14 ms·

Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers

110 points by glasshead969 11y ago

frik 11y ago
Seem to be the technical details about the discussion two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9695552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9695552
ads_are_shite 11y ago
Suck on that ad slingers. What do you call a thousand unemployed ad firm staff? A good start!
carlesfe 11y ago
Apple: "We will allow ad blockers for Safari in iOS9. By the way, here's our new News app, which serves unblockable iAds"
- derefr 11y ago
  It does make sense. Apple aren't helping people block ads because they don't like ads; Apple are helping people block ads to "enhance privacy" (and also for "if everyone's gonna do it anyway, it may as well be fast" reasons, but never mind those.) When a third party serves an ad to a user, the third party gets information about that person (their IP address, etc.) When Apple serves an ad to one of their users on behalf of an advertiser, on the other hand, the third party doesn't get any information at all. Sure, Apple now knows I saw an ad... but Apple knows a lot of stuff about me; I'm already assuming they're trusted with my personal information the moment I set up iCloud Keychain or Find My Mac. Reducing the number of companies that know things about me down to the bare minimum (i.e. the same number that I actually do business with) is not a bad deal. ...of course, if iOS shipped with a "hosts file"-like configuration point, such that one could block iAds, that'd be a much more interesting world. (And not, strictly speaking, an impossible one; "featureful" VPN-proxy services are becoming more common—even Google is giving one away as part of Project Fi, to avoid "dirty" wifi—and iOS supports system VPNs, so you could set up your ad filtering at the head-end. I have no idea what Apple would do if this became common, though. Maybe just give app developers an API to ask whether "the phone can reach the internet but the ads aren't loading", and switch to a separate "hey stop that" view controller.)
  - IBM 11y ago
    I think it will be a good change if publishers were forced to sell/deliver their own ads. The problem has always been third-party ad networks that track you across the web and sometimes delivers malware. Publishers have never had to take ownership for the ads they serve and the user experience has suffered. The way forward is native ads (no, native ads aren't advertorials) like podcast ads, radio ads, or sponsored posts on individual blogs like Daring Fireball.
    - derefr 11y ago
      The problem is with publishers too small to individually attract the attention of advertisers... which is most of the ones that use advertising to begin with. Any way to solve that problem reintroduces an ad network in some form or another. Or would you say that advertising is only for big shots, and small-time publishers should just rely on up-front payment?
      - millstone 11y ago
        It's possible to have ad networks, but for publishers to host the software themselves. This would eliminate the tracking and cookies that follow you from site to site.
        _up 11y ago
        You expect them to discard click fraud and also pay out on self reported impressions?
    - asdf99 11y ago
      even big publishers like Yahoo can't do that because there's an average of 20 companies between then and the brands advertising. publisher would love to be alone in the field and pocket the .20 per click. but ad agencies go a long way to doubt the publisher reports etc and try to pay less. every month a new layer show up, with the sole promise of allowing the ad vendor to pay less for the publisher. the fad du jour is viewable.
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  And that's why I run my home wifi through Privoxy (runs on my router, a Ubiquiti ER-Lite which is just Debian MIPS + Vyatta) and jailbreak to install Adblocker Networks.
- natch 11y ago
  What's your source for the assertion that the News app will serve ads? That aside, iAds are way nicer than ads on other platforms. The platform protects user privacy and doesn't resort to trickery and deception, and ads and advertisers are vetted. This stuff matters.
  - carlesfe 11y ago
    https://developer.apple.com/news-publisher/ https://developer.apple.com/news-publisher/
- serve_yay 11y ago
  This just brings iOS to parity with OS X though, I keep seeing people talking about this as if it's exclusive to iOS to make some strained point about Apple. Both OS X and iOS now use this same implementation, where the blocking extension is little more than a JSON blob of rules describing what should be blocked from loading or hidden on the page.
Animats 11y ago
This seems like a good idea. The big question is whether the structure can recognize enough ads, and whether it will continue to do so. For example, if a site is using HTTP2 and all the ads come in over the same TCP connection, domain-based blocking may have a problem. If (when) CDNs start doing that, ad recognition becomes tougher.
- okbake 11y ago
  Will two resources share the same tcp stream even if they are from different origins? I thought that each domain was given its own tcp stream in HTTP2. Is that even feasible to have a single tcp connection shared by multiple endpoints like that? I've read through some of the specs but not thoroughly enough to know for sure. One concern I could see for browser based adblockers is the Server Push features of HTTP2, in which upon a client requesting a page, the server can deduce which subsequent requests a client will make (for example, if a client requests index.html, the server can assume that a request for styles.css and scripts.js will be coming shortly after) and 'push' them to client over the existing tcp stream without the client explicitly requesting them. This could deprive an ablocker of the chance to deny content if I'm understanding it correctly. Then again, its very possible that I'm misunderstaning it. I should probably read the specification more thoroughly to answer some of my own questions.
  - Nursie 11y ago
    The content could still be loaded, but not processed or rendered, perhaps?
    - rdsnsca 11y ago
      This sucks because the user is still downloading the ads, and most likely paying for the bandwidth todo so.
  - xg15 11y ago
    I'm no HTTP2 expert, but I think clients can choose to opt-out of push or at least tell the server "I already got this document, please don't push it again." Server operators are inclined to obey those hints, because otherwise they'd be wasting their own bandwith as well.
kibwen 11y ago
Firefox is also dabbling with built-in tracking protection (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594158). I'll be curious to see how Google faces this trend with Chrome going forward. Apple may be able to get away with enabling users to block web ads while serving them native ads (in the guise of privacy), but if Google tried to do the same (i.e. with Google-served ads being somehow "blessed" by virtue of not sharing your personal details with advertisers) then they'd be painting a target on their forehead for antitrust lawsuits.
- caryhartline 11y ago
  Is it a guise of privacy when iAds is actually more private? Google has already done this with blocking Flash ads which blocks their own ad network as well.
  - kibwen 11y ago
    It is indeed more private, and I welcome the move. Users need choice. But let's not overlook the obvious bid here to entice content providers into Apple's walled garden while also taking a direct swipe at the business model of their biggest competitor.
    - stephenr 11y ago
      The content blockers stuff is not a "block Google" checkbox. It's a way a safari extension on OS X or iOS can prevent load or hide literally any object requested by the browser/web view It won't affect Google ads if they're in loaded in native apps. Personally I view this as being inevitable given their recent high profile privacy push. I'm not saying they weren't pro-privacy before, but they're enhancing and promoting that factor more now than ever.
      - kibwen 11y ago
        It won't affect Google ads if they're loaded in native apps, but what's keeping Apple from ousting Google ads from their platform entirely? iOS doesn't have a monopoly on mobile, so Google would have no recourse if Apple decided that all new apps must use iAd rather than AdMob. App developers wouldn't care, advertisers wouldn't care, and users definitely wouldn't care.
chrischen 11y ago
Is this going to lead to client-side content blocking in countries like China, where they could mandate that all iPhones now install the content blockers? The benefit is obviously that the content blocking gets distributed.
- comex 11y ago
  No. Their country-wide firewall is sufficient, and there would be no way to enforce a rule that everyone install some iPhone app. (And most Chinese users aren't using iPhones.)

