6 ms·

Apple is making this move indeed to protect the privacy of its users more. They allow implementing content blockers rather than ad-blockers. See the difference

Apple is making this move indeed to protect the privacy of its users more. They allow implementing content blockers rather than ad-blockers. See the difference here: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158#issuecomment-533381350 https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158#issuecommen...

helpPeople 7y ago
" they are more secure in that they can't possibly collect your browsing history (not that uBO does), but lack the level of customisation and power that a regular blocker like uBO can provide." Quite the spin to make a negative a positive. "Privacy" is the new buzzword.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  Not a spin. Normal extensions can potentially monitor everything you do inside your browser, even in incognito mode. They could even impersonate you. That's a huge gaping security hole, and I think Apple is doing the right thing by preventing that. They've spent a lot of effort with sandboxing to limit the attack surface of native apps -- it's logical that they do the same inside the browser.
  - ivl 7y ago
    It's absolute spin. If the extension can't inspect the traffic it can't meaningfully filter content. Now there is a security hole, yes, but closing it comes at a huge cost: the removal of useful ad blocking. I suspect more and more uBO users will be forced to move to Firefox and/or install a pihole.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      There is no spin. Apple is pretty open about restricting freedom to increase security. Many people don’t have time or inclination to check which extension is doing what. Proof is the fact that ublock and adblock are bad, but ublock origin is good. Whose non-techy friends and family are going to spend time to figure that one out? In that case, the macOS and iOS content blocking system is better for those users.
    - pcr910303 7y ago
      > If the extension can't inspect the traffic it can't meaningfully filter content. I’m sorry, but does uBlock Origin detects & filter ads based on contents? I thought they maintained a database of URLs that serve ads & page elements... and Safari content blockers also have the same capability to block content based on URLs (hence can block YouTube ads). BTW, PiHole blocks ads based on hostname... and is more incapable than Safari content blockers.
      - ivl 7y ago
        uBlock Origin can be configured to do much more than a simple list based filter (like EasyList, etc). [1] It's not quite the same as detecting, but it's incredibly configurable, and that functionality can't be used when list based filtering is all that's allowed. And I'm aware PiHole is just DNS filtering, but an extra layer of blocking is useful. 1. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > If the extension can't inspect the traffic it can't meaningfully filter content. Have you ever used a content blocker? For all their restrictions, they’re still quite effective.
ivl 7y ago
> Apple is making this move indeed to protect the privacy of its users more. I'd give Apple's claim here as much credence as I give Google's claim that webRequest caused performance problems when extensions used it.
- endorphone 7y ago
  What do you doubt about their claim? Adblockers are an significant privacy vulnerability in the traditional model. Apple has no vested interest in ads. It seems entirely consistent with their privacy focus why they'd do this.
  - yellow_postit 7y ago
    Of course Apple has an interest in ads given their competition with Google, which is an ad company. Harder to make money off of ads is bad for their competitors and in a zero sum view of the world good for Apple.
  - ivl 7y ago
    Because ads and trackers are as great a threat to privacy. All ads are malicious, while only some extensions that misuse powerful extensions are. I'm aware ads are not Apple's business model, yet I'm incredibly skeptical whenever an API that is open and powerful gets shrunk down to 'protect' users.
    - endorphone 7y ago
      Apple has gone to great extents to enable ad and tracker blocking, making it a first-class feature in iOS, and pushing the envelope on the blocking of tracking cookies and other technologies. I use AdGuard on my iPhone and it might be the most effective browsing experience I enjoy. For that matter, on macOS I don't have anything in Safari, and regularly go between Safari, Chrome and Firefox (the latter two with uBlock Origin). Somehow just the native anti-aggravation technology in Safari is more than sufficient to give me a great experience. If it has a list solution like the iOS Safari, then I'll partake of that. Apple should enable classic-style blocking as an admin override kind of thing, but remarkably their list-based regex approach has been remarkable effective.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
swebs 7y ago
>I must admit the the terminology isn't very clear. A Safari "content-blocker" app sends a list to Safari, and Safari blocks it. A regular blocker (like uBO) blocks content itself. Safari content blockers aren't all bad, they are more secure in that they can't possibly collect your browsing history (not that uBO does), but lack the level of customisation and power that a regular blocker like uBO can provide. It's nice that random extensions can't peek at your browsing history, but on the other hand, you have to trust that Apple won't decide to ignore any block rules. What if one day they make a deal with Disney and now all Disney ads are on the permanent do-not-block list?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  The current situation does not change this.

