
Introduction to WebKit Content Blockers - glasshead969
https://www.webkit.org/blog/3476/content-blockers-first-look/
======
kibwen
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
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
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.

~~~
jimmaswell
Are free websites going to last much longer if we keep attacking ads?

~~~
stephenr
I'd take you more seriously if you referred to them as "ad supported websites"
rather than "free" websites.

~~~
kbenson
I think "free" is the most accurate _succinct_ terminology to be used here,
when used with it's _most common_ definition. An ad-supported site/service can
still cost money to use (e.g. Hulu Plus), so just referring to a site as ad-
supported to distinguish the business model is no clearer than calling it
free. The way to resolve this is to be more explicit, such as saying it's
"monetarily free".

But we all knew what was meant, so why bother?

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

~~~
derefr
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
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
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
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
You expect them to discard click fraud and also pay out on self reported
impressions?

------
Animats
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
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
The content could still be loaded, but not processed or rendered, perhaps?

~~~
rdsnsca
This sucks because the user is still downloading the ads, and most likely
paying for the bandwidth todo so.

------
frik
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)

------
chrischen
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
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.)

