Firefox for iOS now has a native adblocker | Hacker News Reader

Firefox for iOS now has a native adblocker

support.mozilla.org

715 pointspentagrama279 comments

In case anyone here missed it, there's a native Ublock Origin for Safari. It works great → https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ublock-origin-lite/id674534269...

This is not a true uBlock Origin. It's a best effort attempt at converting UBO rules to Apple's declarative blocking framework, but is nowhere near as capable as actual UBO.

Works well enough for me

Does it work on YouTube?

Yes, in practice I have noticed no difference between uBO and uBOL. The only thing I've seen it not block are Twtich ads which the normal uBO doesn't block anyway.

There are probably additional things behind the scenes just due to the limitations of uBOL but you again in practice don't see it.

Twitch ads are a nuisance. If you have a VPN switching to Romania or other eastern european countries can work.

I agree. I only really watch one or two streamers though both who I’m subscribed to so whatever. It is painful if I check into a random stream though lol

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49305464

> It's a best effort attempt at converting UBO rules to Apple's declarative blocking framework

uBlock Origin Lite uses the cross-platform DeclarativeNetRequest extension API: https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtens...

Google invented this API for Chrome, and the other web browsers are adopting it. uBlock Origin Lite does not use Apple's content blocker API.

Mostly so, it's got all the limitations of Manifest V3 which prevents it from doing a good bit of blocking, https://ublockorigin.com/#manifest-v3-section

In particular:

* Cannot use all filter lists simultaneously (rule limits apply)

* No cosmetic filtering in the default mode

* No scriptlet injection by default

* Limited dynamic filtering capabilities

* Requires broader host permissions upfront

But it's definitely still better than no adblockers

Regarding the cosmetic filtering and scriptlet injection, are these even relevant? Most uBO users already give full access to the extension, so they'll probably do the same to uBOL to (most permissions + complete filtering mode). So basically they will have these features anyway.

> it's got all the limitations of Manifest V3 which prevents it from doing a good bit of blocking

The only mainstream browser left that can still run the full version of uBlock Origin is Firefox.

All the others have the same limitations imposed by Manifest V3.

iOS Firefox the same though.

Thanks Apple for inflicting the Safari monopoly to all iOS users.

Let’s be real, this is more of an anti-monopoly

i only wish updates weren't tied to OS version

I agree with this, but on macos they are not entirely tired. On iOS because of the way iOS gets performance (as far as I understand it to be the case) through the iOS shared cache, there really isn't a way to totally decouple safari from iOS.

I guess you could allow an alternate newer safari, but the one that comes with the OS would have to be linked into the blob.

If they can do it on the desktop, Apple can do it on mobile as well.

No, the two are not architected the same. I believe it’s shipped as a dylib on macOS.

It is not

It's a really huge deferent from chromium reaching 90%+ browser share. So yes, it is in fact an anti-monopoly browser. iOS isn't even at majority market share in most places in the world.

It is not, because a random user is not able to use it. A thing only affects a monopoly when it is a choice a consumer can make.

You could say that iphone is an anti-monopoly option vs android, but not that Safari is an anti-monopoly option vs Chrome.

Then on top of that, even for users that do happen to "live in Canada"(1) already, Safari isn't a choice, it's the only allowed option, and full octane firefox is also not available as a choice. (firfox as a front-end to safari is essentially meaningless)

(1) saying "you can use Safari, because you can switch to iphone" is the same as saying you can have something, just move to Canada", ie, invalid and likely disingenuous, because likely the speaker understood that perfectly well.

So, yeah "let's be real" indeed. There is no way to paint Safari as any sort of anti-monopoly.

This user choice argument isn’t what makes safari monopolist. It’s that for some countries iOS has majority share these days, and safari is pushed on users through it.

That’s why I was kinda trying to say it is anti-monopoly monopoly.

If Apple supported read+execute pages for third party applications, it might give users more choice but it would also have the consequence of ushering in the way for total browser domination by chromium. I’d argue that is an even worse scenario as far as monopoly is concerned.

That is a not entirely bs angle.

I’m weighing two bad outcomes here. I think it’s a lot worse if there’s only one browser for the entire web than it is for there to be one browser for one singular platform.

Brave said they will be keeping its functionality.

Brave also has native rust based psudo reimplementation of ublock, so it also doesnt necessarily need the functionality to accomplish what most people end up needing it for.

