16 ms·

uBlock Origin Lite in Apple App Store

443 points by mumber_typhoon 11mo ago

nomilk 11mo ago
What's the advantage of a macOS app over a browser extension? (currently I use the latter)
tech234a 11mo ago
I’ve been using uBlock Origin Lite on iOS for several months now, but one shortcoming I see with the newer WebExtensions implementation in Safari is that WebExtensions can’t be used with the in-app Safari views, meaning extensions such as this one don’t work with in-app Safari views. There was an older Safari content blocker API that did work with the in-app Safari views, but it seems like apps are being updated to stop using it. As a workaround, I’ve been trying to set my apps to open the Safari app for links where possible, but I would have preferred to use the in-app Safari views.
- djxfade 11mo ago
  As a side note, I personally HATE apps that opens links in an in-app web view (apps like Instagram, Facebook, etc). I really wish Apple could have a system wide preference where it could force in-app web views to open in the browser.
  - Mistletoe 11mo ago
    Gmail insists on doing this and always screws it up.
    - bazmattaz 11mo ago
      Gmail is the worst for this
    - OGWhales 11mo ago
      On iOS I have the chrome and gmail app installed and it always opens my links in chrome. Does it use the built-in browser if you don't have chrome?
      - Mistletoe 11mo ago
        Yes I don’t have Chrome just Safari and it used to still insist on doing this. So it had none of my passwords saved etc. and was some brain dead Gmail browser. I just tried again and it opened Safari, so maybe at some point they enabled a way to tell it to not do that? I see in the Gmail settings I have a setting checked for use default browser app. So if you fixed this Gmail or iOS people thank you!
  - dostick 11mo ago
    This small technical annoyance is one of the biggest issues… of modern society. They do that deliberately to keep users within their apps to drive up engagement. Which in turn drives down exposure to different opinions by keeping the user within the app driven by the same algorithm uninterrupted. If they to change default opening of web links as you would expect it, their revenue numbers would drop dramatically. The lawmakers should be competent enough to recognise this problem and have laws against keeping people within the apps for no reason. (The only reason may be to use the web sign-in). Imagine on desktop computer os, you click a link within WhatsApp app and it opens a window within that app and load the webpage there, without your login cookies, and makes you login if you need using mouse with on-screen keyboard only…
  - technothrasher 11mo ago
    I get more frustrated from when they go the other direction. Google Maps, for instance. When I go to the website, it asks if I'd like to use the app instead, with the usual dark pattern of having the "no" button greyed out. But after I tell it no, as soon as I touch the search bar, it automatically opens the app anyway. I wish there was a setting in Safari that disabled websites from opening apps.
    - ljm 11mo ago
      Add to that list: - showing focus-stealing modals when loading the page/app, which breaks the quick look functionality on iOS - interrupting your workflow with tutorial popups (especially multi-step ones that point to different parts the screen) that demo or upsell a new feature, requiring you to dismiss them to continue - not having an option saying "I'm a power user, stop explaining shit I already know" To be honest, if the concept of growth hacking was erased from the universe, pretty much none of this crap would exist. Atlassian, Browserstack: I'm looking at you.
    - macNchz 11mo ago
      > I wish there was a setting in Safari that disabled websites from opening apps. This has been one of my biggest iOS peeves for a long time—I really wish that installing an app wasn’t a commitment to letting it handle all of the links it wants to. It’s particularly annoying because a lot of apps are terrible at actually handling the link: the app will show a login screen or some kind of interstitial and then just forget where you were going. That stupid behavior isn’t limited to web links either, it’s really great when it’s the app’s own push notification (thus irretrievable once tapped), but which the app will not even open properly 100% of the time. There are a couple of imperfect workarounds (long pressing, incognito), but mostly I’d just rather have an option to limit or disable this behavior entirely—in the absence of that I’ve actually just uninstalled all of the worst offenders, I’m sick of having a million damn apps.
      - noname120 11mo ago
        > letting it handle all of the links it wants to It doesn’t. App developers have to verify that they own the corresponding domain names that they want to handle with their apps: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/supporting-associated-domains https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/supporting-a...
  - bazmattaz 11mo ago
    My favourite part is when it opens a form or something to fill out but if you navigate away from this in-app web view to another app and back (say to get a password) you lose the session. It’s incredibly frustrating
    - JKCalhoun 11mo ago
      That's generally annoying though — web sites that can't preserve your session if you should click a link and then try to go back.
    - IshKebab 11mo ago
      Yeah Gmail does this on Android. Super annoying. You basically have to remember to always click "open in chrome". It's not like it even does anything different because it's already open in chrome, just in a tab that it will throw away at the drop of a hat.
  - mort96 11mo ago
    It has frustrated me for a LONG time that we have all collectively seemingly decide to break links. It used to be that you could click a link in an app, it opens in your web browser where you're already logged in to the relevant service, so you get to see the content the link points to. These days, you click a link in an app, it opens in an in-app web view where you're not logged in, so you just see a login screen. Not even the "open in Safari" button works, since by the time you have the opportunity to click it, you've already been redirected to the login page. You literally have to long-press on the link, copy it, switch to your browser, and paste it in to the omni-bar. I don't understand how this god forsaken industry's UX "experts" have all agreed that this should be the universal user experience. It's especially bad in apps like Slack, where 99% of the links I'm ever interested in are links to our internal gitlab, some internal knowledge base article, some internal tool, or some other thing that requires being logged in to view any of the content. Links just plain do not work almost ever in Slack without the manual long-press -> copy -> switch to Safari -> paste dance.
    - latexr 11mo ago
      > you click a link in an app, it opens in an in-app web view where you're not logged in But you could be. You could log in from the in-app web view, and it would be remembered and compartmentalised in that app, so that next time you click a link you’re logged in.
      - mort96 11mo ago
        I could be, but I'm not. And I don't want to compartmentalize logins to Slack.
        latexr 11mo ago
        To be clear, what I meant is that the logins inside the in-app browser do not affect the other in-app browsers and the main browser. I understand this is not your preferred solution, but it is a way to make the situation suck less.
      - mh- 11mo ago
  - semiquaver 11mo ago
    I’d think it was about tracking if I didn’t know that the ios api most apps use gives no access to what the user is doing. I feel like it must be some folk wisdom among app developers about “keeping people in the app”. It’s especially bad since the implementation always seems to struggle hard with self-links, eg if you open a web link in X then follow a link in the story to a tweet you get a broken result in most apps.
  - braebo 11mo ago
