
An Hour with Safari Content Blocker in iOS 9 - IBM
http://murphyapps.co/blog/2015/6/24/an-hour-with-safari-content-blocker-in-ios-9
======
sleepychu
"Now, this was fun little project to mess around with, but it does give me a
moral dilemma. Do I care more about my privacy, time, device battery life &
data usage or do I care more about the content creators of sites I visit to be
able to monetise effectively and ultimately keep creating content?"

Once we show content creators that we're willing to block their unsupervised
invasions en masse, they'll come back to us with a better deal. The illusion
that blocking is binary - either you allow egregious privacy invasion or you
fail to support the content creators is one that the content creators have
created!

~~~
castell
The content creators has a dilemma too. Without ads, no money. The party who
can solve that are the ad networks.

We need a disruptive ad provider that offers non-shitty ads (like ads before
the Flash era) and pays reasonable ad-money.

Blocking all ads is bad for everyone in the long run. Adblockers should block
only the bad players like Antivirus blocks bad players.

~~~
amyjess
Like the original Google ads? Before they bought DoubleClick, they were just
plain text and people actually _liked_ them.

Or, better yet, reddit ads. Honestly, I feel like I'm missing out when I turn
reddit ads off, so I don't do that anymore: they make an excellent subreddit
discovery engine, so they're actually useful to me.

------
ised
I have basicaly been running this "experiment" for the last 20 years. It began
with (e.g., text-only) browsers that do not source content from other domains
automatically, then I started blocking ads via DNS in response to today's
"locked-down" computers like smartphones. I just do not see ads. I often need
not even visit a webpage. I just download the content I want, directly, using
a custom filter.

Do long load times, visual distractions and page clutter matter?

I posit only when you are accustomed to _not_ experiencing these things.

For me, it is difficult to voluntarily choose 38 connections (how many DNS
lookups is that?) and 11 second load times after experiencing 2 second load
time and connection to one IP only.

I still find it shocking how many connections today's "average" webpages make
to third party domains. It was not always this way. I doubt it would have been
feasible with yesterday's bandwidth and memory. Somehow things ramped up to
the point of absurdity and it's as if no one noticed.

If there is a "moral dilemma" it should amongst with the ad/tracking folks.

~~~
niutech
Yeah, I have been using HOSTS file adblocker for years and it performs better
than AdBlock Plus. On iOS, you can set your own controlled DNS server with a
blacklist of ad servers.

------
bsaul
9 seconds of page load for ads is unacceptable. Mobile browsing has become a
pita because of all those poor ads network, and i think once again (after the
flash controversy) apple is going to save the web by making radical decisions
like this one.

It may very well be that mobile web content browsing becomes even more
pleasant than using native apps thanks to that, since they too seem to fall
for the trend of putting the maximum number of ads possible. Only with native
you'll never be able to block anything easily.

~~~
neor
Apple isn't doing this to save the web, they are doing this so developers will
be forced to create a native app to show ads and make some money.

Easiest way to show ads in a native app on iOS... oh wouldn't that be iAd
service in which Apple gets a cut of the profit?

~~~
Kurtz79
I really don't get your point, with a native app the developer has full
control of what is being shown, if anything ad ad-blocker would steer users
more towards a clean web browers than an ad infested native app.

As a real world example, the (otherwise excellent) Twitch app on iOs serves
unskippable minute long video ads with an annoying frequency, so much that I
often prefer using the service through an ad-blocking web browser (which btw
DO exist on the App Store, and have been for a while already).

~~~
JadeNB
I think neor
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9776826)'s](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9776826\)'s)
point is the intended impact on _developers_ , not on _users_. I believe that
the contention is that Apple hopes to coerce developers—or, rather, content
providers—into taking down public-facing web portals that are out of Apple's
control, where their ad revenue will plummet, and creating instead an app that
is to some extent under Apple's control, because that will become the only
effective way to get ad revenue. _Your_ choice as a user will then go away;
there are already some, though fortunately not yet many, sites that _must_ be
accessed through apps (for example, my bank accepts deposits only through
their app).

(I'm not endorsing this point of view myself, although it sounds more than a
bit plausible to me; it's just, I think, what was being said.)

------
drewcrawford
I really think a kind of lightweight collective bargaining is the answer here.

The way it works is simple. You install an ad blocker, let's call it QBlock.

Then, QBlock goes to the websites and the ad networks to negotiate. If you
want to reach our 1M users with your ads, you have to play ball with us. e.g.

* Keep ads to 15% of screen space

* Don't autoplay audio

* Don't exceed 15% of network traffic

* etc.

If you comply with our guidelines, we'll let your ads through. If you don't,
tough.