Brave has certainly said a lot of good things while doing quite [0] a lot [1] of bad [2] things [3] that make me think it's mostly just marketing to lower-knowledge users that's carrying it forward. I see so many 'privacy' influencers that recommend it and Chromium, and then Firefox with no mention of FOSS options like LibreWolf, Tor Browser, IronFox, etc

[0] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15790

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-browser-brave-busted-f...

[2] https://www.xda-developers.com/brave-browser-installs-vpn-wi...

[3] https://www.atlas.science/news/the-shady-world-of-brave-sell...

Yep, I don't trust Brave. A web browser holds so much power over your digital life that it cannot be entrusted to a company that consistently and egregiously compromises its ethics for profit. Most of these examples border on scam behaviour... par for the course for the cryptocurrency space!

For all their faults, Mozilla has never done anything that holds a candle to the kinds of stunts Brave keeps pulling.

Which is even more noteworthy because Brave is led by an ex-CEO and influential top exec of Mozilla's.

I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.

He was kicked out of Mozilla for being homophobic. No joke.

Wrong and defamatory. Ouch for your wallet.

more specifically, it was for donating to homophobic political groups trying to pass Prop 8 which made gay marriage illegal in California [0]

the measure passed by 5% [1] - people were fairly incensed that Mozilla Foundation money (paid to him via his salary) might go to future donations of the same kind

I'm sure people will say things about 'well of course he's legally free to do as he wants with this money' but then so too is the desire by employees to not want to be working under someone who has done something ideologically abhorrent to them. and given the multiple controversies that crop up about Brave seemingly every year where they push some combination of crypto, browser AI, etc, it's probably for the best

[0] https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8

And yet the democratic process was subverted by the measure being overruled. Moot point.

That's actually incorrect. Democracy doesn't mean allowing mob rule (or manufactured "consent") to trample fundamental human rights.

The judicial branch is part of the US democracy, this was not subversion of the democratic process.

Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).

would love to live in a society where past harms and mistakes could simply be forgotten because the law has moved forward. I imagine a lot of low-level drug possession charges would be forgiven under that ethical conceit

but since we're a long ways from that reality, the least we can do is to look for accountability from influential people with the same strictness we have for the poorest and least powerful

Well no he quit after a few days. He wasn't fired.

That said I do think the uproar was mostly justified. Mozilla is a very progressive organisation and the foundation is basically an NGO. The CEO should fully stand behind its values. At many companies these things aren't core values but at Mozilla they are.

They're not just an employee, they're a figurehead. It's part of the job. Nobody complains if an individual contributor is doing something like this.

And really, if a CEO at a conservative company or foundation would go and join the pride parade I'm sure they would find themselves in trouble too.

All valid.

I'm a Firefox user.

Depending on money from Google is worse than the aggregate of Brave behavior, for me.

Brave and Vivaldi built their own blockers, they aren’t addons.

Firefox has also adopted and supports Manifest v3, but Mozilla did not adopt all of Chrome/Chromium’s Manifest v3 restrictions.

In Chrome/Chromium, Manifest v3 largely replaces extension-controlled network blocking with a more restrictive «declarativeNetRequest», whereas Firefox, by contrast, has deliberately kept support for blocking «webRequest» functionality.

Importantly, the full uBlock Origin is a Manifest V2 extension. The Manifest v3-compatible version is uBlock Origin Lite, which has fewer capabilities.

What I like about uBO Lite in Safari is that I can use it without allowing it access to any of my data (it works in a purely declarative mode if you want). Even if it’s unlikely that uBO would be sold to a sketchy company, at least this provides protection against any supply chain attacks.

Yes, that was Google’s justification for killing MV2. It isn’t wrong, of course, but I insist on defining my own security posture and I prioritize adblocking.

Cosmetic filtering and script injection both work fine, they’re just off by default. Everybody works around rule count limits by making the one app register itself as like six different “Safari extensions”, it’s just clutter not a limitation. It requires no permissions up front and later permissions only granularly and rarely, for me only on YouTube, while the Firefox version does require unrestricted access to all domains. I have never seen a “dynamic filtering capability” it lacks or an ad it can’t block, do you have any examples?

yea but also idk if its OT but i pay for apple news premium and its just all ads in safari. like whats the point, like its cheaper to bundle and share with my family. but why am i see ads withing News app when i pay this should be a given.

