15 ms·

Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO. Of course there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and macOS w

by xodice 7y ago

Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO. Of course there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and macOS work just fine for blocking ads. I switched to Wipr on my devices and ads are still blocked, for basic ad blocking it gets the job done easily and quickly. I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine.)

bilbo0s 7y ago
>I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions This is why content blockers are actually better, extensions are huge security holes. Setting aside the whole issue of content v ad blocking, anything that locks down the capabilities of extensions on your system is only a plus for your security.
- close04 7y ago
  Why not have a content blocker with much higher limits? If security is the aim why the limit for 50000 filter rules in use at one time?
  - xodice 7y ago
    I've yet to see a iOS or macOS content blocker that doesn't use multiple filter rules to bypass the 50k limit.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      I'm not sure I understand. If everybody can bypass the 50k limit, what's the point of the limit? If the 50k limit isn't sufficiently high, I don't think, "they're trying to restrict blockers, but don't worry they're bad at it" is a great defense. And if the 50k limit is high enough, and it's a reasonable tradeoff between privacy and performance, then why are content blockers putting in extra work to bypass it? Should we expect that Apple will block the limit workaround in the future?
      - hombre_fatal 7y ago
        One guess: Without a limit, developers would probably default to a massive append-only list that takes a minute to compile. With a limit, developers have to shard their rules which lets them at least compile them in parallel. For example, you need to recompile the list if you want to support on-the-fly customizations like "whitelist this site."
    - buran77 7y ago
      > bypass the 50k limit > when Apple rolled out the new Content Blocker API, it enforced a maximum limit of 50,000 rules for each new extension that wanted to block content inside Safari. Check again? You're probably thinking of how classic extensions used to work.
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > why the limit for 50000 filter rules in use at one time? Eventually more rules will cause a performance impact.
    - close04 7y ago
      Put a disclaimer/warning and let the user decide whether the trade-off is worth it. Ads tend to have far higher performance and power consumption impact than this. Do Safari or Chrome force downscaled pictures and videos on you because it's faster? How is any other software "limited" for performance? And if this is a performance issue then why a fixed limit instead of one that varies with your system's performance? Edit. HN is "hinting" at me that a developer setting arbitrarily low limits "for performance" and not allowing a change is reasonable and expected. Strange place to be told that manufacturer defaults are sacred and the "advanced settings" checkbox should be abolished. For performance, stability, all that. :)
    - glogla 7y ago
      They can't possibly cause as much performance impact as allowing ads through.
    - buran77 7y ago
      So do tabs and I can still open 500 (maybe more already) on a 4 year old phone. No scenario I can imagine relies on having so many tabs open at once. The 50000 rules limit is far more crippling to blockers since you need those rules at once.
      - stjohnswarts 7y ago
        Hint: Those tabs aren't really tabs, they're pretty much just text links, they are not loaded into memory. 99% of them NOT running. If all 500 of those tabs ran in parallel you wouldn't be able to use your phone.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    It’s kept low for performance. I wonder if they’ll revisit the limit at some point.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      What performance? Build a DDA out of the union of all the patterns and run it over each URL. Now you have O(1) (with low constant factors) matching no matter how many patterns you have. The DFA itself takes space and memory dereferences aren't free either, but even huge DFAs can be very compact.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        They do build a DFA of the rules.
    - buran77 7y ago
