5 ms·

NoScript and uBlock Origin will not be happening for Safari. The API is missing and won't be implemented. Safari does not have the same full API as Chrome or Fi

by _qulr 6y ago

NoScript and uBlock Origin will not be happening for Safari. The API is missing and won't be implemented. Safari does not have the same full API as Chrome or Firefox. Instead, Safari relies on a more limited, Apple-specific content blocking API.

zerocrates 6y ago
Isn't it along the lines of what Chrome's been talking about moving to, where you basically get to tell the browser what to block but not get at the requests in the way you can now?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Pretty much.
- chromedev 6y ago
  It is still open for discussion within Chromium, and unlike Safari Chromium is open source so it can be forked to implement whatever features you want.
the_gipsy 6y ago
If it's the same API as iOS' NetworlExtension, then I don't see why uBlock couldn't happen. uBlock doesn't "phone home" for each request/site, does it?
- jon-wood 6y ago
  It doesn't phone home, but it does depend on access to the DOM for at least some of its functionality like being able to block particular elements in a page based on pattern matching. If the new API allows more or less equivalent functionality without having to give an extension access to every page I open I'm all for it though.
  - the_gipsy 6y ago
    Accessing and modifying the DOM based on some rules, in a sandbox without leaking data, seems technically feasible.
m0xte 6y ago
Which incidentally sucks terribly. Ad blocking on iOS and macOS is a complete turd.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  It's actually pretty good and gets you 95% of the way there with a static blocker API that doesn't give any privileges to the ad-blocker, and that's a big deal. If you really think something like https://1blocker.com/ https://1blocker.com/ is a "turd", then you must be hung up on something rather inconsequential to most people.
  - m0xte 6y ago
    95% probably isn’t good enough. 1blocker is fairly awful I find and rather expensive because you’re a captive audience that doesn’t have access to working uBlock. This situation is one of several reasons I recently dumped macOS and went back to windows and am using edge and doing all my unixy stuff in VMs.
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago
      95% is good enough to the vast majority of people. To get 100%, you use NoScript or turn Javascript off. Not many HNers even go that far. You don't have to use 1blocker, it's just an example of a well-crafted solution that has made it so I haven't seen an ad since I started using it. There are free solutions. The point is that you need to temper "ugh $thing is a turd!" when you're talking about fringe expectations, else you're completely disconnected from the conversation everyone else is having. You could call uBlock Origin a "turd" for its privacy violation of having access to every website you visit and request you make, but that's not a good way to have that conversation, either. Sounds like there was more to your decision than this situation though. Chrome + uBlock work fine on macOS.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        > The point is that you need to temper "ugh $thing is a turd!" when you're talking about fringe expectations I wouldn't call it a fringe expectation. uBlock Origin in safariextz format was quite popular for Safari, until Safari 13 removed all support for it. As a result, many users were forced to move from something that worked very well for them to something that didn't work as well. Nobody likes to be forced to adopt something worse. Imposing the "power user" vs. "normal user" dichotomy here is not an accurate story of the history of Safari extensions.

by _qulr 6y ago

zerocrates 6y ago

Isn't it along the lines of what Chrome's been talking about moving to, where you basically get to tell the browser what to block but not get at the requests in the way you can now?

saagarjha 6y ago
Pretty much.
chromedev 6y ago
It is still open for discussion within Chromium, and unlike Safari Chromium is open source so it can be forked to implement whatever features you want.

the_gipsy 6y ago

If it's the same API as iOS' NetworlExtension, then I don't see why uBlock couldn't happen. uBlock doesn't "phone home" for each request/site, does it?

jon-wood 6y ago
It doesn't phone home, but it does depend on access to the DOM for at least some of its functionality like being able to block particular elements in a page based on pattern matching. If the new API allows more or less equivalent functionality without having to give an extension access to every page I open I'm all for it though.
- the_gipsy 6y ago
  Accessing and modifying the DOM based on some rules, in a sandbox without leaking data, seems technically feasible.

m0xte 6y ago

Which incidentally sucks terribly. Ad blocking on iOS and macOS is a complete turd.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
It's actually pretty good and gets you 95% of the way there with a static blocker API that doesn't give any privileges to the ad-blocker, and that's a big deal. If you really think something like https://1blocker.com/ https://1blocker.com/ is a "turd", then you must be hung up on something rather inconsequential to most people.
- m0xte 6y ago
  95% probably isn’t good enough. 1blocker is fairly awful I find and rather expensive because you’re a captive audience that doesn’t have access to working uBlock. This situation is one of several reasons I recently dumped macOS and went back to windows and am using edge and doing all my unixy stuff in VMs.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    95% is good enough to the vast majority of people. To get 100%, you use NoScript or turn Javascript off. Not many HNers even go that far. You don't have to use 1blocker, it's just an example of a well-crafted solution that has made it so I haven't seen an ad since I started using it. There are free solutions. The point is that you need to temper "ugh $thing is a turd!" when you're talking about fringe expectations, else you're completely disconnected from the conversation everyone else is having. You could call uBlock Origin a "turd" for its privacy violation of having access to every website you visit and request you make, but that's not a good way to have that conversation, either. Sounds like there was more to your decision than this situation though. Chrome + uBlock work fine on macOS.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > The point is that you need to temper "ugh $thing is a turd!" when you're talking about fringe expectations I wouldn't call it a fringe expectation. uBlock Origin in safariextz format was quite popular for Safari, until Safari 13 removed all support for it. As a result, many users were forced to move from something that worked very well for them to something that didn't work as well. Nobody likes to be forced to adopt something worse. Imposing the "power user" vs. "normal user" dichotomy here is not an accurate story of the history of Safari extensions.