4 ms·

hasn't Apple done the same with Safari? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/apple-neutered-ad-blockers-in-safari-but-unlike-chrome-

by kmlx 7y ago

hasn't Apple done the same with Safari? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/apple-neutered-ad-blockers-in-safari-but-unlike-chrome-users-didnt-say-a-thing/ https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/arti... curiously i haven't noticed any changes on my day to day browsing habits.

kmlx 7y ago
another point: isn't this what every firefox/others fan wished for? a way to balance things out in the browser market?
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  That another player turn evil? I don't think so. Firefox fans want it to become a great browser. No shits given to Chrome either way.
pas 7y ago
yes, and that is also bad.
- judge2020 7y ago
  I guess the argument is "is it worth it to save some people the privacy issue of extensions phoning home the pages you visit by requiring the ad-blocking to be a rule list and not rely on synchronous webRequest blocking". Safari's webRequest change also blocked even monitoring webRequest URLs, so the current adblocking solution is to only provide a list of blocked patterns, and it seems to work for me.
  - pas 7y ago
    The easy solution is to measure the performance of this declarative API and inform the user if it causes slowdowns. But don't limit it to 30k entries.
mrtksn 7y ago
Yep, the hysteria has no substance. I'm using Safari both on mobile and on desktop and use adblocker even though the evil Apple should have had them killed. If Anything, I am nervious of installing any ad-on that can access the web pages I visit and send god knows what who knows were. It's almost as an accident waiting to happen. The web is only secure when your browser is secure. I like the natively handled content blocking approach much better.
- fwn 7y ago
  I'm not deep in the ecosystem and certainly no expert but I got one of those small iPads for free and tried using it as a device for browsing the web. AFAIK there is no way to make Safari execute any cosmetic filters at all. (My uBlock Origin setup lists ~50k network filters and 150k cosmetic filters) There are cookie notices, social media buttons, premium newspaper article headlines, comment sections, fixed elements and content "suggestions" everywhere. Unusable. I use css filters in ublock origin to increase the font size of the HN comment titles because I often miss the collapse or vote links. ...or to block the food suggestions in Googles shoppinglist that, by appearing as an overlay, always hide the first list entry to suggest me to buy "hamburger". (I'm not joking.) I still do have the device somewhere and I am open for suggestions on how to get control over the content (or at least remove ads) on an ipad, but I don't think there is currently any full content-blocking solution for iOS. Which is a shame because (in my case unbearable software aside) the device does not appear bad from a hardware perspective.
mickeyk 7y ago
Yeah. I also switched to Firefox as a longtime Safari user after this.
propogandist 7y ago
Safari's marketshare is insignificant. You've also included an /amp/ link, which is another part of the problem of becoming too dependent on Google.

by kmlx 7y ago

kmlx 7y ago

another point: isn't this what every firefox/others fan wished for? a way to balance things out in the browser market?

marcosdumay 7y ago
That another player turn evil? I don't think so. Firefox fans want it to become a great browser. No shits given to Chrome either way.

pas 7y ago

yes, and that is also bad.

judge2020 7y ago
I guess the argument is "is it worth it to save some people the privacy issue of extensions phoning home the pages you visit by requiring the ad-blocking to be a rule list and not rely on synchronous webRequest blocking". Safari's webRequest change also blocked even monitoring webRequest URLs, so the current adblocking solution is to only provide a list of blocked patterns, and it seems to work for me.
- pas 7y ago
  The easy solution is to measure the performance of this declarative API and inform the user if it causes slowdowns. But don't limit it to 30k entries.

mrtksn 7y ago

Yep, the hysteria has no substance. I'm using Safari both on mobile and on desktop and use adblocker even though the evil Apple should have had them killed. If Anything, I am nervious of installing any ad-on that can access the web pages I visit and send god knows what who knows were. It's almost as an accident waiting to happen. The web is only secure when your browser is secure. I like the natively handled content blocking approach much better.

fwn 7y ago
I'm not deep in the ecosystem and certainly no expert but I got one of those small iPads for free and tried using it as a device for browsing the web. AFAIK there is no way to make Safari execute any cosmetic filters at all. (My uBlock Origin setup lists ~50k network filters and 150k cosmetic filters) There are cookie notices, social media buttons, premium newspaper article headlines, comment sections, fixed elements and content "suggestions" everywhere. Unusable. I use css filters in ublock origin to increase the font size of the HN comment titles because I often miss the collapse or vote links. ...or to block the food suggestions in Googles shoppinglist that, by appearing as an overlay, always hide the first list entry to suggest me to buy "hamburger". (I'm not joking.) I still do have the device somewhere and I am open for suggestions on how to get control over the content (or at least remove ads) on an ipad, but I don't think there is currently any full content-blocking solution for iOS. Which is a shame because (in my case unbearable software aside) the device does not appear bad from a hardware perspective.

mickeyk 7y ago

Yeah. I also switched to Firefox as a longtime Safari user after this.

propogandist 7y ago

Safari's marketshare is insignificant. You've also included an /amp/ link, which is another part of the problem of becoming too dependent on Google.