You're seeing ads while paying because you're paying. If you stop paying you won't see ads while paying anymore. Why would you reward such behavior?

That's one way to look at it, but in theory, you're paying to access news stories that otherwise would not be available. I've never seen a feature of paying for the "plus" to be ad free. That's like suggesting paying for a subscription to a newspaper or magazine would be ad free when paying for it just gave you the access to it. This is how it has always been, so expecting the leopard to change its spots is kind of silly

It's not silly. If you're satisfied with seeing ads in a paid product then that's fine, but the other person clearly is not. Cancelling a service because it doesn't meet your expectations is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't matter how "it's always been".

You can have virtually unlimited amount of rules, its just a limit per list, the number of lists aint really limited.

Cosmetic-based filters and scriptlet injection-based filters work by default, they are enforced in _Optimal_ and _complete_ filtering modes. The default filtering mode is _optimal_.

Also, if you use Orion Browser, they did implement the full Manifest v2 extension spec on top of WebKit, which lets you use full uBlock origin directly.

This is why I started using the Orion browser. It's not perfect, I've had a few freezes and occasional weird behavior but well within the "tolerable" range for me, and not noticably worse than the glitches that any ad blocker causes on some sites.

Does that really matter if virtually no one is going to develop extensions according to the Manifest v2 spec?

Developing for that spec means your extension is incompatible with idk, 98% of the browser market?

Well, uBlock will maintain support, and Orion also supports Manifest v3

I try Orion periodically but always find it to be buggy

We'd love to hear from you about specific bugs.

FYI uBlock Origin Lite on iOS is inferior to AdGuard and (I think) Wipr as it's just a WebExtension, so it'll only block ads within Safari itself.

AdGuard and Wipr use both the Web Extension and Content Blocker APIs, so they'll block ads in all web views system wide on top of within Safari itself.

However as far as trustworthiness goes, uBlock is (imo) #1.

wBlock by an MIT student is open source and seems (just!) about as trustworthy as uBlock, though of course without the track record. Light & fast, especially to update.

  “wBlock runs entirely within Safari's content blocking API. There's no data collection, no tracking, and no system-level extensions that can monitor your browsing.“

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wblock/id6746388723 / GH: https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock

On AdGuard: can act as your PiHole and allow you to see network requests when run in non-native mode.

Thanks for the link, I like it so far

Nice, last time I heard about wblock felt like years ago and I'm not sure why I didn't consider it.

These days I don't run on-device adblock, I just do DNS filtering for the most part but I'll check it out, not sure I wanna keep tunneling all my DNS queries to ControlD perpetually lol

Just a comment on the narrative:

> wBlock by an MIT student is open source

It's funny to me that some find that narrative appealing.

Here's another narrative: Many of those MIT students go on to be SV founders and employees who build, operate, and make millions or billions from the mass surveillance and ad industry. And I'm sure some participated in FOSS in college - what better way to build your resume for the surveillance/ad industry?

(I'm not commenting on the wBlock developer; I think all such narratives are deceiving and should be ignored.)

The "narrative" above is that they're both made by seemingly well-intentioned solo developers, that's it. Use your own judgement for something that wants to inject JS into every website you visit.

> The "narrative" above is that they're both made by seemingly well-intentioned solo developers

Our comments don't disagree (though I was only responding to the comment parent to mine). My point is to question how 'MIT student' is a signal for 'well-intentioned'.

No offense to the author, but I don't trust a college kid the same way I trust the team behind uBlock. The latter have a well-established track record with substantial external eyes (including Firefox directly.)

Age of author shouldn’t be of relevance. Experience and/or team size should.

A kid reading up on security from age 6 through college could have a decade of experience, for example.

I'm not sure whether this comment is serious or not. Poe's law strikes again.

Never heard of this but looks good to me. Nice to have another tool for the arsenal.

uBOL bug report: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/438 , from discussion https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/discussions/408#di...

    uBOL doesn't work in apps, it works only in Safari, it's a pure browser extension, the "app" part of uBOL is an Apple requirement just for the sake of installing the extension.

    Copied from #408:

    uBOL will stay a webextensions-based browser extension, I do not plan to go further than this, I do not have the time and motivation to take on more work than I already do.
    What people may ask though is that Apple maybe supports webextensions in WebApp, if that is possible at all.

