
Apple neutered ad blockers in Safari, and users didn't say a thing - jmsflknr
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-neutered-ad-blockers-in-safari-but-unlike-chrome-users-didnt-say-a-thing/
======
xodice
Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO. Of course
there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and
macOS work just fine for blocking ads.

I switched to Wipr on my devices and ads are still blocked, for basic ad
blocking it gets the job done easily and quickly.

I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the
"security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension
uBlock Origin just fine.)

~~~
bad_user
Safari's content blockers are super easy to circumvent by anti-ad-blocking
tech.

That many publishers don't do that already is a mystery, probably because
visitors with ad-blocking are still a minority and publishers don't want to
piss them off.

As a disclaimer I was in a team working on such technology. The hardest to
beat is uBlock Origin, being the most capable from a technical perspective.
And we left it completely alone, a good strategy for angry users having a last
resort solution to migrate to instead of investigating why AdBlock Plus isn't
working.

And also by not having a company behind it, a partnership with uBlock Origin
for "acceptable ads" isn't possible. Which is why the whole industry, Google
included, is scared of it and it's no wonder that they've taken steps to kill
it in Chrome for desktop ;-)

~~~
danShumway
> And also by not having a company behind it, a partnership with uBlock Origin
> for "acceptable ads" isn't possible.

I'm really glad you brought that up, because it's an interesting dynamic.
Industries generally know how to deal with companies and senators. People like
Gorhill though are hard to control using conventional strategies, because
they're not getting any money out of it, they don't have supply chains or a
duty to investors that you can exploit. They're just people doing stuff.

This can obviously be both a positive and a negative. But when people talk
about competitive and regulatory forces, it's important to remember that some
forces also come from outside of the system.

Adblocking is legal, but another good (less legal) example is Sci-hub. Sci-hub
is just as large of an actor in the debate about academic publishing as any
other official institution, but it refuses to be subject to the same rules as
those institutions. If you're a traditional publisher, you can't reason with
Sci-hub. None of the conventional strategies you would use on a competitor
work for Sci-hub.

In general, if you're a business, you would prefer to only deal with other
businesses and (to an extent) the government. Purely ideological actors, or
people who don't pay attention to the conventional rules of engagement are
much more annoying. You have to find some kind of leverage over those people
so they can't cause as much trouble.

I don't doubt that part of the reason Google is locking down extensions is for
security. I'm also sure that there are executives at Google who look at
locked-down extension APIs and the inability to side-load extensions as a way
of locking out people like Gorhill, and making sure the debate over acceptable
ads is primarily restricted to industry players. For them, the fact that these
policies improve some aspects of security is just a bonus.

~~~
vatueil
There isn't anything stopping individuals from publishing Safari content
blockers, though? No more than with the previous extension model.

Nor were individuals the only players to take advantage of the powers
available to old extensions.

There are also legitimate security reasons why browsers such as Firefox have
restricted side-loading add-ons on consumer operating systems such as Windows.

There's a debate to be had about whether security for most users is worth the
trade-off in flexibility for power users. But regardless of any other reasons
we might speculate, the arguments that have been presented in favor of such
changes are already compelling enough on their own and need to be seriously
addressed.

~~~
bad_user
As I said, Safari's content blockers are restricted in what they can do and
easy to circumvent.

That they work for now is only temporary.

There's also the elephant in the room:

1\. Those content blockers don't work in webviews and most apps on iOS open
urls in web views with no way to choose Safari

2\. Apps have no ad blockers either

Gmail on iOS is especially annoying because we often have to open links that
require sign-in (e.g. Github) and there's no way to make it open Safari, but
it does have an option for opening "Chrome" (also a shell around an iOS
webview).

But I love seeing people sticking it to the man :-)

~~~
xodice
Then you aren't the target for these browsers. I suggest you use one that does
what you need. Safari does enough for the majority, tho I understand if "power
users" need more "control".

Are you a Safari user? I'm trying to understand why you are so obsessive over
this minor (to the majority of Safari users) "issue".

Regardless, we all deserve privacy and I suggest everyone use either an
extension OR a content blocker. I don't care. Just stick it to those scum bags
mining your data to send you "targeted" ads. That we can agree on!

edit: Cannot reply to bad_user for whatever reason. Regardless, I think we're
both on the same page arguing about the same thing in different ways. Let's
agree to disagree? <3 my man. Take it easy.

