4 ms·
There isn't anything stopping individuals from publishing Safari content blockers, though? No more than with the previous extension model. Nor were individuals
by vatueil 7y ago
There isn't anything stopping individuals from publishing Safari content blockers, though? No more than with the previous extension model.
Nor were individuals the only players to take advantage of the powers available to old extensions.
There are also legitimate security reasons why browsers such as Firefox have restricted side-loading add-ons on consumer operating systems such as Windows.
There's a debate to be had about whether security for most users is worth the trade-off in flexibility for power users. But regardless of any other reasons we might speculate, the arguments that have been presented in favor of such changes are already compelling enough on their own and need to be seriously addressed.
- bad_user 7y agoAs I said, Safari's content blockers are restricted in what they can do and easy to circumvent. That they work for now is only temporary. There's also the elephant in the room: 1. Those content blockers don't work in webviews and most apps on iOS open urls in web views with no way to choose Safari 2. Apps have no ad blockers either Gmail on iOS is especially annoying because we often have to open links that require sign-in (e.g. Github) and there's no way to make it open Safari, but it does have an option for opening "Chrome" (also a shell around an iOS webview). But I love seeing people sticking it to the man :-)
- xodice 7y agoThen you aren't the target for these browsers. I suggest you use one that does what you need. Safari does enough for the majority, tho I understand if "power users" need more "control". Are you a Safari user? I'm trying to understand why you are so obsessive over this minor (to the majority of Safari users) "issue". Regardless, we all deserve privacy and I suggest everyone use either an extension OR a content blocker. I don't care. Just stick it to those scum bags mining your data to send you "targeted" ads. That we can agree on! edit: Cannot reply to bad_user for whatever reason. Regardless, I think we're both on the same page arguing about the same thing in different ways. Let's agree to disagree? <3 my man. Take it easy.
- bad_user 7y agoNo, this isn't about control. Safari's content blockers simply suck at what they do. And yes, I'm an iPhone user.
- acdha 7y agoI use the Firefox Focus blocker on iOS and while it’s not perfect, a few minutes with it disabled is sufficient to say that “simply suck” is grossly inaccurate. It’s a good compromise for something which normal users have a hard time evaluating — 90% of the benefits with zero risk of a security compromise.
- xodice 7y agoSee my edits, couldn't reply earlier. We agree in the end. :)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vatueil 7y agoFair point regarding mobile Safari, though there aren't many better options on iOS. Extensions have never been supported there. I was mainly addressing the situation on desktop, such as Safari on macOS, since the previous comments were discussing changes to desktop browsers.
- LordDragonfang 7y ago>Those content blockers don't work in webviews and most apps on iOS open urls in web views with no way to choose Safari What's even the point of having a system-level solution if it doesn't work on system-level webviews?
- darren_ 7y ago> Gmail on iOS is especially annoying because we often have to open links that require sign-in (e.g. Github) and there's no way to make it open Safari, but it does have an option for opening "Chrome" (also a shell around an iOS webview). This is false. GMail has settings for choosing chrome or safari - settings > default apps.