7 ms·

>Nobody could have possibly seen it coming that Google would abuse its market position to their own benefit... Doesn't Safari have the same restriction, also o

by gruez 2y ago

>Nobody could have possibly seen it coming that Google would abuse its market position to their own benefit... Doesn't Safari have the same restriction, also ostensibly for "security/privacy" reasons? The only difference is that Apple doesn't have a web advertising presence, so you can't make the accusation that they're "abuse its market position to their own benefit".

AstralSerenity 2y ago
Firefox and its derivatives remain the only true alternative at this point.
- fyrabanks 2y ago
  You can still install uBlock Origin in Brave, assuming you don't mind the crypto stuff and how they pay it out (or, rather don't) to site owners. Even Firefox feels a little weird now with the advent of Mozilla Advertising. Very much a lesser of all evils situation.
  - AstralSerenity 2y ago
    You can, but ultimately Brave is downstream of Chrome and their stated intention of supporting Manifest V2 "for as long as [they're] able" doesn't inspire as much confidence. Firefox is also the only open alternative to Chromium at the moment, so I prefer to endorse it instead.
    - ray023 2y ago
      Brave has its own Rust based Adblocker BUILD IN. That is at the very core of the Browser, uses the exact same filter lists uBlock Origin and all the other use. There is no point in using uBlock origin in Brave at all. I have been using Brave for years now and the adblocker pretty much like uBlock. Never looked back. I think it even inspired by uBlock but the fact they can even integrate it tighter with Chromium makes more then than an extension written in JS.
      - fabrice_d 2y ago
        uBlock Origin does a bit more than applying community maintained filter lists though. I regularly use its capability to add custom filters for instance. Is that also possible in Brave?
        jemmyw 2y ago
        Yes
      - WD-42 2y ago
        For now. We’ll see how long it takes for them to integrate their Brave Bucks for either enabling the blocker or whitelisting ads.
        BrendanEich 2y ago
        We would not do that on principle, but imagine we're the mustache twirlers you fantasize we are: we'd light our brand on fire doing any such thing, lose all our lead users, stop growing and start shrinking. Think / Type / Post is the Ready / Aim / Fire analogue you seek.
        kikokikokiko 2y ago
        I know that you probably went with Chromium based on the way your relationship with Mozilla ended, but man... I'll never have a Chromium based browser as my daily driver, I simply never trusted the ad company to not do what they ended up doing in the end (killing ad blockers). Brave will always be a no go for me for this reason. And now more than ever, we really need some company with real fire power to take the reins of the Firefox source code and create a real trustable fork.
        jlkuester7 2y ago
        I get it. I run FF as my primary browser (mostly because I don't want to see the internet devolve into a Blink mono-culture). But, I always recommend Brave for less-technical folks. It just works! My FF setup includes a number of extensions, some of which need a bit of tuning to be useful. Then you have to deal with issues in websites that just don't properly support FF, etc. My grandmother can install Brave and simply start browsing. Things just work without extra config or tinkering.
  - homebrewer 2y ago
    > install uBlock Origin in Brave There's no need to do it, their built-in adblocker supports the same rule lists. https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
    - tmtvl 2y ago
      But does it support blocking JavaScript, large media elements, social widgets, and fonts?
      - johnisgood 2y ago
        I would like to know this, too. It does not seem to be on the list of features unless they are referring to it via "cosmetic filtering". I often block particular elements on websites.
        jemmyw 2y ago
        You can block elements, there's an option on the right click context menu to do it visually.
      - pnw 2y ago
        Yes, you can block elements directly from the context menu. I use it all the time on Reddit. There's also built in blocking under brave://settings/shields for Javascript and social features. It doesn't have a specific feature to block fonts AFAIK but it does have fingerprint protection if that's your concern.
        antonok 2y ago
        Brave's adblocker supports the standard `$font` resource type modifier on adblock rules as well.
        pnw 2y ago
        Thanks, TIL!
  - ClikeX 2y ago
    Luckily, Firefox has several forks that strip that telemetry.
  - novemp 2y ago
    Another day, another subtle insinuation that Brave is the only Chrome fork anyone uses. Are you people being paid to do this?
    - rockskon 2y ago
      Or maybe it's just popular? Recommend something else if you don't like it rather than just insinuating crap about people who do.
    - antonok 2y ago
      As I see it, Brave is the only Chromium-based browser with a competitive Mv2-deprecation-resistant adblocker. If adblocking is important to you - and it is, to many people - then Brave literally is the only one worth considering. Not to mention it is open source, unlike most of the others. (I work on Brave's adblocker, and FWIW the folks who work for Brave are very open about their affiliation when commenting about it online)
    - Novack 2y ago
