Hacker News Reader

Comment by selectodude | Hacker News Reader

Until Apple fixes the mess they made with ad-blocking and allows full-fat ublock origin to work on Safari again, it could be 100x better than any other browser and it would still be worthless compared to Firefox.

Shame, because I really do like Safari.

View on HN

This is one of the main reasons we built Orion browser. Native app, with the same rendering engine and with native extensions support.

https://browser.kagi.com

Any invites that you could share without having to wait 3 weeks for the next round to go out?

You can use mine, but it may only work for mobile. https://testflight.apple.com/join/DeC8ZDnu

How were you able to share this? Didn’t know TestFlight allowed you to do that. How do I give it back later?

It’s within the testflight app, there’s a share button and you can copy the link. Borrow was an incorrect term, the link is still valid for anyone afaik.

Ah okay, thanks for clarifying. Learned something new today.

I use Wipr and it doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping my viewing experience ad free, including on Youtube

Are there any comparisons of where content blockers fail and ublock origin is better for a casual user?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but last time I checked I couldn't find any content blocker for MacOS Safari that would block pre-roll Youtube ads whereas uBlock Origin in Chrome, Firefox, etc. does not have this problem.

Wipr blocks them for me

Right, for $2 and no access to the source code.

Ah, so you mean you want a free solution, because why should the devs of an extension that you obviously value earn anything from their work?

Well that’s why they’re adblocking to begin with - to prevent monetization

Speaking only for me, I'm OK with paying, but trusting browser extensions, as they currently exist, is hard.

Do you know how Safari content blockers are implemented? They by design cannot do much malicious stuff.

I want a free solution because that's the standard in the space. I shouldn't have to pay money to make a browser with less features have parity with a better developed one.

Safari content blockers don’t get access to the website. They merely present a list of selectors to block, and Safari does the rest. So the lack of source code access is benign, by design.

Content blockers don't have access to websites, but they themselves need to be "hosted" within a native application, right? And that application can potentially do more than just provide a list of rules to Safari.

Along with any other application...on your phone, yet you don't ask for the source code to those?

I should have specified I'm talking about macOS.

I use Wipr too, but it seems like a couple months ago, Google figured out how to get past it since I see shippable ads 50% or more of the time. I used to never see them.

It comes and goes - the Wipr guy does make a lot of tweaks pretty frequently, if you pull up his twitter

Probably the best use for a Touch Bar is scrubbing through Youtube ads.

1Blocker works for me and has good support

Vinegar

I develop an ad blocker - Magic Lasso Adblock [1] for Safari that flawlessly and completely blocks all ads in YouTube. It works across iPhone, iPad and Mac. So it can be done and the experience works when implemented correctly.

[1] https://www.magiclasso.co/

Does full-fat ublock origin work without leaking the sites you are browsing to its developers?

I use 1Blocker and have no issues with ads, so I'm unsure what you're after?

I do my ad blocking at the /etc/hosts level. Pihole is also good too.

Try Firefox on iOS. It’s webkit, but not bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com