    I wouldn’t mind if it didn’t break OAuth flows on _some_ webviews on _some_ operating systems. Miserable rabbit holes mitigating all the edge cases.
  - OGWhales 11mo ago
    I also love that app sizes get super bloated (several gigs per app) due to cached safari data from the in-app web view. Seems the only way to clear it is to go into settings and wipe the website data for safari entirely. I don't believe app developers can clear this themselves either, despite it appearing as their app taking up so much space when really it's just due to safari cache that seemingly doesn't clear on its own.
    - lou1306 11mo ago
      THAT is the source for the bloat? Oh dear. Absolutely shambolic. It is embarrassing that iOS gives no way to just completely nuke an app's cache, short of reinstalling the app.
      - phatskat 11mo ago
        Some apps have a setting to clear data and I swear I’ve seen cached data in that before but I could be mistaken
        lou1306 11mo ago
        I know they do, but the effectiveness of these "clear data" settings varies wildly and it's mildly infuriating. For instance, in my experience Telegram's works pretty well, X's not at all.
        phatskat 11mo ago
        Oh absolutely, and a lot of apps don’t seem to offer the option at all anymore from what I can see.
  - RileyJames 11mo ago
    I couldn’t agree more. I find gmail to be the absolute worst offender in this category. 1. They dark pattern you into downloading their browser (they give three options, two of which are chrome) 2. In not launching iOS, I’m not logged into the session I may already have open in safari. Which is incredibly painful for any product that sends notifications via email, which id like to action. And if I do login, and it asks for an email verification code… fail. I can’t access it in gmail without closing the browser… 3. Their in app browser (or the way they re-write links?) doesn’t seem to play nice with opening the corresponding app. Never seems to work. Incredibly user hostile. Is there a better alternative mail client I can use with gsuite?
    - QuiEgo 11mo ago
      What does "better" mean to you? The native Apple Mail app works with Gsuite.
    - mh- 11mo ago
      I use the Gmail app and just have it set to always use the default browser? Gmail app -> hamburger menu (top left), scroll down to settings, Default apps, Browser = "Default browser app (Configure in iOS settings)". I think I must be misreading your concern - if so, not intentional.
  - JohnTHaller 11mo ago
    The main point of it is to force ads and tracking links. It's just anti-privacy. Any app that does it without a permanent way to disable it doesn't respect its users.
  - tracker1 11mo ago
    Same thing in Android... I'd just prefer to launch the default browser (Brave in my case).
    - mrguyorama 11mo ago
      Not the same thing. Every link I click on my Android phone opens up and uses my preferred browser; Firefox. What are you seeing different?
      - tracker1 11mo ago
        By default in X, Facebook and even Google News, you get an in-app browser by default.. you can change the behavior, but it's definitely the default. Just switched to a new phone and have been updating a lot of the settings as I notice them.
- lapcat 11mo ago
  > There was an older Safari content blocker API that did work with the in-app Safari views, but it seems like apps are being updated to stop using it. Which apps are being updated to stop using it? The difference is simply that the Safari content blocker API is Apple-specific, so it can be used only on iOS and macOS, whereas uBlock Origin Lite uses the cross-platform DeclarativeNetRequest API, because uBlock Origin Lite is itself cross-platform.
  - tech234a 11mo ago
    Adblock Plus did so on iOS in version 3.0.0. I haven’t used ABP on other platforms in years but for awhile it was only of the few decent free options I knew of on Safari.
    - lapcat 11mo ago
      Ah yes, I see in the release notes, "Rebuilt with WebExtension technology for improved ad blocking performance". I'm not sure why they did that or whether it's actually improved, but the Apple-specific content blocker API is certainly not deprecated or anything like that. The biggest difference is that the Safari content blocker API is native, in other words, Swift or Objective-C, whereas DeclarativeNetRequest (invented by Google) is a JavaScript API. In-app views can't really have DNR unless they also have full browser extensions too.
- jtbayly 11mo ago
  Apparently iOS 26 adds new APIs that allow filtering everywhere, including in all apps. Wipr added this functionality.
  - nvr219 11mo ago
    But then I have to upgrade to iOS 26… The cure is worse than the disease! For now I am using wireguard+pihole on a cheap VPS for all my devices. It’s not perfect (data center IP so some places block it) but it’s good enough for now. When I’m forced to update to 26 will definitely look at Wipr since I tested that out and it was really good other than the in-app issue.
    - thiht 11mo ago
      Or just do the 26 upgrade, the Liquid Glass changes are grossly overstated, it's not a drastic change...
      - JohnTHaller 11mo ago
        True. macOS Tahoe is far worse. It looks like a poorly designed Linux variant.
  - soraminazuki 11mo ago
    You mean URL filters? This isn't part of WebExtensions, so I don't think uBlock Origin Lite is going to support it any time soon. But since URL filters appear to operate independently from browser level blocking, perhaps apps providing this functionality could coexist with uBlock Origin Lite. Also, as the name implies, this just looks at the URLs. So it's more comparable to DNS level blocking. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/url-filters https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/u...
- oktoberpaard 11mo ago
  Without having any experience with the APIs to back up my claim, I believe that the WebExtensions API is more powerful in the sense that it allows more complex blocking rules. AdGuard seems to include both options simultaneously, where you have "advanced protection" (WebExtensions API) that only works in Safari and separate blocking lists (old API) that work in both Safari and WebView. This is precisely what keeps me from using uBlock Origin Lite.
  - lapcat 11mo ago
    > I believe that the WebExtensions API is more powerful in the sense that it allows more complex blocking rules. This is not really accurate. The Safari content blocking API and the WebExtensions DeclarativeNetRequest API are comparable. The difference is that WebExtensions are JavaScript and can run in the context of the web page. With WebExtensions, you get DNR plus arbitrary JS, whereas the Safari content blocker API is native code and doesn't run in the context of the web page. The arbitrary runtime JS is what allows you to do things that you can't do with declarative content blocking rules. You could also have a Safari content blocker with an optional WebExtension for additional functionality with no usage of DeclarativeNetRequest.
    - oktoberpaard 11mo ago
      > You could also have a Safari content blocker with an optional WebExtension for additional functionality with no usage of DeclarativeNetRequest. That’s exactly what AdGuard and some other content blockers do. The result is that content blocking works everywhere, but it’s most effective in Safari. As a user, I prefer that over the approach of uBlock Origin Lite, which is a pure WebExtension and doesn’t do anything outside of Safari. Too bad, because I prefer using uBlock Origin on other platforms.
- givinguflac 11mo ago
  I agree, and I feel it’s worth mentioning that in-app web views bypass private browsing, so they store cookies even if you run Safari in private browsing 100% of the time. PITA to clear them, buried in settings.
- uxjw 11mo ago
  Meta uses the in app browsers to inject trackers on every site you visit. https://krausefx.com//blog/ios-privacy-instagram-and-facebook-can-track-anything-you-do-on-any-website-in-their-in-app-browser https://krausefx.com//blog/ios-privacy-instagram-and-faceboo... Probably others doing the same. I always open pages in full safari and use NextDns to block trackers in all apps.