I hope this changes, it’s what keeps me on AdGuard :-/

I have been happy with my workaround for this issue which is using uBOL along side the AdGuard content blocker extensions (main AdGuard web extension disabled).

I think Wipr is also very trustworthy. It’s developed by an indie dev who’s responsive over email, and gives you a lot for free. And it has a $5/yr subscription (or one time payment) that unlocks system-wide ad blocking, not just in web views.

I’ve found it to work exceptionally well after trying other free adblockers.

Yeah my comment wasn't me trying to say they weren't trustworthy, I've actually purchased both AdGuard and Wipr but I stick with AdGuard since I felt like it was better. And the dev of Wipr seems to be transparent for sure.

However of the three I trust AdGuard the least, for no objective reasons.

FWIW AdGuard dev team is in Russia. Letting them proxy all your traffic is probably not the wisest move.

If you use the Safari adblocker, it will use rule lists, not proxy all traffic.

That said, IMO on Safari Wipr all the way (though I use Brave Origin with its built-in blocker now, which is stellar).

I think they relocated but yes that’s partially why I don’t use it anymore.

Is this new? I thought adguard was the only option

I had missed that! Thanks a lot, saved me a lot of annoyance on my phone.

Unfortunately, Firefox on iOS still can't automatically clear cookies and cache for all websites except those specifically excluded. Which obviously is a big privacy issue in regards to being tracked.

Brave on iOS for example implemented this 2 years ago:

"Auto Shred lets you automatically delete data for specific sites [...] You can configure Auto Shred to happen when all tabs for a site are closed, or on browser restart. Auto Shredding on Site Tabs Closed means that whenever you close the last tab for a site, Brave will automatically Shred that site’s data."

https://brave.com/privacy-updates/30-shred-button/#:~:text=A...

Firefox Android also doesn't have the WebExtension history API which is insanely annoying: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330161

Technically, Firefox Focus (a separate browser for iOS) includes an adblocker feature that can be applied system wide via iOS's content blockers subsystem. This was released in the late 2010s.

Firefox including it is likely just reducing the steps required.

Yes and not only that, one can enable that as a safari extension and get an ad-free experience on safari too.

If you search the App Store and don’t find it, it’s called Firefox Klar in some markets

Firefox Focus is called Klar (“clear” in German) in Germany because the Focus trademark is owned by a German news magazine.

Love Firefox. But I always thought it was terribly misguided product direction of them to ever release this as a separate iOS app.

Total speculation, but I wonder if Apple wouldn't approve a single app with all of those features.

Really? I use it daily. So handy for junk links or stuff I want to search, eg products where I'd get tracked (more...yes I know there's still tracking at a higher level)

How do you do this? Straight up don’t know what the “content blocker subsystem” is ha

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-focus-ios#w_use...

Ah duh I should’ve checked for that documentation. Thanks

Wait, it can be used system wide? I copy paste link into Firefox Focus when ads makes a page too unreadable.

Love Focus! Daily drove for years now. It is great that it nukes your tabs when you fully close it. Helps my brain.

What's the current excuse for not supporting extensions on iOS? Orion on iOS does and it's the reason I dropped FF ages ago.

Apple themselves do not allow using anything other than WebKit unless you move to the EU or Japan: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...

Firefox addons target gecko, not webkit.

What Orion's doing is horribly hacky and prone to cause issues with a multitude of addons, and of course Mozilla shouldn't bow to Apple's incredibly anti-competitive behavior.

You pay apple for a phone that can act more-or-less as a general purpose computer with apps. Apple should let you install the apps you want, and that they don't do so is insulting.

The fact that the EU and Japan ruled it illegal, and Apple responded by only changing it in those two countries instead of all countries is doubly insulting.

Not all markets or manufacturers will have the same degree of vertical integration and that's ok.

It’s okay if you’re in a healthy market with many competitive choices.

It’s not okay if you’re a duopoly where over 95% of people buy your product as a prerequisite to functioning in modern society.

Their approach yielded arguably the least exploitable general purpose computing devices that people ever actually wanted, without making people feel they were crippled, in a market where there are thousands of alternatives.

It's been wildly successful and, like nearly everyone, I'm fine it.

:( where’s the hacker ethos here? I suppose you have a nice Linux machine or something you customize as you see fit, and you can make calls and listen to podcasts on your phone and that’s good enough for on the go…?