      It is not a subtle insinuation, Brave is the defacto only browser apart from Chrome right now. All the rest are niche and irrelevant if you measure adblock, compatibility and widely subpar privacy protection. There is some bitching about the ads crypto token, but that is entirely optional, so complaints are mostly fear and dogma. And to be honest, is a fascinating new approach to ads that suvberts the current state of affairs in the advertising market.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Brave has a native adblocker that lets basically nothing through, though it can be configured as desired. Crypto stuff is opt-in, though there is a little monochrome button for it on the browser that one can disable with a right click.
- jhickok 2y ago
  Do you have thoughts about Kagi/Orion browser? I've been using it for a bit now and I've been pleased with the ad blocking capabilities and the ability to have ublock origin on my iPhone and iPad. The browser definitely has scales but it's usable for me at this point.
  - 64805968473 2y ago
    Not open source.
    - drdaeman 2y ago
      Your comment was downvoted into oblivion, but it's a very valid point. There is a significant number of GNU/Linux users who value the freedoms granted by FLOSS licensing, so I believe Orion not being a FLOSS project is a valid argument against it - specifically in context of GNU/Linux (as a part of Free Software movement). At least it certainly leaves me (personally) having second thoughts, even though I'm no purist and use proprietary software (but try prefer free software if I can).
  - RamRodification 2y ago
    macOS only
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Linux is coming, but that still leaves Windows and Android (and iOS?) out.
      - wartijn_ 2y ago
        There is an iOS version https://apps.apple.com/app/id1484498200 https://apps.apple.com/app/id1484498200
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  It's easy to block ads on an entire system DNS level, instead of using browser plugins.
  - h4x0rr 2y ago
    This way you're missing out on specific js patches for sites with hard to block ads (like YouTube)
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      That's a special case, which can be solved by buying YouTube premium. For general ad-blocking, the DNS filters work great.
      - paulryanrogers 2y ago
        What incentives does this enforce in the market? Strangling smaller players and reinforcing the dominant ones.
        jpc0 2y ago
        "We understand some users don't want ads so to monetize our product we allow those users to pay and not see ads" Your response: "I want to keep my cake and eat it too." I have a solution for you, stop using YouTube if you feel so strongly that a video platform should be free to use. I'm paraphrasing in the quotes, they aren't real quotes...
  - Yeul 2y ago
    How does that work on a smartphone?
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      You install NextDNS from the App Store.
- bluescrn 2y ago
  How long will Mozilla be around for, though?
  - squarefoot 2y ago
    As long as Google pays them to remain alive to reinforce the narrative that Chrome isn't a monopoly.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      That deal is on the chopping block as part of the DOJ's lawsuit.
      - squarefoot 2y ago
        Yep, very likely. https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/03/doj-google-must-sell-chrome-android-could-be-next/ https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/03/doj-google-must-sell-... Now, why do I have this feeling that it will be bought by some entity very close to the current US administration?
  - mrandish 2y ago
    If the Google, Pocket and other ad money dries up, Mozilla the company may go away but the Firefox browser itself will continue on because it's open source. As an exclusively Firefox user for over 20 years, I suspect if Mozilla the company dies, it will won't negatively impact Firefox much, at least in any meaningful way. In fact, the browser may be somewhat better off managed like the Blender or MAME projects. In the last five years or so Firefox has increasingly introduced controversial changes that make it (IMHO) less good, primarily around interface design. And, from what I understand, Mozilla employs full-time UX designers who've been driving much of that. Of course, with Firefox it's still possible to modify, fix and restore all these recent interface "improvements" with user CSS but it's a constant annoyance to need to keep fixing it. Fortunately, there's an active community effort around restoring the Firefox interface and usability, exemplified by the brilliant Lepton project https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix/releases https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix/releases. My perception just watching the evolution of Firefox from the outside, is that it used to be a browser that celebrated the ethos of "Have it Your Way." However, Mozilla the company gets money to pay its executives and employees (millions in the case of more than one recent CEO) by actively driving users and eyeballs for Google, Pocket and other advertisers. So the company is highly incentivized to try myriad changes and redesigns to increase appeal to "the masses" of browser users. Thus, the UX keeps getting 'simplified' and 'de-cluttered' with advanced functionality 'de-prioritized' and add-on support demoted to second-class afterthought - instead of the shining key feature advanced users value most. Basically, in recent years the Firefox UX and end-user features have been pushed by the substantial payroll needs of the Mozilla company to become more like Chrome and Safari instead of embracing its unique position as a tool for power users who value advanced features, customization and extension. And it was all for naught because Firefox has continued to lose market share while ignoring (and even actively alienating) its niche community of fanatically devoted power users.
- johnklos 2y ago
  ...so long as you're not in a market where they automatically opt you in to sending all your DNS requests to a for-profit company without asking, and if you are, you remember to set up a canary domain or go and update your settings for every new install and new profile.