~~~
bad_user
No, this isn't about control.

Safari's content blockers simply suck at what they do.

And yes, I'm an iPhone user.

~~~
acdha
I use the Firefox Focus blocker on iOS and while it’s not perfect, a few
minutes with it disabled is sufficient to say that “simply suck” is grossly
inaccurate. It’s a good compromise for something which normal users have a
hard time evaluating — 90% of the benefits with zero risk of a security
compromise.

------
yodsanklai
> users didn't say a thing

Maybe most users are simply not aware of this? As a Safari user, I did notice
that Adblock wasn't working so well lately. I didn't know it has to do with
Apple, I just assumed that I had to wait for the next update.

------
discordance
I noticed this overnight when uBlock Origin wasn't working. I've been slowly
transitioning over to Firefox over the last few months, but still end up in
Safari quite often.

This motivates me more to move over to Firefox permanently. Battery life might
take a hit, but the philosophical and political motivation is too high not to
use Firefox.

~~~
whalesalad
Safari is SO much more efficient than Firefox. I find it to be more performant
while also using a lot less juice on my MBP.

~~~
panpanna
But ads often slowdown browsing significantly and cause unwanted cpu work and
network traffic.

Then there is tracking and sometimes even malware...

~~~
693471
Safari is aggressively attacking the tracking problem as a code browser
feature, and the as blocking capabilities are sufficient for blocking all the
ads you need blocked anyway. It just can't do all the other page optimization
/ CSS stuff to strip out elements completely, so you might have some empty
divs or whatever; who cares

------
jen20
I noticed this for the first time this morning - I hadn't heard about any
changes ahead of time.

I accidentally used the web for about three minutes a few weeks ago without
Ghostery installed, and the experience was quite miserable. It actually led me
to finally buy a Raspberry Pi and put PiHole on my home network.

If Safari doesn't continue to support ad blocking for when I'm outside my home
network ("Ghostery Lite" is in the App Store, but I haven't fully evaluated it
yet), I will switch away from Safari as a primary browser - probably to
Firefox.

I'm not sure I view this in the same light as a Google, however. There is a
content-blocking API which seems to work OK, and Apple do not rely on privacy
invasion for a substantial portion of their income.

~~~
bobbylarrybobby
Safari supports the same sort of ad blocking as a pi hole -- specifying a list
of domains to block. This is available in so-called content blocking
extensions.

~~~
jen20
So far I haven't spotted a problem with Safari's new content blocking
mechanism (using Ghostery Lite). I still prefer the PiHole because it applies
to all devices without additional configuration.

------
sambe
Where does "users didn't say a thing" come from? The version that really makes
the difference was only released a few days ago... and there has been lots of
news/criticism in tech circles about it.

~~~
toyg
This. I started Safari today for the first time in weeks, and I was greeted by
a popup saying they’ve broken most of the extensions I have, including
Bitwarden (!).

Well then, even less of an incentive to ever use Safari again. Already I
started it only when I actually _wanted_ to be tracked (with referral-
generating sites like quidco and so on), now I’ll just never use it. And to
think I even went to the trouble of building an extension for it, so many
years ago....

Apple really, really hates the desktop these days.

~~~
satysin
FYI there is a beta for a new Safari extension for Bitwarden you can use
[https://github.com/bitwarden/browser/issues/664](https://github.com/bitwarden/browser/issues/664)

I have been using it for a week or so now and other than the known issues
mentioned it works the same as before.

~~~
xxkylexx
It’s actually released now on the website.

------
caymanjim
How many Safari users even know what an ad blocker is? It's not exactly a
power feature, but people using the stock browser shipped with their OS
probably aren't aware that it's even an option.