I want grandma to have a locked-down iPhone but I want to be able to go through a process to be able to own my own iPhone. Doesn’t feel fine to have something crippled unless maybe it’s rented or something. Or my phone’s in an HOA.

It’s a combination of Stockholm syndrome, having an expensive phone as a status symbol, and corporate worshiping.

It also makes me “:(“ when I think of an alternate reality of where phones were as customizable and open as a plain old desktop. Open boot loader, manu supported open drivers (no blobs).

Makes me seriously consider Ubuntu touch / graphene or something else and a $200 low end / 2nd hand locked-down phone for everything else.

>It’s a combination of Stockholm syndrome, having an expensive phone as a status symbol, and corporate worshiping.

Can any amount of pain cure stupid? I am still so baffled that AAPL is as market successful as they are, that I am forced to hate-long their stock while never buying their products (and telling others to not buy them either, which is going about as you would expect).

The warden is making the prison just nice enough to not cause riots, to put it vividly.

Most people won’t care or understand about this openness. Their needs are satisfied with the limitations. Similar to other freedoms we have (at least in the US), like speech, assembly.

I think it will take very brazen acts on Apple’s part (or other gatekeepers) to get the everyday Joe/Jane to care about things enough to learn more or look for alternatives.

Things like blocking certain websites, removing super popular apps for not following monopolistic rules

Both Ubuntu and GrapheneOS don't allow you to fully control you phone like Linux desktop does. However Librem 5/Pinephone can run PureOS/postmarketOS that do.

Sure, but even when (or if) it these issues get fixed, it will all be academic unless the devices can run the apps that normies want (or "need"). Up to and including the OS-level wallet app that unbricks the NFC chip, and all the banking and similar "high-security" apps that increasingly require some kind of device attestation to run at all. The trend is all in one direction.

It's easy to say, "Just don't use that stuff". But if everyone wants ("needs") it and we don't have it, then we're left with a <1% user base of activists and eccentrics. And at that point we've lost all influence on the ongoing slide towards surveillance dystopia. It's dispiriting. I'm just hoping that somehow I've got something wrong in this pessimistic analysis.

You're not wrong, but everything starts with activists, and hopefully if enough activists start using such devices and demand services for them, something might change. I do my part.

Indeed, so do I. 1984 was a great novel but its worst predictions have still not come true. Turns out quite a lot of humans appreciate freedom.

If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.

I have some of them.

What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats. That would be of minor benefit to me and a detriment to many millions of people in general.

The market spoke, and a huge number of people want those. That’s fine and should remain their choice to make.

The real tragedy of outlawing Apples approach is that the only reason people want this ability is because Apple created this whole package that everyone wants.

tldr; It’s an extraordinarily selfish thing to insist on at everyone else’s expense. I’m ok doing without the one thing.

>If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.

>What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats.

False dichotomy. Nothing about the latter means the former can't also be possible. Apple products disrespect customers in the name of the latter, telling them the former is dangerous and must be limited. I am concluding that only iron fisted pro-customer sovereignty "Apple Laws" can stop Apple and similar, as their customers themselves can't muster a wallet revolt against this business model.

Those two things are mutually exclusive here. You can't have that ecosystem and all the things people buy it for and have unrestricted control of it all. Those can't exist together.

And iPhone buyers aren't an oppressed people. They bought what they wanted in a market with alternatives.

The only anti-consumer position here is that those people should not be allowed to have that, anymore.

It's not the tinkering that's sociologically important, but the ability to install things like ICEBlock even though the government and OS vendor don't want you to.

>rented

Be careful here! Everything will turn to subscriptions and leases, which is why my proposed "Apple Laws" must also apply to leased hardware.

>without making people feel they were crippled

I view Apple platform as crippling, and Google jealously trying to [slowly] pursue the same cripple model. Just because most customers are not educated enough to see the crippling aspects, doesn't mean it's not there. Sleek shiny-ness tends to hide that for normies.

Disclosure: proud GrapheneOS and Qubes OS user and never-subscriber.

Read: not all markets and manufacturers will have the same respect for their customers.

> Firefox addons target gecko, not webkit.

Are they? I've built a few Firefox extension and I cannot recall any part of the API that is Gecko-specific. While parts of the API aren't entirely browser-agnostic, they definitely seem to be engine-agnostic.

It’s not the part you see, its what they see to implement the features you see.