judge2020 2y ago
And ublock origin lite works just fine for me
- kolanos 2y ago
  Not working as well on YouTube. The ad is blocked, but you still need to skip it. You didn't need to do this with UBO.
  - gorhill 2y ago
    It's working fine on Youtube in Optimal mode. If you have still issue, you will have to go through self-diagnosing steps[1] to rule out all the myriad other ways you suffer such issues -- most commonly another extension is interfering negatively. [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/27415 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/27415
  - smallerfish 2y ago
    Click on the extension icon and move the slider to the right.
  - nikcub 2y ago
    uBO being so good at blocking YouTube ads to the point where you didn't need to signup for Premium may have been the tipping point for Google that ended manifest V2.
    - chii 2y ago
      i suspect that youtube mobile is responsible for more traffic than web. And that it's harder (but not impossible) to have adblocking on mobile (such as revanced).
      - dagelf 2y ago
        Brave gives you everything Premium for free.
  - 2y ago
EA-3167 2y ago
That's a BIG difference though, and makes the claim about security more believable, especially since it isn't a sole restriction. There are also a number of ad blockers available for Safari, although personally I'll stick with Firefox either way. Google is an ad company restriction use of the primary ad-blocker on its browser, it's blatant.
- fumufumu 2y ago
  What ads are not blocked by other ad blockers though? I'm upset too that ublock origin is no longer usable. I tried ublock origin lite and it seems to be blocking most ads so it's still blocking google's ads and that's not banned. It seems kind of hard to argue that it's just about banning ads given plenty of ad blockers still block Google's ads. I haven't tried others like Ad Blocker etc...
zamalek 2y ago
This is coming from an Apple antagonist, but don't the Apple OSs have adblocking at a system level (implying Safari)? This does vindicate Apple (but doesn't help in the other legitimate scenarios that this API is needed, which I have been told do exist).
- gruez 2y ago
  > but don't the Apple OSs have adblocking at a system level (implying Safari)? No, content blockers are specific to Safari. Third party apps can show ads just fine.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    It's easy to install system level ad-blocking in MacOS and iOS.
echelon 2y ago
It's time for a Google breakup from the DOJ / FTC. They've gone well beyond what Microsoft did in the 2000s. Google owns so many panes of glass and funnels them all through its search and advertising funnel. They've distorted how the web (and mobile) work to accomplish this massive market distortion. Search, Ads, and Android should be broken up into separate units. Chrome shouldn't be placed with any of those units. While we're cutting, YouTube should be its own entity and stand on its own legs too. Apple, Amazon, and Meta need the same scrutiny. Grocery stores and primary care doctors should not be movie studios and core internet infrastructure. Especially when those units are wholly subsidized by other unrelated business units, and their under pricing the market is used to strangle out the incumbents and buy them up on the cheap.
- klardotsh 2y ago
  Well, this country (the US) decided in November to go the exact opposite direction of having a government capable of, let alone willing to, pursuing litigation like this, so I hope we enjoy this digital feudalism only expanding, never receding, in the coming years.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Well, this country (the US) decided in November to go the exact opposite direction of having a government capable of, let alone willing to, pursuing litigation like this No? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299886
    - klardotsh 2y ago
      Okay, I'll retract my remarks when the new formation of the FTC actually goes after a tech giant. And frankly, I have doubt any DOJ filings of this type won't get repealed by force from above in short order. This is a case that was mostly handled by the prior DOJ, which is gone now, replaced by new management.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
Fluorescence 2y ago
People scratch their heads about how "just a default setting" can be worth an annual $20 billion payment from Google. It makes more sense if it's actually for a raft of wildly illegal under-the-table measures this. Imagine what it would cost Google's bottom line if Apple was truly user-focused and enabled ad-blocking on desktop, mobile and embedded safari views by default. Someone do the napkin math please!
- gruez 2y ago
  This conspiracy theory doesn't make sense because safari's content blockers (ie. the nerfed version of adblock) block most ads just fine, especially from google ads. The only ads that get through are first party ads (eg. youtube), but as of a few years ago adblockers could block those as well, so it's a moot point.
  - jorvi 2y ago
    Yup. I understand that nerfing adblocking is definitely a big draw for Google, but Apple went the ManifestV3 route many years before, specifically to increase extension performance and privacy. Back then there was a big uproar too, but mostly because Safari extension developers charged for a new version because they had to rewrite the entire thing.
    - zarzavat 2y ago
      > specifically to increase extension performance and privacy This reasoning is so bogus that it’s hard to believe anybody could believe it in good faith. Ad blockers are essential for performance and user privacy and security. If Apple truly bought into this reasoning then they’d integrate an ad blocker like Brave does. Follow the money.
      - jorvi 2y ago