helpPeople 7y ago

" they are more secure in that they can't possibly collect your browsing history (not that uBO does), but lack the level of customisation and power that a regular blocker like uBO can provide." Quite the spin to make a negative a positive. "Privacy" is the new buzzword.

jakobegger 7y ago
Not a spin. Normal extensions can potentially monitor everything you do inside your browser, even in incognito mode. They could even impersonate you. That's a huge gaping security hole, and I think Apple is doing the right thing by preventing that. They've spent a lot of effort with sandboxing to limit the attack surface of native apps -- it's logical that they do the same inside the browser.
- ivl 7y ago
  It's absolute spin. If the extension can't inspect the traffic it can't meaningfully filter content. Now there is a security hole, yes, but closing it comes at a huge cost: the removal of useful ad blocking. I suspect more and more uBO users will be forced to move to Firefox and/or install a pihole.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    There is no spin. Apple is pretty open about restricting freedom to increase security. Many people don’t have time or inclination to check which extension is doing what. Proof is the fact that ublock and adblock are bad, but ublock origin is good. Whose non-techy friends and family are going to spend time to figure that one out? In that case, the macOS and iOS content blocking system is better for those users.
  - pcr910303 7y ago
    > If the extension can't inspect the traffic it can't meaningfully filter content. I’m sorry, but does uBlock Origin detects & filter ads based on contents? I thought they maintained a database of URLs that serve ads & page elements... and Safari content blockers also have the same capability to block content based on URLs (hence can block YouTube ads). BTW, PiHole blocks ads based on hostname... and is more incapable than Safari content blockers.
    - ivl 7y ago
      uBlock Origin can be configured to do much more than a simple list based filter (like EasyList, etc). [1] It's not quite the same as detecting, but it's incredibly configurable, and that functionality can't be used when list based filtering is all that's allowed. And I'm aware PiHole is just DNS filtering, but an extra layer of blocking is useful. 1. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > If the extension can't inspect the traffic it can't meaningfully filter content. Have you ever used a content blocker? For all their restrictions, they’re still quite effective.

ivl 7y ago

> Apple is making this move indeed to protect the privacy of its users more. I'd give Apple's claim here as much credence as I give Google's claim that webRequest caused performance problems when extensions used it.

endorphone 7y ago
What do you doubt about their claim? Adblockers are an significant privacy vulnerability in the traditional model. Apple has no vested interest in ads. It seems entirely consistent with their privacy focus why they'd do this.
- yellow_postit 7y ago
  Of course Apple has an interest in ads given their competition with Google, which is an ad company. Harder to make money off of ads is bad for their competitors and in a zero sum view of the world good for Apple.
- ivl 7y ago
  Because ads and trackers are as great a threat to privacy. All ads are malicious, while only some extensions that misuse powerful extensions are. I'm aware ads are not Apple's business model, yet I'm incredibly skeptical whenever an API that is open and powerful gets shrunk down to 'protect' users.
  - endorphone 7y ago
    Apple has gone to great extents to enable ad and tracker blocking, making it a first-class feature in iOS, and pushing the envelope on the blocking of tracking cookies and other technologies. I use AdGuard on my iPhone and it might be the most effective browsing experience I enjoy. For that matter, on macOS I don't have anything in Safari, and regularly go between Safari, Chrome and Firefox (the latter two with uBlock Origin). Somehow just the native anti-aggravation technology in Safari is more than sufficient to give me a great experience. If it has a list solution like the iOS Safari, then I'll partake of that. Apple should enable classic-style blocking as an admin override kind of thing, but remarkably their list-based regex approach has been remarkable effective.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

swebs 7y ago

>I must admit the the terminology isn't very clear. A Safari "content-blocker" app sends a list to Safari, and Safari blocks it. A regular blocker (like uBO) blocks content itself. Safari content blockers aren't all bad, they are more secure in that they can't possibly collect your browsing history (not that uBO does), but lack the level of customisation and power that a regular blocker like uBO can provide. It's nice that random extensions can't peek at your browsing history, but on the other hand, you have to trust that Apple won't decide to ignore any block rules. What if one day they make a deal with Disney and now all Disney ads are on the permanent do-not-block list?

saagarjha 7y ago
The current situation does not change this.