  - monocularvision 11mo ago
    This is heavily dependent on whether the app is using a WKWebView, in which the app developer has almost total control over the experience or SFSafariViewController, which essentially provides a mini-Safari with back/forward/reload/reader mode buttons with a button in the lower right hander corner that takes you to full Safari. In the latter case, the app developer has very little customization and cannot see or really control what is happening inside of the web view.
    - advisedwang 11mo ago
      You have it backwards: whether an app injects tracking is not a result of whether they use WKWebView of SFSafariViwController. Rather, if they want to inject tracking, they _will_ use WKWebView.
trenchpilgrim 11mo ago
We already have Wipr 2 (https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html) on the App store which is a pretty dang great ad blocker and well worth the price.
- 404mm 11mo ago
  Doesn’t look like it supports Family Sharing, is that right?
  - trenchpilgrim 11mo ago
    I'm not sure I know what that is. It's a single purchase for a lifetime multi device license.
- seivan 11mo ago
  [dead]
- tapete2 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - MangoToupe 11mo ago
    Better than viewing ads.
  - troupo 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - pasteldream 11mo ago
      Imagine asking the browser on my hardware to do things I don’t want it to do, and acting shocked when I tell it not to.
      - threatofrain 11mo ago
HelloUsername 11mo ago
Previous discussions of some months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44335664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44335664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43976898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43976898
cherioo 11mo ago
One annoying thing I have is, when I want to disable Adblock on some website (suspecting Adblock impair functionality, or where Adblock is not needed), I need to grant the extension full access before I can disable it. Is there some trick I am missing?
eptcyka 11mo ago
Is this legitimate? I can’t find any reference to this on Raymond Hill’s github or ublock’s web site.
- boomboomsubban 11mo ago
  https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home mentions it.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
ge96 11mo ago
I use lite on firefox android it's great It's funny my Motorolla phone keeps installing random games on it like ugh...
- ffsm8 11mo ago
  Why use lite on Firefox/android, considering the normal one is available too?
  - ge96 11mo ago
    Oh yeah my bad I mis-rememebered, I use lite on chrome pc and the regular mobile firefox
    - aucisson_masque 11mo ago
      So you are using Firefox on Android which is frankly janky but not on computer where it actually shines ?
      - ge96 11mo ago
        Still primarily Chrome but use Firefox for other accounts
- f4uCL9dNSnQm 11mo ago
  Which model is that? I have a single "Moto" app on mine that is un-removable and that is all bloat I can find.
  - ge96 11mo ago
    Moto G Power 5G 2024 It is a cheap phone I think I got it new at $160 and that's the thing it has 8GB of RAM, the pictures are subpar (blurring) but other than that it works for me, multi-app non-game This is on Verizon but yeah it'll just install new games and say "Enjoy these new apps" I'm like wtf I think most recently one of the games it installed is Mahjong edit: apparently it's MotoApps doing it
ornornor 11mo ago
In all these years I haven’t found a better solution than DNS blocking with NextDNS on iOS. The only place I get ads is YT (but for that I have an Albanian VPN)
- moontear 11mo ago
  How does the Albanian VPN help? No ad revenue in Albania?
  - ornornor 11mo ago
    For some reason there are no YT ads in Albania. It’s refreshing.
  - jim180 11mo ago
    The CPM difference in US vs. rest of the world is huge. If Albania has cpm near zero, it's not worth to show ads there.
- v7engine 11mo ago
  Safari ads are not blocked when using NextDNS. Is it just me?
  - ornornor 11mo ago
    It’s is.
    - latexr 11mo ago
      It’s not, and a basic “Safari DNS” web search shows you it’s not.
  - latexr 11mo ago
    Safari does not respect the operating system’s DNS settings, it uses its own. I have seen several reports online that you can disable this behaviour by turning off iCloud Private Relay or disabling Advanced Tracking and Fingerprint Protection, but was never able to do so with various combinations.
totostache 11mo ago
Would it work with Firefox iOS?
- weikju 11mo ago
  No, that browser does not support extensions.
JSR_FDED 11mo ago
I'm wondering which ad blocker you've had success with...specifically I'm wondering: - Does this also block ads on Youtube (in the browser)? - Can this block Youtube Shorts (they're way too addictive for me)?
- reddalo 11mo ago
  The best way to block YouTube Shorts is using a modified APK on Android. Plus, you don't get ads. I'd almost use the "real" YouTube app with ads on, if I could disable Shorts entirely.
- cassianoleal 11mo ago
  I don't know about YT Shorts but Vinegar [0] blocks ads. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303229 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303...
- SG- 11mo ago
  yes this blocks YouTube ads in the browser.
- insin 11mo ago
  Control Panel for YouTube[^1] can block ads and Shorts in the browser [^1]: https://soitis.dev/control-panel-for-youtube https://soitis.dev/control-panel-for-youtube
joak 11mo ago
The normal uBlock origin extension can be installed on Orion browser for iOS Orion is webkit and can be set as default browser.
- SoKamil 11mo ago
  Unfortunately uBlock Origin on Orion is a bit flaky. Also, the phone heats up a bit, but that might be due to Orion itself.
  - islon 11mo ago
    Yeah, I have the same problem. Had to stop using Orion because it always heated up the phone too much. A shame. Hopefully they fix it.
- ilt 11mo ago
  How does Orion manages to run chrome and firefox extensions when even iOS chrome and firefox browsers can’t?
latexr 11mo ago
I had been wishing for uBlock Origin for Safari for years, but now that it’s here (I’ve been using it since the betas), I’m disappointed. It’s really ugly to look at (even the icon in the toolbar looks out of place), configuration is awkward and resets itself unless you give it full permissions for every website from the get go, and it doesn’t seem to be more effective than other popular blockers. Additionally, pretty much every other blocker includes several extensions to overcome the well-known 150K rule limit, but uBlock Origin only includes one, meaning it can’t be blocking as much.
- aucisson_masque 11mo ago
  And it doesn't work anymore when you swipe back. The phone shows the previous page but without any adblocking. I too hoped for a ublock origin with filters lists, kind of what we have on Firefox or even the lite version for chrome but it's not nearly as good. And we can't say it's apple fault because other adblockers like Adguard does allow customs lists and custom rules.
  - soraminazuki 11mo ago
    uBlock Origin Lite on Safari has been improving since the first release. It has more filter lists, and there is support for custom rules and an element picker to help make those rules. I also have the same issue with the back button, where that obnoxiously large Google login prompt show up whenever I navigate back to a Stack Overflow page. But it's definitely not all ads that show up when I navigate back. Looking at GitHub issues, it's only Javascript-based blocking that's affected. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/518#issuecomment-3393472736 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/518#issueco...
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- viktorcode 11mo ago
  It works for me, but not as good as the ones based on content list filters. It's also brings odd problems: google.com breaks on first search request, but ipv6.google.com does not.