~~~
maccard
Many people using Mac will use safari because it's power usage is incredibly
low compared to the others. Im a Firefox user, but on a MacBook, safari is the
only option.

~~~
tiborsaas
My MacBook is plugged in 90% of the time. While travelling for example on a
plane and I forget to charge it, then yeah, Safari is helpful to have.

~~~
hombre_fatal
Even while plugged in, your computer has limited CPU/GPU to go around.

Swapping out one app for another that's almost identical but with less CPU
usage seems like a no-brainer. Though I do keep Chrome around with a couple
tabs open for its development tools during work.

Safari even uses fewer resources when watching Youtube/Netflix at the same
resolution. I first noticed this while using a dual monitor setup with a
fullscreen game on one and Youtube/Netflix on the other. I noticed my game's
FPS would improve if I merely changed from Chrome to Safari when watching
video. Did some more scientific measurements and never looked back.

------
mfer
Honest question....

Is the problem of content blockers using rule lists? Or, is the issue that
Chrome proposes to limit the number of rules. Quickly looking at Safari there
isn't this limit to the number of rules.

I understand change being a problem and maybe uBlock Origin can't work in the
new Safari model. But, could a new project do just a well based on similar
blocking ideas?

~~~
hrunt
The article states that Safari does have a limit of 50,000 rules, and that
this is less than Google's updated proposed limit of 120,000 rules that ad
blockers have stated is too low.

I believe ad blockers like uBlock Origin also do some dynamic detection of
behavior so that certain types of ad-serving that come from hosts you do not
want to block. CBS Sports, for example, requires special handling -- in Google
Chrome, accomplished by a separate extension for uBlock Origin -- to properly
block ads on their site without destroying login and video functionality. This
kind of blocking cannot be performed with host lists.

~~~
mackey
Safari allows 50,000 rules per list and an extension can have unlimited lists.
Google is doing "a global maximum of 150k rules" per extension.

[https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-
declarativ...](https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarative-
net-request.html)

------
untitled87
While "Power Users" make up a small amount of total users. (Something like
only 20% of people use an adblocker). These power users have tremendous sway
on the masses, they're the IT/tech savvy people setting things up for other
people and people listen to them. I trust Gorhill and ublock origin a lot more
than I trust Apple and whatever closed source shitty adblocker the put in
Safari. At this point Chrome (run by an ad company, but chromium is open
source)is looking better then Safari.

------
untitled87
Firefox or tor are the only good browsers left, that you can trust. Bromite
for Android is amazing too, honestly the browsing experience because of the
free high quality adblockers is so much better on Android compared to IOS.
Nothing comes close t0 ublock origin. Safari on osx is like Windows Microsoft
Edge or Android Chrome, they're both quite useful for downloading Firefox.

------
fourthark
I thought, "This article is based on a Hacker News comment." And it was.

------
Shank
I've tried to switch to Safari about 10 different times, and each time some
random different missing feature stopped me from being able to do it. It's got
low market share relative to the other browsers and the most picky users are
going to be those who weren't satisfied with it in the first place (like me).

Safari content blockers are okay, but not great, and 1Blocker didn't block
nearly the amount of ads that were blocked by uBlock Origin on Firefox/Chrome,
so I just decided to stay with Chrome/FF.

------
Grustaf
I don’t get it, is this separate from the native content blockers they
introduced to big fanfare a few years back? If so, what’s the problem, why
would we need two systems for blocking ads?

------
runjake
Because we saw it coming. Apple made no secret of it.

And when running uBlock Origin on Safari became untenable, I switched to
Firefox full-time and its been great.