True, but I don't see how that answers the original question of "why does Firefox not support extensions on iOS?". Clearly extensions can run on WebKit. I assume it has much more to do with Apple restrictions rather than with the fact addons are built for Gecko.

Its not as simple as extensions running on webkit. Webkit is just a component. Extensions are basically apps. Apple goes through a lot of trouble to make it so you cant build an app platform inside your own app. Not saying impossible. But non trivial. Its not as simple as “webkit runs extensions”

*EU is not one country

The law that requires allowing alternative browsers, the DMA, applies to the entire EU.

But I believe there are still zero third party browsers, to publish their browser in the EU Mozilla need an EU development team because developers outside the EU are unable to install it, and Mozilla cannot publish it as their existing app. Enforcement is taking years.

I'm pretty sure the OP knows about the law being EU-wide, but they were referring to "the EU and Japan ... those two countries".

Can you please expand on why what Orion does is hacky and may cause issues with other add ons?

> unless you move to the EU or Japan

Not only that, but the "entitlement" (Apple lingo for code-signature flag that grants capabilities) needed to publish a browser effectively requires to be an established company, ensuring hobbyists can't really get there with an open-source project even though the sources of Firefox are available and could technically be ported.

It goes well beyond requiring an established company. It's so onerous that no company has yet successfully navigated all the gates required - even Google. Apple is maliciously complying with the EU's Digital Rights Act, and many years later, the EU has not concluded its investigations. I am incredibly disappointed.

Apple is the only thing holding back Chromium / Blink from becoming the only browser technology that matters. I hope they keep fighting that fight.

They don't fight it for that reason though. They don't care about an open web either.

I don’t care why they do it. It’s just nice that their interests and my interests are aligned on this.

I care about the open web and see setting Google up for a monopoly on web browsers to be just about the worst thing that could happen. A duopoly isn’t much better, but it is better.

It's not a great alternative though. After all, Apple doesn't even provide a version of Safari for non-Apple platforms. They used to, but they stopped with the windows version years ago.

That means Safari will be locked in at most at the Apple marketshare which is only about 8% on desktop: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide... . Not really a monopoly-breaker.

And not everyone on Mac uses Safari of course, I didn't use it much when I still was on Apple because Firefox could sync my bookmarks with all my other computers.

On mobile it's a different story of course (they are at 31% there, and nobody is allowed to run a different engine) but a browser isn't so important there because most services have en app.

Nobody would install chrome on iOS even if they could, for the same reason they don't try to install safari on android.

You'd be wrong. One of six iOS users install Chrome. I do as I use 3 OSes and want all my stuff synced across them, something I can't do with Safari.

You're the minority.

Not sure your point. You claimed "Nobody would install chrome on iOS even if they could". That is provably false by easily checkable usage metrics. Heck, You can just go to the App Store and see it's one of the top downloaded apps.

I standardized on Google Password Manager, so use it for banking and stuff on many machines.

Should I use 1password, or setup passkeys and TOTP separately for iOS? I have no idea.

there is sites that simply don't work in safari, I have family that sometimes I have to help them do something by opening what they want on my android phone that does support chrome and firefox. In order to accomplish their tasks. It would be great if apple supported other browsers

If WebKit is superior, they have nothing to worry about. They are worried because WebKit is not superior. Partly because Apple has worked diligently to ensure WebKit wrappers cannot compete with native apps. It undermines their entire business model. So if Chromium were made available, people would flock to it. I am not in favour of forcing people to use inferior technology for no other reason than it prevents Chromium retaining dominance. Competition is good and Apple should be forced to improve WebKit.

Is this a new rule? I had my own browser published on the App Store about a year ago (as a solo dev).

A browser that does not use webkit.

Aren't all browsers on iOS required to use webkit?

You had a Safari wrapper published. Not a browser.

I thought all browsers published on iOS were Safari wrappers, or did that change?

We need laws that make Apple's business model illegal. No more walled gardens, including game consoles. If you sell a Universal Machine (or product containing a Universal Machine), then the owner/purchaser/leasee must have full control of the Universal Machine.

Just like the laws against bad cars are called "Lemon Laws," call these new laws against bad Universal Machines "Apple Laws." Forever memorialize AAPL in this negative light to warn its future successors what happens when you act in anti-customer ways even when technically not illegal to do so.