safehuss 11mo ago
A more native open-source version: https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock
- microflash 11mo ago
  I’ve been using wBlock and it is fantastic. It supports nearly identical functionality as compared to uBlock Origin Lite.
Random09 11mo ago
Why not use a phone that allows you to use the full version ublock? Ios is everything that is wrong with software today in one package.
- alarak 11mo ago
  Care to elaborate what is so wrong with it?
  - timbit42 11mo ago
    It doesn't allow you to use the full version of uBlock.
  - Random09 11mo ago
    No sideloading, forced safari, locked os apis to cripple 3rd party accessories and apps (like watches or cloud software), updates crippling performance, massive number of bugs, especially if you don't use iCloud (i lost data multiple times after the update), to mention a few.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  Because I choose my phone based on hundreds of different factors. Whether it can use uBlock is just one factor. Other phones have their own downsides.
mlok 11mo ago
The lack of proper adblocker on iOS is what convinced me to use the Brave browser instead of Firefox or Safari. An adblocker is included by default. And as a bonus : possibility to keep music videos playing while changing app. (A parameter has to be switched for that though)
- bazmattaz 11mo ago
  I’ve been using Ad Block Pro with safari on iOS for awhile and works perfectly. Even blocks YouTube ads (I watch YT via Safari)
  - 404mm 11mo ago
    That was my setup until recently. The ads are YT blocked well on iOS but it kept having hiccups on iPadOS. I switched to uBlock in safari and it works well. I wish it showed what is being blocked on each page instead of the little counter in the icon.
- 404mm 11mo ago
  Does it work on YouTube ads?
  - agrounds 11mo ago
    Yes
- ed_mercer 11mo ago
  Brave has also been great here. It even blocks google/reddit login/gps/<insert annoyance> popups. With brave you can uninstall the native Reddit app and just use the webapp instead, without ads and stupid-ass "It's better in the app!" or "instead of taking a screenshot, use the share button!" messages.
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    What about downloading videos? I think it's the only thing holding me back from switching from the app, since I don't wanna share reddits posts, but the videos themselves. Off-topic but damn how shitty of them to add their own watermark when you download an image from a post, and then they dare to say "Better to use the share button!" if you take a screenshot of it instead.
buyucu 11mo ago
I can'e even imagine browsing the web without ublock origin. How and Why Apple users endured it, I fail to comprehend.
- latexr 11mo ago
  Not everyone uses Safari. But even so there are plenty of capable ad blockers for it, uBlock Origin is far from the only option.
evelant 11mo ago
Personally I’ve been using Brave browser on desktop and iOS. It has some of the best adblocking on mobile. Also use adguard pro which provides dns level filtering.
- dekoidal 11mo ago
  Vivaldi is mine as it blocks YouTube ads and lets me play yt videos with the screen locked.
- daveidol 11mo ago
  Why do you need AdGuard Pro and Brave blocking? Isn’t that duplicative?
Bluescreenbuddy 11mo ago
I use NextDNS on my iphone. It works well but be warned it can break some apps so you'll need to do some allow-listing
- jtokoph 11mo ago
  My biggest issue has been with captive portals for open WiFi networks. Allowlisting has helped some I think but not perfect
tpierce89 11mo ago
uBo paired with 1Blocker and Hush has my safari running at 100% blocked on all the adblock test sites. I was only at 84% with Adguard. Its a small improvement, but I'll take it.
- gorhill 11mo ago
  Those "adblock test" sites misinform people, they should never be used as they lead people to make bad decisions regarding their choice of content blockers.[1] [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1985170#c3 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1985170#c3
  - Barbing 11mo ago
    TIL direct from GOAThill Good read: adblock test sites can be wildly inaccurate (alerting to connections that never made it, given redirect to the local shim resource) and can easily be gamed.
tracker1 11mo ago
Semi-OT: you can use Wireguard through a home network (with dynamic dns) that has a PiHole or similar setup if you want more broad ad blocking for all apps while away from your home network.
beala 11mo ago
Scrolling through the comments reading about all the adblockers that folks recommend makes my head spin. Why exactly should I trust any of these to have full access to my browser? Looking through the app store I see so many that are clearly trying to impersonate the well known ones by using similar names. It sounds like uBlock Origin Lite is trusted by many, but watch out for Ublock and 1Block, which are also top App Store results. Going off memory, the the chrome store is even worse. The whole situation is extremely sketchy. This is not even to mention supply chain attacks which could hijack even honest projects. Personally I’ve settled on blocking at the DNS level with unbound and a blocklist. It’s not perfect but it limits the blast radius.
- gruez 11mo ago
  >Why exactly should I trust any of these to have full access to my browser? Content blockers on iOS don't have "full access". Most adblocking apps provide both a content blocker and an extension, the latter of which is used to work around stuff that content blockers can't block, or bugs that result as of blocking scripts from loading, but they're not needed. You can get 95% of the functionality by just using content blockers.
  - beala 11mo ago
    I guess my head is still spinning. I took a second look at ad blockers on the app store, and many report that they collect various bits of data. Are you saying that there's a special content blocker component to all of these that can't collect data because they're isolated by iOS? I'm not sure how anyone who isn't a iOS developer is supposed to navigate this. To uBlock's credit, their App Store page reports that they collect no data, but is this enforced by iOS? Or just a checkbox that the developer clicked?
    - gruez 11mo ago
      >I took a second look at ad blockers on the app store, and many report that they collect various bits of data. Because the "app privacy" disclosures that apple only contains broad categories about what data the app can possibly collect. If the app collects analytics in the UI itself (ie. the part where you select filters or whatever), it has to say the app collects analytics. It's not possible to say "we only collect analytics on your usage of the app, not what your browsing history is". >Are you saying that there's a special content blocker component to all of these that can't collect data because they're isolated by iOS? Yes.
batrat 11mo ago
Meanwhile firefox with full adblock and adguard dns/pihole if you like to selfhost, never seen an ad on my samsung phone.
Dwedit 11mo ago
EasyPrivacy has too many false positives, and no way to report them. If you are a techie who understands what the messages mean, and can click the button to proceed to a site on a false positive, then it's fine to have it turned on. But if you are setting up ad blocking for a non-technical user, I would recommend turning EasyPrivacy off.
runjake 11mo ago
I wanted uBlock Origin Lite to win, but based on my personal experience with uBlock Origin Lite, 1Blocker, and Wipr, I find that 1Blocker blocks far more on the sites I visit. uBlock Origin Lite and Wipr are roughly equal in second place. YMMV. It helps to run everything by Cover Your Tracks[1], too. 1. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
prrar 11mo ago
Wipr 2 is my adblocker for all iDevices. It works flawlessly. EDIT: other extensions are Hush and Sponsorblock.
illusive4080 11mo ago
How does it compare to AdBlock Plus?
cipaa 11mo ago
kaooskkdkdkdkdkd