Of course this assumes there are users who would prefer an ad blocker that
lets responsible advertisers through as opposed to one that doesn't, but I
believe that enough people do that it could work.

~~~
e1ven
That is very similar to what Adblock plus did. Many of the users were very
unhappy, leading to forks of the project.

This policy, for good or ill, annoyed many of the users:
[https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads](https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-
ads)

Ultimately, it lead to the popular fork:

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-
edge/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/)

~~~
emsy
There was a huge controversy behind the acceptable ads feature. I think an
application like "QBlock" would still stand a chance, but it would have to be
transparent and enabled for all web users.

~~~
pjc50
"Collective bargaining" and "all web users" are never, ever going to go
together. That kind of consensus is just impossible.

------
JustSomeNobody
A 9 second speedup! iMore should be ashamed of themselves!

Edit: Before anyone says it's not their fault, they can't control slow CDNs.
Yeah, it is their fault. It's their page and they are responsible for the User
Experience.

------
hahainternet
While I usually am fine with Ad blockers, Apple's position here is completely
incoherent. They decided not to pay artists for a trial period, they've
decided websites don't deserve to advertise.

Why it's almost like the only way to deal with Apple users is to sell to them
through Apple, and therefore give up at least 30%.

~~~
onion2k
_they 've decided websites don't deserve to advertise_

To be fair to Apple (or to be generous, depending on your point of view) the
Safari Content Blocker isn't an ad blocker. It'll block _anything_ you define
in a JSON file. If that happens to be ads then so be it, but it could just as
easily be malware, or images, or Javascript, or anything served by the
government, and so on. If Content Blocker is Apple deciding that websites
don't deserve to advertise then so are the developers of NoScript, ImageBlock,
FlashBlock, GifBlock, CookieBlock, etc - but most people see those as privacy
tools rather than anti-advertising tools.

 _Obviously_ people will use Content Blocker it to block adverts, but that
doesn't necessarily mean it's Apple attacking the ad industry and Google.
Remember that Apple own an ad network of their own, and this feature will hurt
that too.

------
stpe
Sure, Apple may have reasons to do this to hit Google where it may sting some
and also seemingly putting more effort in their own search. Additionally, it
may be a reason to increase the incentive of getting products off web ads and
more into their own eco systems of apps.

All this while getting applauses from end users who reap the benefit of
ultimately getting a better user experience.

Apple is in a position to pull this off. Is it evil? Well...

No matter what - this has the potential of forcing more innovation around ad
related business models. Especially since so many products (especially
news/journalism) rely on a business model (ads) that is largely in conflict
with their product (getting people to consume news). More innovation around
"native advertisement" where the ad offer is actually something adding value
to the end user rather than distracting from the core product. Hopefully...

------
alirazaq
Eleven seconds to load a single page is hilariously bad. Javascript puts far
too much blind trust in developers.

------
tlack
Sadly, this won't be the end of intrusive advertising. It will just go
underground. I think as a result of wide-spread ad blocking we'll see three
worrying trends develop.

1\. More paid-only content

More content will go behind pay gates and login gates, like the NYT site, as
sites scramble to monetize. This is bad for society as a whole as we lose free
access to information.

2\. Advertising goes server-side

Advertising will become more subtle and not understandable by the end user.
The good thing about Javascript-based advertising tags is that you could kind
of understand what was going on.

In the future, ads will be indistinguishable from content, and already shaky
wall between editorial and advertising will collapse completely.

On top of that, the worst part of modern advertising - data sharing - will be
completely unobservable to us. Even small publishers will maintain databases
of a wealth of information about you, tied to your logged in email address.

3\. The collapse of many cottage hobby websites

You can forget about small blogs being a worthwhile side biz for many small
groups. No more dropping in a simple JS ad tag and having some revenue to pay
off your hosting bill.

~~~
slang800
> In the future, ads will be indistinguishable from content, and [the] already
> shaky wall between editorial and advertising will collapse completely.

If anything, that should give us even more reason to attack this new form of
advertising. Ad-blockers were born out of a pretty mild inconvenience. But
hidden ads are far more sinister, and thus - should result in far more people
coming up with ways to remove them.

> No more dropping in a simple JS ad tag and having some revenue to pay off
> your hosting bill.

At this point, hosting is basically free. You can either pay for it with
pocket-change (as is the case with S3), or you could host it on GitHub and use
GH-Pages, or even host a non-static site on something like 000webhost (I'm
sure that there are more free non-static hosts than just 000webhost, but I
haven't looked for one in years).

But yeah, it is a shame that people can't make a little cash off of a side
project using something like ads. We should come up with a way to fix that...
like Flattr or Gittip (Gratipay) have been trying to do.

~~~
dtoidniero
We're not talking about a little side cash. All independent (most of the web)
middle-sized publishers like me would have to lay off people (who are not all
college kids, some who support have families).