        It is not bogus. It does increase privacy because the extension no longer sees what pages you load or your web content. And it is indeed more performant. And Apple does care because later on they started to allow blockers to spread blocking rules over multiple sub-extensions. Initially they were limited on... 15 000 rules? Can't quite remember.
bearjaws 2y ago
Alright? Split iOS off from Apple, then split Apple Music off too? I hate these arguments where people point to some other shitty thing a company is doing as some sort of gotcha.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Alright? Split iOS off from Apple, then split Apple Music off too? Windows is split off from Lenovo/Dell. How's that working out for the Windows OS, or the Edge browser?
  - bearjaws 2y ago
    Largest OS share in the market? Seems to be working out pretty good? Edge is a perfectly good browser now? Probably should be its own company too if we are splitting Chrome off from Google. I will tell you that we should split these companies into 100 parts if thats what you are asking. Imagine if Apple licensed its chips out in competition with Qualcomm...
gerash 2y ago
[flagged]
fmajid 2y ago
Apple is totally an advertising company. Have you missed the part about their stalling phone, tablet and laptop revenues, that they hope to compensate with "services" revenue, i.e. App Store 30% racketeering and App Store search ads?
- gruez 2y ago
  >Apple is totally an advertising company. Have you missed the part about [...] Have you missed the part of my comment of my comment where I specifically mentioned "web advertising presence"? That's relevant, because ublock would only work on web ads. It can't block ads in the app store, or any other app (eg. spotify).
  - fmajid 2y ago
    Apple also serves ads and trackers on the web, not just in-app or on the App Store. Here are the relevant built-in uBlock Origin filter rules: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AuBlockOrigin%2FuAssets+apple.com&type=code https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AuBlockOrigin%2FuAssets+ap... Thus they also clearly have an incentive to sabotage uBO. It may be a much smaller piece of their revenue than at Google, but it is a huge proportion of their revenue growth. Don't believe Apple's marketing about their caring for privacy, belied by their actions.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Here are the relevant built-in uBlock Origin filter rules: Can you link to a specific rule that shows Apple has web ads? The search results you linked either removeparam filters (which I guess is "tracking", but probably the most benign kind), malware sites that contain "apple.com", or analytics domains that seemingly belong to apple. Moreover there's no evidence that Safari's content blocker restrictions make a difference here. The domains are trivially blocked so it's unclear how apple is materially gaining from their nerfed adblock.
    - 0x457 2y ago
      Ads that apple serves (outside of marketing pages on apple.com) are ads that displayed on ad supported ads. uBO won't help you there. Luckily, every Apple device comes with an AdBlock for those ads - airplane mode.
F7F7F7 2y ago
Whataboutism is so lazy.
- gruez 2y ago
  It's not whataboutism. If the claim is that google's actions with manifest v3 is "abusing its market position to their own benefit", but Apple did the same thing when it didn't stand to benefit from it, then it severely undermines that claim. Sure, it doesn't rule out google was secretly intending on doing it, only internal memos or whatever can prove that definitively. But at the same time, to immediately conclude that google was "abusing its market position", you would have to be maximally uncharitable to google. That's a sad way to see the world. Take for instance, the flak that google got for banning third party cookies. If this is done by anyone else (eg. Firefox), this would be seen as a good thing. However, cynics have opposed this on the basis that such change would disadvantage third party ad networks more than google, thus google was "abusing its market position to their own benefit" and therefore the change was bad.
  - derkster 2y ago
    You talk about Google as if it's a person. You should take a step back and think to yourself why the changes were made to Manifest V3 that broke backwards compatibility, weakening ability to ad-blocking. Rule set based modification is one of the first features I'd think of when developing a systems of extensibility in browser, and they removed it. The reasoning is obvious, and "plausible deniability" is not enough to give Google charity. The more difficult you make it to block ads, the more impressions, and the more money made. Yet you believe people should be "charitable" to the same company that can't hire the manpower to defend their own users against bad faith DCMA takedown notices. Because they ran the analysis, and it wasn't worth the cost. Best case scenario, Chromium loses market share, implements the parts removed from V2, Google likely kicks the can down the road to Manifest V4. There's no reason to believe companies deserve charitability. Companies are systems designed to extract maximum value, and when the world around that system changes, the system adjusts itself. It's not the systems fault for trying to get more value, it's our fault for letting them.
cma 2y ago
Apple gets Google revenue for being their default search, and that is worth much less if the search ads pay less if Safari users were able to browse other sites untracked.
edgarischatting 2y ago
Honest question here: Could someone explain to me how Apple and Safari relate to what Google is doing? I currently use Adguard as a content blocker for Safari on iOS, iPadOS, and macOS. Does this mean that Safari will also start restricting access to these ad blockers?