By the same logic, we could also use "Anthropic Laws" to curb the nanny-moralism of model guardrails too!

Personally I'm happy to carve out an exception for game consoles. Other than play games I don't do anything essential to my life on my game consoles. On my phone though I bank, shop, book hotels, flights, make doctors appointments, etc...

I'm sure there is some definition we could use that exempts game consoles and not smartphones. For example, I'm sure the game consoles would be happy to live under the restriction of never allowing banking apps, non-media shopping apps, hotel apps, flight apps, medical services apps.

Until recently Apple only allowed Webkit on iOS. In the EU and Japan now they allow proprietary engines. But this means Mozilla needs to put in all the extra effort to maintain yet another branch for iOS with all the features, for an even more limited user base in those regions alone.

While technically allowed, Apple's terms are extensive: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...

No browser vendor has been able to meet Apple's terms to gain access to this program, which is intentional by Apple.

As always, it's Apple neutering their own platform. They don't allow a lot of things on iOS. Non-WebKit browsers is one of them (Which is asinine).

The EU forced them to allow other browser engines in their regions, but it's not global, and therefore fragmented.

what's the current excuse for buying a device which doesn't allow you to control what software you use on it?

1. Not wanting to.

2. Caring about other aspects of the device.

I don't personally agree with Apple's decisions, but you "vote with wallet" people need to have at least some modicum of empathy before you start demanding that people have a lot for you and join your cause.

you are reading a lot into almost nothing

> 1. Not wanting to.

obviously you DO want to if you want to use extensions but cannot use them because you actually cannot control the software on your device

I am not talking about myself. That's where the empathy part comes.

> I am not talking about myself.

well then, you should stick to the context

No. Just because I gave you an answer that doesn't satisfy you, doesn't give you the right.

People don't care about the same things you do, so they want to keep the current phone, they just want added functionality. You're gonna have to do better than to just being an asshole about it and calling it "excuses".

> No.

well if you wanna derail, it's on you

Where do I buy this device that does let me run any software I want?

Most Android phones don't even let users unlock the bootloader anymore. And if you do unlock the bootloader, now Google Pay doesn't work, among other things. I don't really feel like being in control of what software I use when the software I actually want refuses to run. F-Droid homepage is also concerning.

Linux phones barely handle the basic functions.

My current excuse? Android (the only current realistic alternative; I don't have the time nor care to fiddle with technical details on a device that I need to be a reliable tool. I'm not afraid of going deep on something less standard, Linux has been my daily driven OS for literally decades) is trash and untrustworthy in my experience. Browser extensions alone are not nearly enough to tip the scale for me to go back to it. As mentioned I use something that provides extension support already (from a browser that has far fewer developers working on it!), which is why I find it stupid that Mozilla won't figure out a way to do it themselves.

As a mobile device? There are like 3 of them on the market right now and you'll run into huge headaches at every turn if you try and use them.

I too switched to Orion for the extensions, then when I noticed they had gone about two years with regular updates but not one that addressed the performance of extensions, (their one killer feature) I switched back. I would love to have my extensions on mobile, but Orion's implementation just silently kills your extension threads when the memory manager wants the space then never restarts them.

You're never going to have an app with plugin ability on iOS because that goes against the ios terms of service. It can be seen as shipping a competing appstore.

I hope, i will be see gecko engine at IOS

https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/19063#i...

Already done by someone else: https://github.com/minh-ton/reynard-browser

> Ads shown on search engine results pages, including Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search providers

There are many subpar adblockers available both built into browsers on iOS and as extensions. uBlock Origin Lite for Safari remains the best mobile adblocker on iOS, I suppose.

UBlock lite extension on Safari blocks ads on YouTube? Is Brave not better?

Wipr is the best adblocker on iOS that I’ve tested. Indie dev, gives you a lot for free, has a way to block outside of web views too. Big fan, I never had consistent ad blocking experience on iOS until I used it

Search result ads are some of the most harmful ads, and Google's ads in particular are probably the number one cause of fraud, scams, and malware on the entire planet. It's a shame that Firefox whitelisted these, but I'm sure they did it both because Google pays for their existence but also Apple themselves probably wagged their finger for some reason.

I don't know why people still use Google. They've sold out and literally been documented reducing search quality to serve more ads.

I use https://search.brave.com by default everywhere and for things even they don't want to show you, there's https://yandex.com.

