. Safari Content Blockers supports CSS queries and URL matching. For where those don't work, extensions can still interact and modify the DOM.
> AdGuard instead works by submitting rules to Safari which is significantly better for privacy and performance.
This is the "Manifest v3" model that Chrome is trying to implement and has been called out by HN as being extremely anti-privacy and a scheme to cripple ad blockers?
With Chrome, it's taking away. With Safari extensions, it's adding functionality that didn't exist before.
Compare 'some ad blocking' to 'no ad blocking at all' - you go from 100% of ads being shown to maybe 5-10% (and a lot of broken sites due to less advanced rules). Still not the ~0% people are used to on an open platform, but the iOS default was worse.
> With Chrome, it's taking away. With Safari extensions, it's adding functionality that didn't exist before.
Except on PC and Android you have the choice of either a) using something else (e.g. Firefox) or b) revert the changes you don't like, compile your own Chromium and use it. Apple doesn't give you any choice on iOS, it's either their way or highway.
Apple is not the savior here. Yes, Google doesn't act in the best interest of the open web, but if Apple was in charge there'd be no open web in the first place.
> With Chrome, it's taking away. With Safari extensions, it's adding functionality that didn't exist before.
Incorrect. uBlock Origin previously existed for Safari, but Safari version 13 removed support for the old safariextz format and the Safari Extension Gallery.
I mean I basically want Apple to do this to any proprietary software and untrustworthy free software, I just want to be able to make an exception for trustworthy free software.
Given what I use my phone for I’m happy enough with the current compromise, so long as I have access to a general purpose computer.
Even if Apple allows other browser engines I think they should still ban Chrome.
Not really. Safari had its own declarative content blocker engine for many years now. Additional, it is moving to the manifest standard for better interoperability with cross-browser web extensions.
You're completely in the right to worry about your privacy. I also agree that submitting rules that the browser can enforce without revealing any data to the extension is the proper API for 99% of extensions out there.
However, uBlock Origin is such an important extension that these limits shouldn't really apply to it. I think it's so useful and important that it should be a standard feature of every single browser out there, if not entire operating systems. The problem is browser makers are deeply involved with advertising and we can't trust them to implement ad blocking features due to conflicts of interest, so we have to trust uBlock Origin for now.
The issue with uBlock Origin is that it expects all URLs/content to pass through the plugin and they are not interested in any other model.
AdGuard instead works by submitting rules to Safari which is significantly better for privacy and performance.