by gruez 2y ago

AstralSerenity 2y ago

Firefox and its derivatives remain the only true alternative at this point.

fyrabanks 2y ago
You can still install uBlock Origin in Brave, assuming you don't mind the crypto stuff and how they pay it out (or, rather don't) to site owners. Even Firefox feels a little weird now with the advent of Mozilla Advertising. Very much a lesser of all evils situation.
- AstralSerenity 2y ago
  You can, but ultimately Brave is downstream of Chrome and their stated intention of supporting Manifest V2 "for as long as [they're] able" doesn't inspire as much confidence. Firefox is also the only open alternative to Chromium at the moment, so I prefer to endorse it instead.
  - ray023 2y ago
    Brave has its own Rust based Adblocker BUILD IN. That is at the very core of the Browser, uses the exact same filter lists uBlock Origin and all the other use. There is no point in using uBlock origin in Brave at all. I have been using Brave for years now and the adblocker pretty much like uBlock. Never looked back. I think it even inspired by uBlock but the fact they can even integrate it tighter with Chromium makes more then than an extension written in JS.
    - fabrice_d 2y ago
      uBlock Origin does a bit more than applying community maintained filter lists though. I regularly use its capability to add custom filters for instance. Is that also possible in Brave?
      - jemmyw 2y ago
        Yes
    - WD-42 2y ago
      For now. We’ll see how long it takes for them to integrate their Brave Bucks for either enabling the blocker or whitelisting ads.
      - BrendanEich 2y ago
        We would not do that on principle, but imagine we're the mustache twirlers you fantasize we are: we'd light our brand on fire doing any such thing, lose all our lead users, stop growing and start shrinking. Think / Type / Post is the Ready / Aim / Fire analogue you seek.
        kikokikokiko 2y ago
        I know that you probably went with Chromium based on the way your relationship with Mozilla ended, but man... I'll never have a Chromium based browser as my daily driver, I simply never trusted the ad company to not do what they ended up doing in the end (killing ad blockers). Brave will always be a no go for me for this reason. And now more than ever, we really need some company with real fire power to take the reins of the Firefox source code and create a real trustable fork.
        jlkuester7 2y ago
        I get it. I run FF as my primary browser (mostly because I don't want to see the internet devolve into a Blink mono-culture). But, I always recommend Brave for less-technical folks. It just works! My FF setup includes a number of extensions, some of which need a bit of tuning to be useful. Then you have to deal with issues in websites that just don't properly support FF, etc. My grandmother can install Brave and simply start browsing. Things just work without extra config or tinkering.
- homebrewer 2y ago
  > install uBlock Origin in Brave There's no need to do it, their built-in adblocker supports the same rule lists. https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
  - tmtvl 2y ago
    But does it support blocking JavaScript, large media elements, social widgets, and fonts?
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      I would like to know this, too. It does not seem to be on the list of features unless they are referring to it via "cosmetic filtering". I often block particular elements on websites.
      - jemmyw 2y ago
        You can block elements, there's an option on the right click context menu to do it visually.
    - pnw 2y ago
      Yes, you can block elements directly from the context menu. I use it all the time on Reddit. There's also built in blocking under brave://settings/shields for Javascript and social features. It doesn't have a specific feature to block fonts AFAIK but it does have fingerprint protection if that's your concern.
      - antonok 2y ago
        Brave's adblocker supports the standard `$font` resource type modifier on adblock rules as well.
        pnw 2y ago
        Thanks, TIL!
- ClikeX 2y ago
  Luckily, Firefox has several forks that strip that telemetry.
- novemp 2y ago
  Another day, another subtle insinuation that Brave is the only Chrome fork anyone uses. Are you people being paid to do this?
  - rockskon 2y ago
    Or maybe it's just popular? Recommend something else if you don't like it rather than just insinuating crap about people who do.
  - antonok 2y ago
    As I see it, Brave is the only Chromium-based browser with a competitive Mv2-deprecation-resistant adblocker. If adblocking is important to you - and it is, to many people - then Brave literally is the only one worth considering. Not to mention it is open source, unlike most of the others. (I work on Brave's adblocker, and FWIW the folks who work for Brave are very open about their affiliation when commenting about it online)
  - Novack 2y ago
    It is not a subtle insinuation, Brave is the defacto only browser apart from Chrome right now. All the rest are niche and irrelevant if you measure adblock, compatibility and widely subpar privacy protection. There is some bitching about the ads crypto token, but that is entirely optional, so complaints are mostly fear and dogma. And to be honest, is a fascinating new approach to ads that suvberts the current state of affairs in the advertising market.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Brave has a native adblocker that lets basically nothing through, though it can be configured as desired. Crypto stuff is opt-in, though there is a little monochrome button for it on the browser that one can disable with a right click.