110 points by glasshead969 11y ago

frik 11y ago

Seem to be the technical details about the discussion two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9695552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9695552

ads_are_shite 11y ago

Suck on that ad slingers. What do you call a thousand unemployed ad firm staff? A good start!

carlesfe 11y ago

Apple: "We will allow ad blockers for Safari in iOS9. By the way, here's our new News app, which serves unblockable iAds"

derefr 11y ago
It does make sense. Apple aren't helping people block ads because they don't like ads; Apple are helping people block ads to "enhance privacy" (and also for "if everyone's gonna do it anyway, it may as well be fast" reasons, but never mind those.) When a third party serves an ad to a user, the third party gets information about that person (their IP address, etc.) When Apple serves an ad to one of their users on behalf of an advertiser, on the other hand, the third party doesn't get any information at all. Sure, Apple now knows I saw an ad... but Apple knows a lot of stuff about me; I'm already assuming they're trusted with my personal information the moment I set up iCloud Keychain or Find My Mac. Reducing the number of companies that know things about me down to the bare minimum (i.e. the same number that I actually do business with) is not a bad deal. ...of course, if iOS shipped with a "hosts file"-like configuration point, such that one could block iAds, that'd be a much more interesting world. (And not, strictly speaking, an impossible one; "featureful" VPN-proxy services are becoming more common—even Google is giving one away as part of Project Fi, to avoid "dirty" wifi—and iOS supports system VPNs, so you could set up your ad filtering at the head-end. I have no idea what Apple would do if this became common, though. Maybe just give app developers an API to ask whether "the phone can reach the internet but the ads aren't loading", and switch to a separate "hey stop that" view controller.)
- IBM 11y ago
  I think it will be a good change if publishers were forced to sell/deliver their own ads. The problem has always been third-party ad networks that track you across the web and sometimes delivers malware. Publishers have never had to take ownership for the ads they serve and the user experience has suffered. The way forward is native ads (no, native ads aren't advertorials) like podcast ads, radio ads, or sponsored posts on individual blogs like Daring Fireball.
  - derefr 11y ago
    The problem is with publishers too small to individually attract the attention of advertisers... which is most of the ones that use advertising to begin with. Any way to solve that problem reintroduces an ad network in some form or another. Or would you say that advertising is only for big shots, and small-time publishers should just rely on up-front payment?
    - millstone 11y ago
      It's possible to have ad networks, but for publishers to host the software themselves. This would eliminate the tracking and cookies that follow you from site to site.
      - _up 11y ago
        You expect them to discard click fraud and also pay out on self reported impressions?
  - asdf99 11y ago
    even big publishers like Yahoo can't do that because there's an average of 20 companies between then and the brands advertising. publisher would love to be alone in the field and pocket the .20 per click. but ad agencies go a long way to doubt the publisher reports etc and try to pay less. every month a new layer show up, with the sole promise of allowing the ad vendor to pay less for the publisher. the fad du jour is viewable.
seanp2k2 11y ago
And that's why I run my home wifi through Privoxy (runs on my router, a Ubiquiti ER-Lite which is just Debian MIPS + Vyatta) and jailbreak to install Adblocker Networks.
natch 11y ago
What's your source for the assertion that the News app will serve ads? That aside, iAds are way nicer than ads on other platforms. The platform protects user privacy and doesn't resort to trickery and deception, and ads and advertisers are vetted. This stuff matters.
- carlesfe 11y ago
  https://developer.apple.com/news-publisher/ https://developer.apple.com/news-publisher/
serve_yay 11y ago
This just brings iOS to parity with OS X though, I keep seeing people talking about this as if it's exclusive to iOS to make some strained point about Apple. Both OS X and iOS now use this same implementation, where the blocking extension is little more than a JSON blob of rules describing what should be blocked from loading or hidden on the page.