443 points by mumber_typhoon 11mo ago

nomilk 11mo ago

What's the advantage of a macOS app over a browser extension? (currently I use the latter)

I’ve been using uBlock Origin Lite on iOS for several months now, but one shortcoming I see with the newer WebExtensions implementation in Safari is that WebExtensions can’t be used with the in-app Safari views, meaning extensions such as this one don’t work with in-app Safari views. There was an older Safari content blocker API that did work with the in-app Safari views, but it seems like apps are being updated to stop using it. As a workaround, I’ve been trying to set my apps to open the Safari app for links where possible, but I would have preferred to use the in-app Safari views.

djxfade 11mo ago
As a side note, I personally HATE apps that opens links in an in-app web view (apps like Instagram, Facebook, etc). I really wish Apple could have a system wide preference where it could force in-app web views to open in the browser.
- Mistletoe 11mo ago
  Gmail insists on doing this and always screws it up.
  - bazmattaz 11mo ago
    Gmail is the worst for this
  - OGWhales 11mo ago
    On iOS I have the chrome and gmail app installed and it always opens my links in chrome. Does it use the built-in browser if you don't have chrome?
    - Mistletoe 11mo ago
      Yes I don’t have Chrome just Safari and it used to still insist on doing this. So it had none of my passwords saved etc. and was some brain dead Gmail browser. I just tried again and it opened Safari, so maybe at some point they enabled a way to tell it to not do that? I see in the Gmail settings I have a setting checked for use default browser app. So if you fixed this Gmail or iOS people thank you!
- dostick 11mo ago
  This small technical annoyance is one of the biggest issues… of modern society. They do that deliberately to keep users within their apps to drive up engagement. Which in turn drives down exposure to different opinions by keeping the user within the app driven by the same algorithm uninterrupted. If they to change default opening of web links as you would expect it, their revenue numbers would drop dramatically. The lawmakers should be competent enough to recognise this problem and have laws against keeping people within the apps for no reason. (The only reason may be to use the web sign-in). Imagine on desktop computer os, you click a link within WhatsApp app and it opens a window within that app and load the webpage there, without your login cookies, and makes you login if you need using mouse with on-screen keyboard only…
- technothrasher 11mo ago
  I get more frustrated from when they go the other direction. Google Maps, for instance. When I go to the website, it asks if I'd like to use the app instead, with the usual dark pattern of having the "no" button greyed out. But after I tell it no, as soon as I touch the search bar, it automatically opens the app anyway. I wish there was a setting in Safari that disabled websites from opening apps.
  - ljm 11mo ago
    Add to that list: - showing focus-stealing modals when loading the page/app, which breaks the quick look functionality on iOS - interrupting your workflow with tutorial popups (especially multi-step ones that point to different parts the screen) that demo or upsell a new feature, requiring you to dismiss them to continue - not having an option saying "I'm a power user, stop explaining shit I already know" To be honest, if the concept of growth hacking was erased from the universe, pretty much none of this crap would exist. Atlassian, Browserstack: I'm looking at you.
  - macNchz 11mo ago
    > I wish there was a setting in Safari that disabled websites from opening apps. This has been one of my biggest iOS peeves for a long time—I really wish that installing an app wasn’t a commitment to letting it handle all of the links it wants to. It’s particularly annoying because a lot of apps are terrible at actually handling the link: the app will show a login screen or some kind of interstitial and then just forget where you were going. That stupid behavior isn’t limited to web links either, it’s really great when it’s the app’s own push notification (thus irretrievable once tapped), but which the app will not even open properly 100% of the time. There are a couple of imperfect workarounds (long pressing, incognito), but mostly I’d just rather have an option to limit or disable this behavior entirely—in the absence of that I’ve actually just uninstalled all of the worst offenders, I’m sick of having a million damn apps.
    - noname120 11mo ago
      > letting it handle all of the links it wants to It doesn’t. App developers have to verify that they own the corresponding domain names that they want to handle with their apps: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/supporting-associated-domains https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/supporting-a...
- bazmattaz 11mo ago
  My favourite part is when it opens a form or something to fill out but if you navigate away from this in-app web view to another app and back (say to get a password) you lose the session. It’s incredibly frustrating
  - JKCalhoun 11mo ago
    That's generally annoying though — web sites that can't preserve your session if you should click a link and then try to go back.
  - IshKebab 11mo ago
    Yeah Gmail does this on Android. Super annoying. You basically have to remember to always click "open in chrome". It's not like it even does anything different because it's already open in chrome, just in a tab that it will throw away at the drop of a hat.
- mort96 11mo ago
  It has frustrated me for a LONG time that we have all collectively seemingly decide to break links. It used to be that you could click a link in an app, it opens in your web browser where you're already logged in to the relevant service, so you get to see the content the link points to. These days, you click a link in an app, it opens in an in-app web view where you're not logged in, so you just see a login screen. Not even the "open in Safari" button works, since by the time you have the opportunity to click it, you've already been redirected to the login page. You literally have to long-press on the link, copy it, switch to your browser, and paste it in to the omni-bar. I don't understand how this god forsaken industry's UX "experts" have all agreed that this should be the universal user experience. It's especially bad in apps like Slack, where 99% of the links I'm ever interested in are links to our internal gitlab, some internal knowledge base article, some internal tool, or some other thing that requires being logged in to view any of the content. Links just plain do not work almost ever in Slack without the manual long-press -> copy -> switch to Safari -> paste dance.
  - latexr 11mo ago
    > you click a link in an app, it opens in an in-app web view where you're not logged in But you could be. You could log in from the in-app web view, and it would be remembered and compartmentalised in that app, so that next time you click a link you’re logged in.
    - mort96 11mo ago
      I could be, but I'm not. And I don't want to compartmentalize logins to Slack.
      - latexr 11mo ago
        To be clear, what I meant is that the logins inside the in-app browser do not affect the other in-app browsers and the main browser. I understand this is not your preferred solution, but it is a way to make the situation suck less.
    - mh- 11mo ago
- semiquaver 11mo ago
  I’d think it was about tracking if I didn’t know that the ios api most apps use gives no access to what the user is doing. I feel like it must be some folk wisdom among app developers about “keeping people in the app”. It’s especially bad since the implementation always seems to struggle hard with self-links, eg if you open a web link in X then follow a link in the story to a tweet you get a broken result in most apps.
- braebo 11mo ago
  I wouldn’t mind if it didn’t break OAuth flows on _some_ webviews on _some_ operating systems. Miserable rabbit holes mitigating all the edge cases.
- OGWhales 11mo ago
  I also love that app sizes get super bloated (several gigs per app) due to cached safari data from the in-app web view. Seems the only way to clear it is to go into settings and wipe the website data for safari entirely. I don't believe app developers can clear this themselves either, despite it appearing as their app taking up so much space when really it's just due to safari cache that seemingly doesn't clear on its own.