      Then why enforce the same limit for the iPhone 6s and a top of the line (i)Mac Pro? The elegant solution would be to start with a sensible preset for your device, allow you to change it if you want, and then warn you if some noticeable delays are detected. IE used to do this with addon loading.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  Nobody cares about extensibility any more :( "This is what's good for you, and you're going to like it!" I hate computing nowadays.
  - pilsetnieks 7y ago
    Of the scales between freedom and security have tipped more to the security side. In a way, I mourn the lost freedom, but on the other hand, the increasing scale and sophistication of bad actors make me want for more security. Yes, I know about old Ben's "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" but in tech there are amplifying factors that can simply overwhelm even the most staunch defender of liberty. At this point you have to give up most uses of technology that have become socially ingrained, if you want to remain secure, yet have complete freedom about your tech. A lifestyle like RMS does not seem appealing to very many people. A "caveat emptor" argument simply does not work with tech. No one can fully examine every piece of hardware and software, and determine it's secure, or find trusted and competent sources to vouch for everything with certainty. Even then, eventually tricky issues arise in time where subtle bugs can be exploited. By the time there's something for the emptor to caveat, their data has long still been stolen and compromised.
    - stjohnswarts 7y ago
      Your scenario fails because there's no reason you can't have both. No one forces anyone to install extensions. Apple could make it available to turn off and use a custom extension without much ado. Instead they act like authoritarians.
- javagram 7y ago
  That logic, taken to its rational conclusion, means you shouldn’t be able to run any executable on your computer unless it’s been pre-approved by your OS manufacturer. And yes, that would be a plus for security - and a negative for user freedom.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    “Users” don’t care about the type of “freedom” that geeks care about. In fact, I like having the freedom to install any random crap on my iOS devices knowing that it is limited by both the sandbox and the permissions that I give it. Which is different than any desktop OS.
    - javagram 7y ago
      You can have the same “freedom” on Mac by going into system preferences and turning on the option to only allow App Store apps to run. It should remain an option, not a forced choice. (As long as Firefox still exists and can run on desktops, there will still be a choice... but it’s still unfortunate and a disturbing trend to see more companies making moves against user freedom on their PCs.)
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Until you need to install something like Zoom - which is suppose to be reputable - and it installs a web server that reinstalls itself if you uninstall it.
kitsunesoba 7y ago
Another happy Wipr user here. I have yet to notice a difference in adblocking capabilities and it’s nice knowing that Wipr is entirely incapable of ever doing anything shady. It’s also nice that content blocker extensions work with mobile Safari, removing the need to install a third party browser and dramatically reducing cell data consumption when browsing. It’s frustrating how Chrome for Android has no blocking capabilities whatsoever.
- adimitrov 7y ago
  Wich is why I use Firefox for Android. With extensions.
  - kitsunesoba 7y ago
    I do too when using Android, but ideally doing that should be an option, not a requirement. Content blocking is base level browser functionality these days. Unfortunately Google’s position as an ad company will likely ensure that Chrome for Android will never see any form of content blocking, let alone full fledged extensions.
on_and_off 7y ago
>I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine I am curious, why is that ?
- fwn 7y ago
  I'm not the parent you replied to, but I do trust uBlock Origin as well. While I occasionally switch my browser I never ever browse without uBlock Origin. As far as I am able to evaluate, its author and sole administrator (goes by "gorhill") is very transparent and continuously demonstrates an aligned interest with myself as a normal web user. ...which is a quality I not always see with Mozilla and never ever assumed with Google Chrome product management.