jhickok 2y ago
Do you have thoughts about Kagi/Orion browser? I've been using it for a bit now and I've been pleased with the ad blocking capabilities and the ability to have ublock origin on my iPhone and iPad. The browser definitely has scales but it's usable for me at this point.
- 64805968473 2y ago
  Not open source.
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    Your comment was downvoted into oblivion, but it's a very valid point. There is a significant number of GNU/Linux users who value the freedoms granted by FLOSS licensing, so I believe Orion not being a FLOSS project is a valid argument against it - specifically in context of GNU/Linux (as a part of Free Software movement). At least it certainly leaves me (personally) having second thoughts, even though I'm no purist and use proprietary software (but try prefer free software if I can).
- RamRodification 2y ago
  macOS only
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Linux is coming, but that still leaves Windows and Android (and iOS?) out.
    - wartijn_ 2y ago
      There is an iOS version https://apps.apple.com/app/id1484498200 https://apps.apple.com/app/id1484498200
carlosjobim 2y ago
It's easy to block ads on an entire system DNS level, instead of using browser plugins.
- h4x0rr 2y ago
  This way you're missing out on specific js patches for sites with hard to block ads (like YouTube)
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    That's a special case, which can be solved by buying YouTube premium. For general ad-blocking, the DNS filters work great.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      What incentives does this enforce in the market? Strangling smaller players and reinforcing the dominant ones.
      - jpc0 2y ago
        "We understand some users don't want ads so to monetize our product we allow those users to pay and not see ads" Your response: "I want to keep my cake and eat it too." I have a solution for you, stop using YouTube if you feel so strongly that a video platform should be free to use. I'm paraphrasing in the quotes, they aren't real quotes...
- Yeul 2y ago
  How does that work on a smartphone?
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    You install NextDNS from the App Store.
bluescrn 2y ago
How long will Mozilla be around for, though?
- squarefoot 2y ago
  As long as Google pays them to remain alive to reinforce the narrative that Chrome isn't a monopoly.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    That deal is on the chopping block as part of the DOJ's lawsuit.
    - squarefoot 2y ago
      Yep, very likely. https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/03/doj-google-must-sell-chrome-android-could-be-next/ https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/03/doj-google-must-sell-... Now, why do I have this feeling that it will be bought by some entity very close to the current US administration?
- mrandish 2y ago
  If the Google, Pocket and other ad money dries up, Mozilla the company may go away but the Firefox browser itself will continue on because it's open source. As an exclusively Firefox user for over 20 years, I suspect if Mozilla the company dies, it will won't negatively impact Firefox much, at least in any meaningful way. In fact, the browser may be somewhat better off managed like the Blender or MAME projects. In the last five years or so Firefox has increasingly introduced controversial changes that make it (IMHO) less good, primarily around interface design. And, from what I understand, Mozilla employs full-time UX designers who've been driving much of that. Of course, with Firefox it's still possible to modify, fix and restore all these recent interface "improvements" with user CSS but it's a constant annoyance to need to keep fixing it. Fortunately, there's an active community effort around restoring the Firefox interface and usability, exemplified by the brilliant Lepton project https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix/releases https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix/releases. My perception just watching the evolution of Firefox from the outside, is that it used to be a browser that celebrated the ethos of "Have it Your Way." However, Mozilla the company gets money to pay its executives and employees (millions in the case of more than one recent CEO) by actively driving users and eyeballs for Google, Pocket and other advertisers. So the company is highly incentivized to try myriad changes and redesigns to increase appeal to "the masses" of browser users. Thus, the UX keeps getting 'simplified' and 'de-cluttered' with advanced functionality 'de-prioritized' and add-on support demoted to second-class afterthought - instead of the shining key feature advanced users value most. Basically, in recent years the Firefox UX and end-user features have been pushed by the substantial payroll needs of the Mozilla company to become more like Chrome and Safari instead of embracing its unique position as a tool for power users who value advanced features, customization and extension. And it was all for naught because Firefox has continued to lose market share while ignoring (and even actively alienating) its niche community of fanatically devoted power users.
johnklos 2y ago
...so long as you're not in a market where they automatically opt you in to sending all your DNS requests to a for-profit company without asking, and if you are, you remember to set up a canary domain or go and update your settings for every new install and new profile.