  - lou1306 11mo ago
    THAT is the source for the bloat? Oh dear. Absolutely shambolic. It is embarrassing that iOS gives no way to just completely nuke an app's cache, short of reinstalling the app.
    - phatskat 11mo ago
      Some apps have a setting to clear data and I swear I’ve seen cached data in that before but I could be mistaken
      - lou1306 11mo ago
        I know they do, but the effectiveness of these "clear data" settings varies wildly and it's mildly infuriating. For instance, in my experience Telegram's works pretty well, X's not at all.
        phatskat 11mo ago
        Oh absolutely, and a lot of apps don’t seem to offer the option at all anymore from what I can see.
- RileyJames 11mo ago
  I couldn’t agree more. I find gmail to be the absolute worst offender in this category. 1. They dark pattern you into downloading their browser (they give three options, two of which are chrome) 2. In not launching iOS, I’m not logged into the session I may already have open in safari. Which is incredibly painful for any product that sends notifications via email, which id like to action. And if I do login, and it asks for an email verification code… fail. I can’t access it in gmail without closing the browser… 3. Their in app browser (or the way they re-write links?) doesn’t seem to play nice with opening the corresponding app. Never seems to work. Incredibly user hostile. Is there a better alternative mail client I can use with gsuite?
  - QuiEgo 11mo ago
    What does "better" mean to you? The native Apple Mail app works with Gsuite.
  - mh- 11mo ago
    I use the Gmail app and just have it set to always use the default browser? Gmail app -> hamburger menu (top left), scroll down to settings, Default apps, Browser = "Default browser app (Configure in iOS settings)". I think I must be misreading your concern - if so, not intentional.
- JohnTHaller 11mo ago
  The main point of it is to force ads and tracking links. It's just anti-privacy. Any app that does it without a permanent way to disable it doesn't respect its users.
- tracker1 11mo ago
  Same thing in Android... I'd just prefer to launch the default browser (Brave in my case).
  - mrguyorama 11mo ago
    Not the same thing. Every link I click on my Android phone opens up and uses my preferred browser; Firefox. What are you seeing different?
    - tracker1 11mo ago
      By default in X, Facebook and even Google News, you get an in-app browser by default.. you can change the behavior, but it's definitely the default. Just switched to a new phone and have been updating a lot of the settings as I notice them.
lapcat 11mo ago
> There was an older Safari content blocker API that did work with the in-app Safari views, but it seems like apps are being updated to stop using it. Which apps are being updated to stop using it? The difference is simply that the Safari content blocker API is Apple-specific, so it can be used only on iOS and macOS, whereas uBlock Origin Lite uses the cross-platform DeclarativeNetRequest API, because uBlock Origin Lite is itself cross-platform.
- tech234a 11mo ago
  Adblock Plus did so on iOS in version 3.0.0. I haven’t used ABP on other platforms in years but for awhile it was only of the few decent free options I knew of on Safari.
  - lapcat 11mo ago
    Ah yes, I see in the release notes, "Rebuilt with WebExtension technology for improved ad blocking performance". I'm not sure why they did that or whether it's actually improved, but the Apple-specific content blocker API is certainly not deprecated or anything like that. The biggest difference is that the Safari content blocker API is native, in other words, Swift or Objective-C, whereas DeclarativeNetRequest (invented by Google) is a JavaScript API. In-app views can't really have DNR unless they also have full browser extensions too.
jtbayly 11mo ago
Apparently iOS 26 adds new APIs that allow filtering everywhere, including in all apps. Wipr added this functionality.
- nvr219 11mo ago
  But then I have to upgrade to iOS 26… The cure is worse than the disease! For now I am using wireguard+pihole on a cheap VPS for all my devices. It’s not perfect (data center IP so some places block it) but it’s good enough for now. When I’m forced to update to 26 will definitely look at Wipr since I tested that out and it was really good other than the in-app issue.
  - thiht 11mo ago
    Or just do the 26 upgrade, the Liquid Glass changes are grossly overstated, it's not a drastic change...
    - JohnTHaller 11mo ago
      True. macOS Tahoe is far worse. It looks like a poorly designed Linux variant.
- soraminazuki 11mo ago
  You mean URL filters? This isn't part of WebExtensions, so I don't think uBlock Origin Lite is going to support it any time soon. But since URL filters appear to operate independently from browser level blocking, perhaps apps providing this functionality could coexist with uBlock Origin Lite. Also, as the name implies, this just looks at the URLs. So it's more comparable to DNS level blocking. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/url-filters https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/u...
oktoberpaard 11mo ago
Without having any experience with the APIs to back up my claim, I believe that the WebExtensions API is more powerful in the sense that it allows more complex blocking rules. AdGuard seems to include both options simultaneously, where you have "advanced protection" (WebExtensions API) that only works in Safari and separate blocking lists (old API) that work in both Safari and WebView. This is precisely what keeps me from using uBlock Origin Lite.
- lapcat 11mo ago
  > I believe that the WebExtensions API is more powerful in the sense that it allows more complex blocking rules. This is not really accurate. The Safari content blocking API and the WebExtensions DeclarativeNetRequest API are comparable. The difference is that WebExtensions are JavaScript and can run in the context of the web page. With WebExtensions, you get DNR plus arbitrary JS, whereas the Safari content blocker API is native code and doesn't run in the context of the web page. The arbitrary runtime JS is what allows you to do things that you can't do with declarative content blocking rules. You could also have a Safari content blocker with an optional WebExtension for additional functionality with no usage of DeclarativeNetRequest.
  - oktoberpaard 11mo ago
    > You could also have a Safari content blocker with an optional WebExtension for additional functionality with no usage of DeclarativeNetRequest. That’s exactly what AdGuard and some other content blockers do. The result is that content blocking works everywhere, but it’s most effective in Safari. As a user, I prefer that over the approach of uBlock Origin Lite, which is a pure WebExtension and doesn’t do anything outside of Safari. Too bad, because I prefer using uBlock Origin on other platforms.
givinguflac 11mo ago
I agree, and I feel it’s worth mentioning that in-app web views bypass private browsing, so they store cookies even if you run Safari in private browsing 100% of the time. PITA to clear them, buried in settings.
uxjw 11mo ago
Meta uses the in app browsers to inject trackers on every site you visit. https://krausefx.com//blog/ios-privacy-instagram-and-facebook-can-track-anything-you-do-on-any-website-in-their-in-app-browser https://krausefx.com//blog/ios-privacy-instagram-and-faceboo... Probably others doing the same. I always open pages in full safari and use NextDns to block trackers in all apps.
- monocularvision 11mo ago
  This is heavily dependent on whether the app is using a WKWebView, in which the app developer has almost total control over the experience or SFSafariViewController, which essentially provides a mini-Safari with back/forward/reload/reader mode buttons with a button in the lower right hander corner that takes you to full Safari. In the latter case, the app developer has very little customization and cannot see or really control what is happening inside of the web view.
  - advisedwang 11mo ago
    You have it backwards: whether an app injects tracking is not a result of whether they use WKWebView of SFSafariViwController. Rather, if they want to inject tracking, they _will_ use WKWebView.

trenchpilgrim 11mo ago

We already have Wipr 2 (https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html) on the App store which is a pretty dang great ad blocker and well worth the price.