I caution people who think ad block is "sticking it to the man" because only
corporations are going to survive a sudden drought if the ad-supported model
dries up. It will kill the indies almost instantly and corporate will just
figure out a way around it after they're done picking up bodies at a discount.

------
farrelle25
On my old iPad 2 I use "Weblock" which blocks most ads and makes browsing on
Safari bearable...

Apparently it sets up a "Proxy Auto Configuration" that has a blacklist, any
ads get routed to > /dev/null (but its not a VPN, I think its the same
approach as uBlock but not sure)

Anyway not affiliated at all but find it very useful on iOS...

------
hsod
Thought experiment for anyone not yet tired of the "is blocking ads unethical"
discussion:

Imagine there is a news website with content you want to read.

When you go to the site for the first time, you're presented with the
following text:

"This site and it's content are entirely supported by display advertisement.
You are free to consume this content as much as you like as long as you agree
to allow our advertisements to be displayed in your browser. If these terms
are unacceptable to you, please do not continue consuming our content. No hard
feelings."

Would it be ethical to block ads on this website?

------
pjc50
Relatedly, I could _really_ do with an in-app ad blocker for Android, because
some ads I'm getting bounce me out of the app without user intervention and
into a spammy web page.

~~~
soylentcola
For browsing, there used to be Chrome extensions but those are mostly gone
now. Firefox for Android works with ABP, Adblock Edge and the rest of the
common adblockers and has for a little while now.

As far as system-wide, I typically use Adfree Android. There are some places
it doesn't work (like pre-roll ads in the Youtube app) but otherwise it's been
great. It's just a variation on the old blacklist + hosts file method but it
blocks the annoying popups and banners in a majority of apps.

I think I ran across one game (Crossy Road) that wouldn't even start if you
had Adfree installed but frankly, if your game can't even run without hitting
some dodgy ad server then I don't need to play it. I understand the revenue
model but I gladly pay $1-5 for any enjoyable game that doesn't put that stuff
in to begin with.

Adfree Android - [http://adfree.bigtincan.com/](http://adfree.bigtincan.com/)

The site is just a super-simple mobile site but it's the author's site where
you can get the latest download.

------
snsr
Looks good to me; more control in the hands of users.

------
rvschuilenburg
Aww. I was hoping he also took care of the App Store banner using the content
blocker. Would be great if those banners could be turned off.

~~~
MattBearman
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the App Store banner is gone after the
content blocker is run

~~~
lukeholder
yes, but if you read the article, the author states that was not blocked by
the content blocker, he was just unable to get it to reappear.

~~~
loueed
If you look at his script the blocking system lets you hide html elements with
css, too hide the app store banner all you have to do is inspect element in
chrome, find the element id/class and set it to display none.

~~~
0x0
App banners are outside the DOM.

~~~
soneil
I'd be curious to know if it's still possible to block them, however. The
banner itself is outside the document, it's a UI element rendered by the
client, similar to a toolbar on a desktop client.

However, it's invoked by a head/meta element within the document, so it may
still be possible (eg, when the document is parsed, this element is invoked,
and the filter is invoked - which comes first?)

Unfortunately there's enough random forums that offer me an app when I'm only
visiting for a one-off google result, that I can see a genuine use-case for
this.

~~~
pmontra
You need a proxy server that removes the meta tag for the app store from the
HTML file.

------
bigethan
So now that Apple is saying you can't make money on the mobile web with iOS,
everyone will have to make an app with unblockable ads. Great for the app
store. What happens to discoverability when your content isn't on the mobile
web (and with google penalizing you for not having a mobile friendly site)?

~~~
t0mas88
As a publisher I envision redirecting all iOS users to an app download page.
Which means Android users would happily browse the page with free content
while Apple users are forced to install an app. Not really the best sales
argument for Apple? Especially if you consider that the app probably requires
permission to get a lot more of your data than any webpage ever could...
Nicely done Apple! :-)

~~~
rdsnsca
The user will just refuse to give the app those permissions.

------
danmaz74
I wonder what will happen if ad-based content websites will start blocking
Safari iOS 9.

~~~
SG-
Remember what happened to Flash? Turns out there's not only a lot of iOS users
out there, but iOS users end up using the web more on their devices in general
too.

Ideally they should come up with better ads that don't try and take over your
entire or system resources (this is even after some extreme JS and display
optimizations happening over the years in JS and browsers).

Also unless I'm mistaken, this is about putting more control in the users's
hands, he can choose to enable ad-blocking just like on a desktop browser.

~~~
danmaz74
The only way I see to circumvent this "problem" is to have the ads as integral
part of the content, indistinguishable from it. I'm not sure if this will make
"better ads" though.

------
tombot
When I'm viewing safari, is it visible that content-blocking is going
happening? What happens if multiple apps all try and content block the same
page?