Animats 11y ago

This seems like a good idea. The big question is whether the structure can recognize enough ads, and whether it will continue to do so. For example, if a site is using HTTP2 and all the ads come in over the same TCP connection, domain-based blocking may have a problem. If (when) CDNs start doing that, ad recognition becomes tougher.

okbake 11y ago
Will two resources share the same tcp stream even if they are from different origins? I thought that each domain was given its own tcp stream in HTTP2. Is that even feasible to have a single tcp connection shared by multiple endpoints like that? I've read through some of the specs but not thoroughly enough to know for sure. One concern I could see for browser based adblockers is the Server Push features of HTTP2, in which upon a client requesting a page, the server can deduce which subsequent requests a client will make (for example, if a client requests index.html, the server can assume that a request for styles.css and scripts.js will be coming shortly after) and 'push' them to client over the existing tcp stream without the client explicitly requesting them. This could deprive an ablocker of the chance to deny content if I'm understanding it correctly. Then again, its very possible that I'm misunderstaning it. I should probably read the specification more thoroughly to answer some of my own questions.
- Nursie 11y ago
  The content could still be loaded, but not processed or rendered, perhaps?
  - rdsnsca 11y ago
    This sucks because the user is still downloading the ads, and most likely paying for the bandwidth todo so.
- xg15 11y ago
  I'm no HTTP2 expert, but I think clients can choose to opt-out of push or at least tell the server "I already got this document, please don't push it again." Server operators are inclined to obey those hints, because otherwise they'd be wasting their own bandwith as well.

kibwen 11y ago

Firefox is also dabbling with built-in tracking protection (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594158). I'll be curious to see how Google faces this trend with Chrome going forward. Apple may be able to get away with enabling users to block web ads while serving them native ads (in the guise of privacy), but if Google tried to do the same (i.e. with Google-served ads being somehow "blessed" by virtue of not sharing your personal details with advertisers) then they'd be painting a target on their forehead for antitrust lawsuits.

caryhartline 11y ago
Is it a guise of privacy when iAds is actually more private? Google has already done this with blocking Flash ads which blocks their own ad network as well.
- kibwen 11y ago
  It is indeed more private, and I welcome the move. Users need choice. But let's not overlook the obvious bid here to entice content providers into Apple's walled garden while also taking a direct swipe at the business model of their biggest competitor.
  - stephenr 11y ago
    The content blockers stuff is not a "block Google" checkbox. It's a way a safari extension on OS X or iOS can prevent load or hide literally any object requested by the browser/web view It won't affect Google ads if they're in loaded in native apps. Personally I view this as being inevitable given their recent high profile privacy push. I'm not saying they weren't pro-privacy before, but they're enhancing and promoting that factor more now than ever.
    - kibwen 11y ago
      It won't affect Google ads if they're loaded in native apps, but what's keeping Apple from ousting Google ads from their platform entirely? iOS doesn't have a monopoly on mobile, so Google would have no recourse if Apple decided that all new apps must use iAd rather than AdMob. App developers wouldn't care, advertisers wouldn't care, and users definitely wouldn't care.

chrischen 11y ago

Is this going to lead to client-side content blocking in countries like China, where they could mandate that all iPhones now install the content blockers? The benefit is obviously that the content blocking gets distributed.

comex 11y ago
No. Their country-wide firewall is sufficient, and there would be no way to enforce a rule that everyone install some iPhone app. (And most Chinese users aren't using iPhones.)