404mm 11mo ago
Doesn’t look like it supports Family Sharing, is that right?
- trenchpilgrim 11mo ago
  I'm not sure I know what that is. It's a single purchase for a lifetime multi device license.
seivan 11mo ago
[dead]
tapete2 11mo ago
[flagged]
- MangoToupe 11mo ago
  Better than viewing ads.
- troupo 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - pasteldream 11mo ago
    Imagine asking the browser on my hardware to do things I don’t want it to do, and acting shocked when I tell it not to.
    - threatofrain 11mo ago

HelloUsername 11mo ago

Previous discussions of some months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44335664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44335664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43976898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43976898

cherioo 11mo ago

One annoying thing I have is, when I want to disable Adblock on some website (suspecting Adblock impair functionality, or where Adblock is not needed), I need to grant the extension full access before I can disable it. Is there some trick I am missing?

eptcyka 11mo ago

Is this legitimate? I can’t find any reference to this on Raymond Hill’s github or ublock’s web site.

boomboomsubban 11mo ago
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home mentions it.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

ge96 11mo ago

I use lite on firefox android it's great It's funny my Motorolla phone keeps installing random games on it like ugh...

ffsm8 11mo ago
Why use lite on Firefox/android, considering the normal one is available too?
- ge96 11mo ago
  Oh yeah my bad I mis-rememebered, I use lite on chrome pc and the regular mobile firefox
  - aucisson_masque 11mo ago
    So you are using Firefox on Android which is frankly janky but not on computer where it actually shines ?
    - ge96 11mo ago
      Still primarily Chrome but use Firefox for other accounts
f4uCL9dNSnQm 11mo ago
Which model is that? I have a single "Moto" app on mine that is un-removable and that is all bloat I can find.
- ge96 11mo ago
  Moto G Power 5G 2024 It is a cheap phone I think I got it new at $160 and that's the thing it has 8GB of RAM, the pictures are subpar (blurring) but other than that it works for me, multi-app non-game This is on Verizon but yeah it'll just install new games and say "Enjoy these new apps" I'm like wtf I think most recently one of the games it installed is Mahjong edit: apparently it's MotoApps doing it

ornornor 11mo ago

In all these years I haven’t found a better solution than DNS blocking with NextDNS on iOS. The only place I get ads is YT (but for that I have an Albanian VPN)

moontear 11mo ago
How does the Albanian VPN help? No ad revenue in Albania?
- ornornor 11mo ago
  For some reason there are no YT ads in Albania. It’s refreshing.
- jim180 11mo ago
  The CPM difference in US vs. rest of the world is huge. If Albania has cpm near zero, it's not worth to show ads there.
v7engine 11mo ago
Safari ads are not blocked when using NextDNS. Is it just me?
- ornornor 11mo ago
  It’s is.
  - latexr 11mo ago
    It’s not, and a basic “Safari DNS” web search shows you it’s not.
- latexr 11mo ago
  Safari does not respect the operating system’s DNS settings, it uses its own. I have seen several reports online that you can disable this behaviour by turning off iCloud Private Relay or disabling Advanced Tracking and Fingerprint Protection, but was never able to do so with various combinations.

totostache 11mo ago

Would it work with Firefox iOS?

weikju 11mo ago
No, that browser does not support extensions.

JSR_FDED 11mo ago

I'm wondering which ad blocker you've had success with...specifically I'm wondering: - Does this also block ads on Youtube (in the browser)? - Can this block Youtube Shorts (they're way too addictive for me)?

reddalo 11mo ago
The best way to block YouTube Shorts is using a modified APK on Android. Plus, you don't get ads. I'd almost use the "real" YouTube app with ads on, if I could disable Shorts entirely.
cassianoleal 11mo ago
I don't know about YT Shorts but Vinegar [0] blocks ads. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303229 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303...
SG- 11mo ago
yes this blocks YouTube ads in the browser.
insin 11mo ago
Control Panel for YouTube[^1] can block ads and Shorts in the browser [^1]: https://soitis.dev/control-panel-for-youtube https://soitis.dev/control-panel-for-youtube

joak 11mo ago

The normal uBlock origin extension can be installed on Orion browser for iOS Orion is webkit and can be set as default browser.

SoKamil 11mo ago
Unfortunately uBlock Origin on Orion is a bit flaky. Also, the phone heats up a bit, but that might be due to Orion itself.
- islon 11mo ago
  Yeah, I have the same problem. Had to stop using Orion because it always heated up the phone too much. A shame. Hopefully they fix it.
ilt 11mo ago
How does Orion manages to run chrome and firefox extensions when even iOS chrome and firefox browsers can’t?

latexr 11mo ago

I had been wishing for uBlock Origin for Safari for years, but now that it’s here (I’ve been using it since the betas), I’m disappointed. It’s really ugly to look at (even the icon in the toolbar looks out of place), configuration is awkward and resets itself unless you give it full permissions for every website from the get go, and it doesn’t seem to be more effective than other popular blockers. Additionally, pretty much every other blocker includes several extensions to overcome the well-known 150K rule limit, but uBlock Origin only includes one, meaning it can’t be blocking as much.

aucisson_masque 11mo ago
And it doesn't work anymore when you swipe back. The phone shows the previous page but without any adblocking. I too hoped for a ublock origin with filters lists, kind of what we have on Firefox or even the lite version for chrome but it's not nearly as good. And we can't say it's apple fault because other adblockers like Adguard does allow customs lists and custom rules.
- soraminazuki 11mo ago
  uBlock Origin Lite on Safari has been improving since the first release. It has more filter lists, and there is support for custom rules and an element picker to help make those rules. I also have the same issue with the back button, where that obnoxiously large Google login prompt show up whenever I navigate back to a Stack Overflow page. But it's definitely not all ads that show up when I navigate back. Looking at GitHub issues, it's only Javascript-based blocking that's affected. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/518#issuecomment-3393472736 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/518#issueco...
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
viktorcode 11mo ago
It works for me, but not as good as the ones based on content list filters. It's also brings odd problems: google.com breaks on first search request, but ipv6.google.com does not.

safehuss 11mo ago

A more native open-source version: https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock

microflash 11mo ago
I’ve been using wBlock and it is fantastic. It supports nearly identical functionality as compared to uBlock Origin Lite.