judge2020 2y ago

And ublock origin lite works just fine for me

kolanos 2y ago
Not working as well on YouTube. The ad is blocked, but you still need to skip it. You didn't need to do this with UBO.
- gorhill 2y ago
  It's working fine on Youtube in Optimal mode. If you have still issue, you will have to go through self-diagnosing steps[1] to rule out all the myriad other ways you suffer such issues -- most commonly another extension is interfering negatively. [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/27415 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/27415
- smallerfish 2y ago
  Click on the extension icon and move the slider to the right.
- nikcub 2y ago
  uBO being so good at blocking YouTube ads to the point where you didn't need to signup for Premium may have been the tipping point for Google that ended manifest V2.
  - chii 2y ago
    i suspect that youtube mobile is responsible for more traffic than web. And that it's harder (but not impossible) to have adblocking on mobile (such as revanced).
    - dagelf 2y ago
      Brave gives you everything Premium for free.
- 2y ago

EA-3167 2y ago

That's a BIG difference though, and makes the claim about security more believable, especially since it isn't a sole restriction. There are also a number of ad blockers available for Safari, although personally I'll stick with Firefox either way. Google is an ad company restriction use of the primary ad-blocker on its browser, it's blatant.

fumufumu 2y ago
What ads are not blocked by other ad blockers though? I'm upset too that ublock origin is no longer usable. I tried ublock origin lite and it seems to be blocking most ads so it's still blocking google's ads and that's not banned. It seems kind of hard to argue that it's just about banning ads given plenty of ad blockers still block Google's ads. I haven't tried others like Ad Blocker etc...

zamalek 2y ago

This is coming from an Apple antagonist, but don't the Apple OSs have adblocking at a system level (implying Safari)? This does vindicate Apple (but doesn't help in the other legitimate scenarios that this API is needed, which I have been told do exist).

gruez 2y ago
> but don't the Apple OSs have adblocking at a system level (implying Safari)? No, content blockers are specific to Safari. Third party apps can show ads just fine.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  It's easy to install system level ad-blocking in MacOS and iOS.

echelon 2y ago

It's time for a Google breakup from the DOJ / FTC. They've gone well beyond what Microsoft did in the 2000s. Google owns so many panes of glass and funnels them all through its search and advertising funnel. They've distorted how the web (and mobile) work to accomplish this massive market distortion. Search, Ads, and Android should be broken up into separate units. Chrome shouldn't be placed with any of those units. While we're cutting, YouTube should be its own entity and stand on its own legs too. Apple, Amazon, and Meta need the same scrutiny. Grocery stores and primary care doctors should not be movie studios and core internet infrastructure. Especially when those units are wholly subsidized by other unrelated business units, and their under pricing the market is used to strangle out the incumbents and buy them up on the cheap.

klardotsh 2y ago
Well, this country (the US) decided in November to go the exact opposite direction of having a government capable of, let alone willing to, pursuing litigation like this, so I hope we enjoy this digital feudalism only expanding, never receding, in the coming years.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Well, this country (the US) decided in November to go the exact opposite direction of having a government capable of, let alone willing to, pursuing litigation like this No? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299886
  - klardotsh 2y ago
    Okay, I'll retract my remarks when the new formation of the FTC actually goes after a tech giant. And frankly, I have doubt any DOJ filings of this type won't get repealed by force from above in short order. This is a case that was mostly handled by the prior DOJ, which is gone now, replaced by new management.
    - alephnerd 2y ago

Fluorescence 2y ago

People scratch their heads about how "just a default setting" can be worth an annual $20 billion payment from Google. It makes more sense if it's actually for a raft of wildly illegal under-the-table measures this. Imagine what it would cost Google's bottom line if Apple was truly user-focused and enabled ad-blocking on desktop, mobile and embedded safari views by default. Someone do the napkin math please!

gruez 2y ago
This conspiracy theory doesn't make sense because safari's content blockers (ie. the nerfed version of adblock) block most ads just fine, especially from google ads. The only ads that get through are first party ads (eg. youtube), but as of a few years ago adblockers could block those as well, so it's a moot point.
- jorvi 2y ago
  Yup. I understand that nerfing adblocking is definitely a big draw for Google, but Apple went the ManifestV3 route many years before, specifically to increase extension performance and privacy. Back then there was a big uproar too, but mostly because Safari extension developers charged for a new version because they had to rewrite the entire thing.
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    > specifically to increase extension performance and privacy This reasoning is so bogus that it’s hard to believe anybody could believe it in good faith. Ad blockers are essential for performance and user privacy and security. If Apple truly bought into this reasoning then they’d integrate an ad blocker like Brave does. Follow the money.
    - jorvi 2y ago
      It is not bogus. It does increase privacy because the extension no longer sees what pages you load or your web content. And it is indeed more performant. And Apple does care because later on they started to allow blockers to spread blocking rules over multiple sub-extensions. Initially they were limited on... 15 000 rules? Can't quite remember.