  - on_and_off 7y ago
    I see, thanks for the answer ! I would rather rely on both a good permission model AND a transparent well meaning author than only one of the two, but I can see how it can be enough. The issue is that even considering that this person is indeed honest (and to be clear I absolutely don't intend to smear them, I have no idea who they are), they can one day decide to stop developing the extension and leave it to somebody else, accept external contributors that might be malicious, etc
tyingq 7y ago
"I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine." Interesting, as the uBlock Origin author is pretty clear that uBlock Origin for chrome will cease to exist if/when Chrome implements the manifest v3 changes that make it "Safari like".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bad_user 7y ago
Safari's content blockers are super easy to circumvent by anti-ad-blocking tech. That many publishers don't do that already is a mystery, probably because visitors with ad-blocking are still a minority and publishers don't want to piss them off. As a disclaimer I was in a team working on such technology. The hardest to beat is uBlock Origin, being the most capable from a technical perspective. And we left it completely alone, a good strategy for angry users having a last resort solution to migrate to instead of investigating why AdBlock Plus isn't working. And also by not having a company behind it, a partnership with uBlock Origin for "acceptable ads" isn't possible. Which is why the whole industry, Google included, is scared of it and it's no wonder that they've taken steps to kill it in Chrome for desktop ;-)
- sansnomme 7y ago
  Do your colleagues curse the name of Gorhill and have a dartboard with his face and μblock Origin's logo on it?
  - benologist 7y ago
    Does everyone know Safari's developer menu, if enabled, lets you turn JS on or off in the menu? I find this very helpful browsing news websites. It's not as good as eg noscript in Firefox but it's not inconvenient either.
  - bad_user 7y ago
    Ha, no :-) And I'm also no longer on that team.
- julienfr112 7y ago
  Can you elaborate on what special tech make uBlock hard to beat ?
  - dictum 7y ago
    uBlock Origin replaces some third-party scripts with empty (noop) functions or otherwise sterilized APIs. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Resources-Library https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Resources-Library
simion314 7y ago
>I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine.) Do you know if/what are the differences between what Google done in Chrome and what Apple done it Safari? Are this changes affecting only ad blockers or other useful extensions?
jacobkg 7y ago
How does Wipr compare to AdGuard?
reaperducer 7y ago
Of course there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and macOS work just fine for blocking ads. I never understand why the sorts of people who engage in geek posturing even bother with iOS. Apple's whole theme since 1984 has been ease and simplicity of use. A lot of it is people who read something anti-iOS that sounds vaguely technical on another web site, then parrot it all around to make themselves sound like power users. But if they really were as technical as they portray themselves, they'd be rolling their own Android distribution with all the features they claim they need, instead of moaning that iOS doesn't work the way they want it to.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >I never understand why the sorts of people who engage in geek posturing even bother with iOS. I think selective geekery has become a thing as technology now pervades all aspects of our lives. There's just not enough time to tinker with everything all the time.
- inimino 7y ago
  Just because I know how to mess with all that shit doesn't mean I want to.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Just because I'm tech savvy doesn't mean I want to waste my time.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
> Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO. This seems like putting the cart before the horse, no? Apple is in a good position to change this and chose not to. Personally it changed the internet for me when I could right click → block content forever. Meanwhile I haven’t found any content blocker on ios or safari that successfully blocks all ads. Even firefox focus lets some through. There’s a reason they’re focusing on “privacy” and not “ad blocking”.