------
Bootwizard
Who the hell uses Safari? And why? Google Chrome works perfectly on my
Macbook. I don't see a reason to use anything else.

~~~
jorisw
I use Safari because it is lightweight, fast, and imho, better looking
(compact, minimalist) than Chrome.

It uses WebKit, like Chrome, so it renders pages the same, but I simply find
the app much simpler, faster, and comfortable to use.

Give it a try some time.

------
st3fan
Isn't this article incorrect? Apple changed the _distribution_ mechanism for
Safari extensions, something they have been communicating for a year to
developers. And many developers, like 1Blocker, have already moved on to the
new extension packaging format and work just fine like they did.

What they have not done is cripple Safari's web extension capabilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am sure developers can still use the exact same
blocklists that they used before.

Same as documented on
[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/cre...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/creating_a_content_blocker)

Comparing this to what Chrome pulled is not fair - I think Chrome actually
crippled ad blocker capabilities, while Apple only changed the format of a
packaged extension.

Right?

~~~
danpalmer
Not quite. Safari extensions were, like other browsers, a package of JS that
could mostly run as it liked in your tab. The new app extensions system is
more generally applicable across the system, but more precise in what it
allows. For example, it allows an app to provide a sharing target – so that
other apps can share content to it.

The relevant thing that's provided here is a content blocking extension point.
Unlike ad blockers providing a bundle of JS that may or may not block ads,
record your browser history, etc, the content blocking extension point is a
pull-based system. Safari asks the app for its list of content to block, then
computes that into a fast lookup table of some sort, and never talks to the
app during browsing. This means ad blocker app built with the app extensions
API is more secure, more private, and in all likelihood, faster. Potential
complexity is reduced, but that may be worth it.

------
techslave
because of the difficulty in policing extensions, this is decidedly a good
thing.

that ad blocking and privacy tracking precision suffers is not great, but with
safari’s cookie policy it makes up for it.

such a content blocker method doesn’t work for chrome because ghostery and the
like won’t work. with safari it doesn’t matter as much (if at all) because the
core browser handles this much better.

------
chaostheory
I use other browsers for general browsing. I only use safari for specific
tasks like shopping at sites I’m already familiar with

------
StreamBright
One more reason to block everything at the DNS level.

------
izacus
Well, it's Apple ain't it? It it would be Google or Microsoft, HN would have
16 upvoted posts.

Brand cheerleading is, and always have been, alive and well.

~~~
bluesign
Because Apple doing this transition in a much better way. First they introduce
some better system (for ex: content blockers), waiting for it to be successful
from user perspective, then replacing old system with this new accepted one.

~~~
Nextgrid
Content blockers are inferior to extensions such as uBlock Origin.

~~~
kemayo
It's complicated? They have advantages and disadvantages over extensions. For
most people who just installed an adblocker and never touched its settings, I
bet they're practically equivalent.

Advantages: privacy, efficiency

Disadvantages: lack of flexibility, some things they just can't do

~~~
pythux
If you have some source about the efficiency advantage, could you please
share?

I only ever read that hypothetically it could be more efficient but never
stumbled upon actual measurements/benchmarks.

Also, extension adblockers are already so efficient that I would doubt there
is a perceptible difference.

------
sys_64738
That is naughty. I haven't used Safari for a few years as I have Vivaldi
always running. But this change is just not right.

------
rdtwo
I use brave it seems to work great

~~~
mthoms
Here here. Even though they use the same browser engine as Chrome, the Brave
team have chosen not to include the blocker limitation introduced by
Google[0].

[0][https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-
performance/](https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/)

~~~
pythux
Chrome did not introduce any limitation yet and it’s gonna take a while before
they do it (they only started showing part of Manifest v3 changes in canary
versions). So nothing changes for forks of Chrome for now.

------
cde-v
Because Safari has no users.

~~~
xodice
Safari has tons of users, the majority being on mobile.

Safari has functioning content blocking.

What is the point of your comment?

------
submeta
I was using Safari every now and then, replaced it with Firefox not long ago.
Now I won‘t use Safari at all.

------
krtkush
The only two extensions I used - AdGuard and Feeder are not working anymore.

~~~
ameshkov
There's new AG for Safari:
[https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari](https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari)

~~~
krtkush
Thanks.

------
thoughtsimple
Just use 1Blocker. It works fine. Extensions are battery killers.