Random09 11mo ago

Why not use a phone that allows you to use the full version ublock? Ios is everything that is wrong with software today in one package.

alarak 11mo ago
Care to elaborate what is so wrong with it?
- timbit42 11mo ago
  It doesn't allow you to use the full version of uBlock.
- Random09 11mo ago
  No sideloading, forced safari, locked os apis to cripple 3rd party accessories and apps (like watches or cloud software), updates crippling performance, massive number of bugs, especially if you don't use iCloud (i lost data multiple times after the update), to mention a few.
crazygringo 11mo ago
Because I choose my phone based on hundreds of different factors. Whether it can use uBlock is just one factor. Other phones have their own downsides.

mlok 11mo ago

The lack of proper adblocker on iOS is what convinced me to use the Brave browser instead of Firefox or Safari. An adblocker is included by default. And as a bonus : possibility to keep music videos playing while changing app. (A parameter has to be switched for that though)

bazmattaz 11mo ago
I’ve been using Ad Block Pro with safari on iOS for awhile and works perfectly. Even blocks YouTube ads (I watch YT via Safari)
- 404mm 11mo ago
  That was my setup until recently. The ads are YT blocked well on iOS but it kept having hiccups on iPadOS. I switched to uBlock in safari and it works well. I wish it showed what is being blocked on each page instead of the little counter in the icon.
404mm 11mo ago
Does it work on YouTube ads?
- agrounds 11mo ago
  Yes
ed_mercer 11mo ago
Brave has also been great here. It even blocks google/reddit login/gps/<insert annoyance> popups. With brave you can uninstall the native Reddit app and just use the webapp instead, without ads and stupid-ass "It's better in the app!" or "instead of taking a screenshot, use the share button!" messages.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  What about downloading videos? I think it's the only thing holding me back from switching from the app, since I don't wanna share reddits posts, but the videos themselves. Off-topic but damn how shitty of them to add their own watermark when you download an image from a post, and then they dare to say "Better to use the share button!" if you take a screenshot of it instead.

buyucu 11mo ago

I can'e even imagine browsing the web without ublock origin. How and Why Apple users endured it, I fail to comprehend.

latexr 11mo ago
Not everyone uses Safari. But even so there are plenty of capable ad blockers for it, uBlock Origin is far from the only option.

evelant 11mo ago

Personally I’ve been using Brave browser on desktop and iOS. It has some of the best adblocking on mobile. Also use adguard pro which provides dns level filtering.

dekoidal 11mo ago
Vivaldi is mine as it blocks YouTube ads and lets me play yt videos with the screen locked.
daveidol 11mo ago
Why do you need AdGuard Pro and Brave blocking? Isn’t that duplicative?

Bluescreenbuddy 11mo ago

I use NextDNS on my iphone. It works well but be warned it can break some apps so you'll need to do some allow-listing

jtokoph 11mo ago
My biggest issue has been with captive portals for open WiFi networks. Allowlisting has helped some I think but not perfect

tpierce89 11mo ago

uBo paired with 1Blocker and Hush has my safari running at 100% blocked on all the adblock test sites. I was only at 84% with Adguard. Its a small improvement, but I'll take it.

gorhill 11mo ago
Those "adblock test" sites misinform people, they should never be used as they lead people to make bad decisions regarding their choice of content blockers.[1] [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1985170#c3 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1985170#c3
- Barbing 11mo ago
  TIL direct from GOAThill Good read: adblock test sites can be wildly inaccurate (alerting to connections that never made it, given redirect to the local shim resource) and can easily be gamed.

tracker1 11mo ago

Semi-OT: you can use Wireguard through a home network (with dynamic dns) that has a PiHole or similar setup if you want more broad ad blocking for all apps while away from your home network.

beala 11mo ago

Scrolling through the comments reading about all the adblockers that folks recommend makes my head spin. Why exactly should I trust any of these to have full access to my browser? Looking through the app store I see so many that are clearly trying to impersonate the well known ones by using similar names. It sounds like uBlock Origin Lite is trusted by many, but watch out for Ublock and 1Block, which are also top App Store results. Going off memory, the the chrome store is even worse. The whole situation is extremely sketchy. This is not even to mention supply chain attacks which could hijack even honest projects. Personally I’ve settled on blocking at the DNS level with unbound and a blocklist. It’s not perfect but it limits the blast radius.

gruez 11mo ago
>Why exactly should I trust any of these to have full access to my browser? Content blockers on iOS don't have "full access". Most adblocking apps provide both a content blocker and an extension, the latter of which is used to work around stuff that content blockers can't block, or bugs that result as of blocking scripts from loading, but they're not needed. You can get 95% of the functionality by just using content blockers.
- beala 11mo ago
  I guess my head is still spinning. I took a second look at ad blockers on the app store, and many report that they collect various bits of data. Are you saying that there's a special content blocker component to all of these that can't collect data because they're isolated by iOS? I'm not sure how anyone who isn't a iOS developer is supposed to navigate this. To uBlock's credit, their App Store page reports that they collect no data, but is this enforced by iOS? Or just a checkbox that the developer clicked?
  - gruez 11mo ago
    >I took a second look at ad blockers on the app store, and many report that they collect various bits of data. Because the "app privacy" disclosures that apple only contains broad categories about what data the app can possibly collect. If the app collects analytics in the UI itself (ie. the part where you select filters or whatever), it has to say the app collects analytics. It's not possible to say "we only collect analytics on your usage of the app, not what your browsing history is". >Are you saying that there's a special content blocker component to all of these that can't collect data because they're isolated by iOS? Yes.

batrat 11mo ago

Meanwhile firefox with full adblock and adguard dns/pihole if you like to selfhost, never seen an ad on my samsung phone.

Dwedit 11mo ago

EasyPrivacy has too many false positives, and no way to report them. If you are a techie who understands what the messages mean, and can click the button to proceed to a site on a false positive, then it's fine to have it turned on. But if you are setting up ad blocking for a non-technical user, I would recommend turning EasyPrivacy off.

runjake 11mo ago

I wanted uBlock Origin Lite to win, but based on my personal experience with uBlock Origin Lite, 1Blocker, and Wipr, I find that 1Blocker blocks far more on the sites I visit. uBlock Origin Lite and Wipr are roughly equal in second place. YMMV. It helps to run everything by Cover Your Tracks[1], too. 1. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

prrar 11mo ago

Wipr 2 is my adblocker for all iDevices. It works flawlessly. EDIT: other extensions are Hush and Sponsorblock.

illusive4080 11mo ago

How does it compare to AdBlock Plus?

cipaa 11mo ago

kaooskkdkdkdkdkd