by xodice 7y ago

bilbo0s 7y ago

>I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions This is why content blockers are actually better, extensions are huge security holes. Setting aside the whole issue of content v ad blocking, anything that locks down the capabilities of extensions on your system is only a plus for your security.

close04 7y ago
Why not have a content blocker with much higher limits? If security is the aim why the limit for 50000 filter rules in use at one time?
- xodice 7y ago
  I've yet to see a iOS or macOS content blocker that doesn't use multiple filter rules to bypass the 50k limit.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    I'm not sure I understand. If everybody can bypass the 50k limit, what's the point of the limit? If the 50k limit isn't sufficiently high, I don't think, "they're trying to restrict blockers, but don't worry they're bad at it" is a great defense. And if the 50k limit is high enough, and it's a reasonable tradeoff between privacy and performance, then why are content blockers putting in extra work to bypass it? Should we expect that Apple will block the limit workaround in the future?
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      One guess: Without a limit, developers would probably default to a massive append-only list that takes a minute to compile. With a limit, developers have to shard their rules which lets them at least compile them in parallel. For example, you need to recompile the list if you want to support on-the-fly customizations like "whitelist this site."
  - buran77 7y ago
    > bypass the 50k limit > when Apple rolled out the new Content Blocker API, it enforced a maximum limit of 50,000 rules for each new extension that wanted to block content inside Safari. Check again? You're probably thinking of how classic extensions used to work.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > why the limit for 50000 filter rules in use at one time? Eventually more rules will cause a performance impact.
  - close04 7y ago
    Put a disclaimer/warning and let the user decide whether the trade-off is worth it. Ads tend to have far higher performance and power consumption impact than this. Do Safari or Chrome force downscaled pictures and videos on you because it's faster? How is any other software "limited" for performance? And if this is a performance issue then why a fixed limit instead of one that varies with your system's performance? Edit. HN is "hinting" at me that a developer setting arbitrarily low limits "for performance" and not allowing a change is reasonable and expected. Strange place to be told that manufacturer defaults are sacred and the "advanced settings" checkbox should be abolished. For performance, stability, all that. :)
  - glogla 7y ago
    They can't possibly cause as much performance impact as allowing ads through.
  - buran77 7y ago
    So do tabs and I can still open 500 (maybe more already) on a 4 year old phone. No scenario I can imagine relies on having so many tabs open at once. The 50000 rules limit is far more crippling to blockers since you need those rules at once.
    - stjohnswarts 7y ago
      Hint: Those tabs aren't really tabs, they're pretty much just text links, they are not loaded into memory. 99% of them NOT running. If all 500 of those tabs ran in parallel you wouldn't be able to use your phone.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  It’s kept low for performance. I wonder if they’ll revisit the limit at some point.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    What performance? Build a DDA out of the union of all the patterns and run it over each URL. Now you have O(1) (with low constant factors) matching no matter how many patterns you have. The DFA itself takes space and memory dereferences aren't free either, but even huge DFAs can be very compact.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      They do build a DFA of the rules.
  - buran77 7y ago
    Then why enforce the same limit for the iPhone 6s and a top of the line (i)Mac Pro? The elegant solution would be to start with a sensible preset for your device, allow you to change it if you want, and then warn you if some noticeable delays are detected. IE used to do this with addon loading.
tomc1985 7y ago
Nobody cares about extensibility any more :( "This is what's good for you, and you're going to like it!" I hate computing nowadays.
- pilsetnieks 7y ago
  Of the scales between freedom and security have tipped more to the security side. In a way, I mourn the lost freedom, but on the other hand, the increasing scale and sophistication of bad actors make me want for more security. Yes, I know about old Ben's "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" but in tech there are amplifying factors that can simply overwhelm even the most staunch defender of liberty. At this point you have to give up most uses of technology that have become socially ingrained, if you want to remain secure, yet have complete freedom about your tech. A lifestyle like RMS does not seem appealing to very many people. A "caveat emptor" argument simply does not work with tech. No one can fully examine every piece of hardware and software, and determine it's secure, or find trusted and competent sources to vouch for everything with certainty. Even then, eventually tricky issues arise in time where subtle bugs can be exploited. By the time there's something for the emptor to caveat, their data has long still been stolen and compromised.
  - stjohnswarts 7y ago
    Your scenario fails because there's no reason you can't have both. No one forces anyone to install extensions. Apple could make it available to turn off and use a custom extension without much ado. Instead they act like authoritarians.
javagram 7y ago
That logic, taken to its rational conclusion, means you shouldn’t be able to run any executable on your computer unless it’s been pre-approved by your OS manufacturer. And yes, that would be a plus for security - and a negative for user freedom.
- scarface74 7y ago
  “Users” don’t care about the type of “freedom” that geeks care about. In fact, I like having the freedom to install any random crap on my iOS devices knowing that it is limited by both the sandbox and the permissions that I give it. Which is different than any desktop OS.
  - javagram 7y ago
    You can have the same “freedom” on Mac by going into system preferences and turning on the option to only allow App Store apps to run. It should remain an option, not a forced choice. (As long as Firefox still exists and can run on desktops, there will still be a choice... but it’s still unfortunate and a disturbing trend to see more companies making moves against user freedom on their PCs.)
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Until you need to install something like Zoom - which is suppose to be reputable - and it installs a web server that reinstalls itself if you uninstall it.

kitsunesoba 7y ago

Another happy Wipr user here. I have yet to notice a difference in adblocking capabilities and it’s nice knowing that Wipr is entirely incapable of ever doing anything shady. It’s also nice that content blocker extensions work with mobile Safari, removing the need to install a third party browser and dramatically reducing cell data consumption when browsing. It’s frustrating how Chrome for Android has no blocking capabilities whatsoever.

