4 ms·
I'm struggling a bit to understand the outrage directed specifically at Google over this. When Apple made a nearly identical change in Safari, some people eve
by jonas21 7y ago
I'm struggling a bit to understand the outrage directed specifically at Google over this.
When Apple made a nearly identical change in Safari, some people even praised it for protecting user privacy by preventing malicious ad blockers from intercepting every URL you visited. Most people didn't seem to care, and those who did generally seemed happy about it. But when Google does it, people assume the worst intentions.
- thiht 7y agoNo one cares about Safari because it sucks, no one uses it. Chrome is everywhere
- ex3ndr 7y agoIsn’t Apple put neural net to Safari to fight trackers and allows AD blockers on iOS?
- msbarnett 7y ago) There’s no stunningly obvious conflict of interest leading to the conclusion that Apple is undermining ad blockers in order to protect their ad sales business. 2) Safari’s API is less restrictive than Chrome’s proposal. Rules can be updated dynamically instead of requiring resubmitting the extension for approval, for instance. 3) Market share is materially relevant to level of concern. What the mouse does is less concerning than what the 800 lb Gorilla does.
- jzl 7y agoYep. Safari desktop market share is less than 4%. Also Safari does a lot of tracking and cookie prevention out of the box: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308138/apple-safari-11-advertiser-groups-cookie-tracking-letter https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308138/apple-safari-11-...