5 ms·

What's the uBlock Origin equivalent for Safari? Every time I think about switching to 'the better browser on my Mac' I find there is no such replacement.

lapcat 4y ago
There's no equivalent for Safari. There are a number of Safari content blockers, but the API is strictly limited. It's somewhat similar to declarativeNetRequest in Chrome manifest v3.
- nieve 4y ago
  I know this is probably driven by Apple's opposition to anything that looks like dynamic code execution in extensions, but it seems weird for a company that's not completely dependent on ads the way Google is.
  - hbn 4y ago
    I think their angle is users not one-click installing ad-ware, ruining their browsing experience, and having them think "Safari sucks"
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > I know this is probably driven by Apple's opposition to anything that looks like dynamic code execution in extensions No, that's not it. It's mainly just one API, blocking webRequest: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/webRequest/BlockingResponse https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
fiddlerwoaroof 4y ago
I find 1Blocker is sufficient, even if it’s not as flexible as ublock origin. I like that Safari’s content blockers are designed to make it easier to trust them (e.g. you don’t have to trust that they don’t send your browsing history to a server, because they cannot make network requests)
hombre_fatal 4y ago
I use 1Blocker which is good enough for most browsing. I've tried one-man side projects like Wipr but I suppose they can't compete with an organization. That said, uBlock Origin is definitely more exhaustive since it has a lot of contributors that will write custom rules for even obscure spammy websites, so shady websites are the main reason I do reach for uBlock Origin.
emaro 4y ago
I think AdGuard runs well on Safari.

lapcat 4y ago

There's no equivalent for Safari. There are a number of Safari content blockers, but the API is strictly limited. It's somewhat similar to declarativeNetRequest in Chrome manifest v3.

nieve 4y ago
I know this is probably driven by Apple's opposition to anything that looks like dynamic code execution in extensions, but it seems weird for a company that's not completely dependent on ads the way Google is.
- hbn 4y ago
  I think their angle is users not one-click installing ad-ware, ruining their browsing experience, and having them think "Safari sucks"
- lapcat 4y ago
  > I know this is probably driven by Apple's opposition to anything that looks like dynamic code execution in extensions No, that's not it. It's mainly just one API, blocking webRequest: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/webRequest/BlockingResponse https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

fiddlerwoaroof 4y ago

I find 1Blocker is sufficient, even if it’s not as flexible as ublock origin. I like that Safari’s content blockers are designed to make it easier to trust them (e.g. you don’t have to trust that they don’t send your browsing history to a server, because they cannot make network requests)

hombre_fatal 4y ago

I use 1Blocker which is good enough for most browsing. I've tried one-man side projects like Wipr but I suppose they can't compete with an organization. That said, uBlock Origin is definitely more exhaustive since it has a lot of contributors that will write custom rules for even obscure spammy websites, so shady websites are the main reason I do reach for uBlock Origin.

emaro 4y ago

I think AdGuard runs well on Safari.