~~~
neurobashing
Not just "just use 1Blocker", but isn't the mechanism 1Blocker uses
functionally equivalent to the "old" mechanism? Whereas Chrome just turned it
off without offering a different route to the same functionality?

~~~
danpalmer
To my knowledge, 1Blocker uses the iOS/macOS content blocking APIs, which
essentially allow an app to provide lists of content to block to the system,
which pre-computes a fast/efficient ruleset for use while browsing. This
results in lower energy usage, faster browsing, and more privacy during
browsing.

Chrome does not to my knowledge provide an API like this, and extensions are
still roughly a JS bundle that defines blocking rules at runtime, slowly,
using more energy, and potentially having access to your browser history while
it does it.

------
junkblocker
Maybe there aren't that many Safari users at all and the remaining just moved
to Firefox/Chrome.

~~~
junkblocker
Really? That was downvote worthy?

------
Andrew_nenakhov
I just stopped using both Safari and Chrome, ditched them for Firefox on all
my devices. Also, I'm almost exclusively use Duckduckgo now for search.

Yes, Firefox does drain MBP battery, that's sad, but they promise to fix it.

------
givinguflac
Adblock is stupid. Block hosts and be done with it. Pihole/pixelserv/diversion
for the lan, gas mask for Mac, AdGuard vpn with custom lists for iOS. No ads,
no stupid adblocker blockers bs.

~~~
reaperducer
_AdGuard vpn with custom lists for iOS._

"I don't trust ads, so I'm going to run all my internet traffic though this
rando VPN in the Middle East."

~~~
vatueil
Why the "Middle East"?

AdGuard and similar apps such as Blokada function as local VPNs, as mentioned,
so most traffic does not pass through any particular external server.

The AdGuard app does use AdGuard's DNS servers, so DNS traffic passes through
their servers in Russia: [https://community.spiceworks.com/tools/ip-
lookup/results?hos...](https://community.spiceworks.com/tools/ip-
lookup/results?hostname=dns.adguard.com)

AdGuard says they do not log DNS queries.

The company was founded in Moscow in 2009. In 2017, they changed their
official headquarters to Cyprus: [https://adguard.com/en/blog/the-chronicle-
of-adguard/amp.htm...](https://adguard.com/en/blog/the-chronicle-of-
adguard/amp.html)

~~~
ameshkov
> The AdGuard app does use AdGuard's DNS servers

Well, no it does not if you don't explicitly choose AdGuard DNS among other
DNS servers. It filters everything locally.

> through their servers in Russia

I see no servers in Russia on the map: [https://adguard.com/en/adguard-
dns/overview.html](https://adguard.com/en/adguard-dns/overview.html)

~~~
vatueil
Thanks, I didn't notice the app does not currently enable DNS filtering by
default. I do frequently see posts especially on reddit recommending
dns.adguard.com, so for a number of users the DNS service may be their main
exposure to AdGuard.

You're an AdGuard developer, I take it? Based on your Show HN post:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18238503](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18238503)

Would you happen to know why AdGuard's IP addresses point to Russia, if you no
longer have servers there?

The link I previously posted is simply a tool to look up AdGuard's DNS
address: [https://community.spiceworks.com/tools/ip-
lookup/results?hos...](https://community.spiceworks.com/tools/ip-
lookup/results?hostname=dns.adguard.com)

Any HN users can look up the same information themselves.

~~~
ameshkov
> Would you happen to know why AdGuard's IP addresses point to Russia

The link shows the owner of the AS, not the location of the servers.

The IP address itself belongs to an AS
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_(Internet)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_\(Internet\)))
that belongs to a Russian hosting company, and we have a long term rent
contract on this subnet (with a purchase option), and we'll eventually acquire
it.

To check where it really leads you should see the output of `traceroute
176.103.130.130`. However, this is also not the best option because AG DNS
uses anycast
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anycast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anycast)),
and the route depends on your location.

~~~
vatueil
IIRC traceroute was how I originally looked it up locally. I posted the link
for convenience. Perhaps I misinterpreted the results, though.

I'll have to take your word for it that the Russian IP address you use does
not mean you have a server there. Thanks for the explanation.