bearjaws 2y ago

Alright? Split iOS off from Apple, then split Apple Music off too? I hate these arguments where people point to some other shitty thing a company is doing as some sort of gotcha.

gruez 2y ago
>Alright? Split iOS off from Apple, then split Apple Music off too? Windows is split off from Lenovo/Dell. How's that working out for the Windows OS, or the Edge browser?
- bearjaws 2y ago
  Largest OS share in the market? Seems to be working out pretty good? Edge is a perfectly good browser now? Probably should be its own company too if we are splitting Chrome off from Google. I will tell you that we should split these companies into 100 parts if thats what you are asking. Imagine if Apple licensed its chips out in competition with Qualcomm...

gerash 2y ago

[flagged]

fmajid 2y ago

Apple is totally an advertising company. Have you missed the part about their stalling phone, tablet and laptop revenues, that they hope to compensate with "services" revenue, i.e. App Store 30% racketeering and App Store search ads?

gruez 2y ago
>Apple is totally an advertising company. Have you missed the part about [...] Have you missed the part of my comment of my comment where I specifically mentioned "web advertising presence"? That's relevant, because ublock would only work on web ads. It can't block ads in the app store, or any other app (eg. spotify).
- fmajid 2y ago
  Apple also serves ads and trackers on the web, not just in-app or on the App Store. Here are the relevant built-in uBlock Origin filter rules: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AuBlockOrigin%2FuAssets+apple.com&type=code https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AuBlockOrigin%2FuAssets+ap... Thus they also clearly have an incentive to sabotage uBO. It may be a much smaller piece of their revenue than at Google, but it is a huge proportion of their revenue growth. Don't believe Apple's marketing about their caring for privacy, belied by their actions.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Here are the relevant built-in uBlock Origin filter rules: Can you link to a specific rule that shows Apple has web ads? The search results you linked either removeparam filters (which I guess is "tracking", but probably the most benign kind), malware sites that contain "apple.com", or analytics domains that seemingly belong to apple. Moreover there's no evidence that Safari's content blocker restrictions make a difference here. The domains are trivially blocked so it's unclear how apple is materially gaining from their nerfed adblock.
  - 0x457 2y ago
    Ads that apple serves (outside of marketing pages on apple.com) are ads that displayed on ad supported ads. uBO won't help you there. Luckily, every Apple device comes with an AdBlock for those ads - airplane mode.

F7F7F7 2y ago

Whataboutism is so lazy.

gruez 2y ago
It's not whataboutism. If the claim is that google's actions with manifest v3 is "abusing its market position to their own benefit", but Apple did the same thing when it didn't stand to benefit from it, then it severely undermines that claim. Sure, it doesn't rule out google was secretly intending on doing it, only internal memos or whatever can prove that definitively. But at the same time, to immediately conclude that google was "abusing its market position", you would have to be maximally uncharitable to google. That's a sad way to see the world. Take for instance, the flak that google got for banning third party cookies. If this is done by anyone else (eg. Firefox), this would be seen as a good thing. However, cynics have opposed this on the basis that such change would disadvantage third party ad networks more than google, thus google was "abusing its market position to their own benefit" and therefore the change was bad.
- derkster 2y ago
  You talk about Google as if it's a person. You should take a step back and think to yourself why the changes were made to Manifest V3 that broke backwards compatibility, weakening ability to ad-blocking. Rule set based modification is one of the first features I'd think of when developing a systems of extensibility in browser, and they removed it. The reasoning is obvious, and "plausible deniability" is not enough to give Google charity. The more difficult you make it to block ads, the more impressions, and the more money made. Yet you believe people should be "charitable" to the same company that can't hire the manpower to defend their own users against bad faith DCMA takedown notices. Because they ran the analysis, and it wasn't worth the cost. Best case scenario, Chromium loses market share, implements the parts removed from V2, Google likely kicks the can down the road to Manifest V4. There's no reason to believe companies deserve charitability. Companies are systems designed to extract maximum value, and when the world around that system changes, the system adjusts itself. It's not the systems fault for trying to get more value, it's our fault for letting them.

cma 2y ago

Apple gets Google revenue for being their default search, and that is worth much less if the search ads pay less if Safari users were able to browse other sites untracked.

edgarischatting 2y ago

Honest question here: Could someone explain to me how Apple and Safari relate to what Google is doing? I currently use Adguard as a content blocker for Safari on iOS, iPadOS, and macOS. Does this mean that Safari will also start restricting access to these ad blockers?