adimitrov 7y ago
Wich is why I use Firefox for Android. With extensions.
- kitsunesoba 7y ago
  I do too when using Android, but ideally doing that should be an option, not a requirement. Content blocking is base level browser functionality these days. Unfortunately Google’s position as an ad company will likely ensure that Chrome for Android will never see any form of content blocking, let alone full fledged extensions.

on_and_off 7y ago

>I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine I am curious, why is that ?

fwn 7y ago
I'm not the parent you replied to, but I do trust uBlock Origin as well. While I occasionally switch my browser I never ever browse without uBlock Origin. As far as I am able to evaluate, its author and sole administrator (goes by "gorhill") is very transparent and continuously demonstrates an aligned interest with myself as a normal web user. ...which is a quality I not always see with Mozilla and never ever assumed with Google Chrome product management.
- on_and_off 7y ago
  I see, thanks for the answer ! I would rather rely on both a good permission model AND a transparent well meaning author than only one of the two, but I can see how it can be enough. The issue is that even considering that this person is indeed honest (and to be clear I absolutely don't intend to smear them, I have no idea who they are), they can one day decide to stop developing the extension and leave it to somebody else, accept external contributors that might be malicious, etc

tyingq 7y ago

"I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine." Interesting, as the uBlock Origin author is pretty clear that uBlock Origin for chrome will cease to exist if/when Chrome implements the manifest v3 changes that make it "Safari like".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

bad_user 7y ago

Safari's content blockers are super easy to circumvent by anti-ad-blocking tech. That many publishers don't do that already is a mystery, probably because visitors with ad-blocking are still a minority and publishers don't want to piss them off. As a disclaimer I was in a team working on such technology. The hardest to beat is uBlock Origin, being the most capable from a technical perspective. And we left it completely alone, a good strategy for angry users having a last resort solution to migrate to instead of investigating why AdBlock Plus isn't working. And also by not having a company behind it, a partnership with uBlock Origin for "acceptable ads" isn't possible. Which is why the whole industry, Google included, is scared of it and it's no wonder that they've taken steps to kill it in Chrome for desktop ;-)

sansnomme 7y ago
Do your colleagues curse the name of Gorhill and have a dartboard with his face and μblock Origin's logo on it?
- benologist 7y ago
  Does everyone know Safari's developer menu, if enabled, lets you turn JS on or off in the menu? I find this very helpful browsing news websites. It's not as good as eg noscript in Firefox but it's not inconvenient either.
- bad_user 7y ago
  Ha, no :-) And I'm also no longer on that team.
julienfr112 7y ago
Can you elaborate on what special tech make uBlock hard to beat ?
- dictum 7y ago
  uBlock Origin replaces some third-party scripts with empty (noop) functions or otherwise sterilized APIs. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Resources-Library https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Resources-Library

simion314 7y ago

>I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine.) Do you know if/what are the differences between what Google done in Chrome and what Apple done it Safari? Are this changes affecting only ad blockers or other useful extensions?

jacobkg 7y ago

How does Wipr compare to AdGuard?

reaperducer 7y ago

Of course there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and macOS work just fine for blocking ads. I never understand why the sorts of people who engage in geek posturing even bother with iOS. Apple's whole theme since 1984 has been ease and simplicity of use. A lot of it is people who read something anti-iOS that sounds vaguely technical on another web site, then parrot it all around to make themselves sound like power users. But if they really were as technical as they portray themselves, they'd be rolling their own Android distribution with all the features they claim they need, instead of moaning that iOS doesn't work the way they want it to.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
>I never understand why the sorts of people who engage in geek posturing even bother with iOS. I think selective geekery has become a thing as technology now pervades all aspects of our lives. There's just not enough time to tinker with everything all the time.
inimino 7y ago
Just because I know how to mess with all that shit doesn't mean I want to.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
Just because I'm tech savvy doesn't mean I want to waste my time.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

> Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO. This seems like putting the cart before the horse, no? Apple is in a good position to change this and chose not to. Personally it changed the internet for me when I could right click → block content forever. Meanwhile I haven’t found any content blocker on ios or safari that successfully blocks all ads. Even firefox focus lets some through. There’s a reason they’re focusing on “privacy” and not “ad blocking”.