I only use google as a last resort.

I super rarely use it myself these days, basically just for images, because it still seems like the best of terrible options for images. Everything else is asking ChatGPT to search for me and clicking on sources to verify if its important

Try https://4get.ca/ It has all the search engines combined in one (you can simply switch between them and see all available results).

> Firefox does not block:

> Ads shown on search engine results pages, including Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search providers

> Sponsored content on the Firefox Home or New Tab page

So block ads unless it impacts their revenue sources.

It doesn't have those limitations on Windows or Android, so it must be an Apple requirement or limitation.

Easylist does not block those things on any platforms.

I'm not aware of any adblockers that can block the ads on the built-in New Tab page. (You can just disable them in settings anyway.)

"better than nothing"

Ads are bad! Blocking ads on our own homepage? How do you expect us to keep the lights on?

Mozilla knows not to bite Google’s hand, who is the one that actually feeds them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mozilla is the one who is funneling billions of dollars worth of traffic to Google.

So, is Mozilla promoting a search engine monoculture? Yeah, "Google bad, but..."

Or is Google the best at monetizing queries and Mozilla is using whoever is best at doing it.

Google's only reason for keeping Mozilla on life support is to avoid the argument of being a total and complete browser monopoly.

Firefox's global traffic market share is less than double digits [0] and is less than 5%. Google technically doesn't need traffic from Firefox and Google is roughly paying half a billion ($585M) a year for it. [1]

[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

[1] https://stateof.mozilla.org/pdf/Mozilla%20Fdn%202024%20-%20A...

This doesn't make sense as Edge is a bigger browser than Firefox and competes with Google in the browser space. What Google pays for the traffic is less than what the traffic is worth (Google profits a lot too).

The correct way to avoid ads is to not visit pages that use them.

Is this actually feasible? How do you tell when a page uses ads? How do you find pages without ads when you search for something?

And a better question is how do you find a page without searching since they are exempting search engines from ad blocking.

That's the same way I avoid bad movies. I watch them first, before I watch them, just to make sure they're good.

> Sponsored content on the Firefox Home or New Tab page

Not ideal, but (at least on desktop) you can set the Home page to a blank page, and there is an extension called 'Blank New Tab' that I've been using for quite a while.

> You can manage the sponsored content on the Firefox Home and New Tab page in your Homepage settings.

This feels like a place where the "yet you also participate in society" comic fits.

Paying for Wipr 2 + Filtr is still the gold standard on apple platforms imo. But it’s not open source and there are no custom block lists.

Challenger appears, one positive feedback so far: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49321078

Also a big Wipr fan, and generally a fan of the indie dev behind it too because it works so well. They’ve been responsive over email so you might be able to request a feature

I have AdGuard DNS set up (mainly use HaGeZi lists) for system wide blocking + AdGuard content blockers to catch some web ads and annoyances that cannot be caught via DNS.

Works very well, it’s been a good long while since any ad cheapened my web experience.

For those reading this, it does not work with Firefox (or anything not safari it seems). Wish I had looked that up before excitedly purchasing it lol but so it goes, seems like a good project so I’m considering it a $5 donation

Edit: looks like starting with ios26 they have “filtr” mode which extends more broadly to other apps but “stick to safari for best results”

Just so you know, Apple supports requesting refund for purchases that did not meet your expectations.

All good. I got filtr up, seems decent.

Appreciate the tip!

Shot in the dark, but since you seem to know: does this work in the brave browser? I know(?) on iOS that under the hood everything is still safari so I'm wondering...

Decent browsers should block ads by default just like since 2017 they flag HTTP pages as "Not secure".

To play devil's advocate. Browsers exist to browse sites. Remove the ads and most of those sites disappear, removing the point of having a browser in the first place.. Not every site but plenty of extremely popular sites that people love and enjoy are ad supported.

Also the reader may want to support the publisher by allowing ads. What's toxic is the tracking, data collection, and how some ads are intrusive.

that's a price I would like to pay.

You can already do that. Stop going to any sites that have ads.

How does browser detect ads?

What make you think this won't degrade into some cat and mouse game?

Some iOS developer correct me if I'm wrong

1. Safari supports extensions

2. WebView, the thing most browsers on iOS are required to use in most places, does not directly support those same extensions. In other words, there is no simple options to allow the same extensions.

In other words, Apple makes it harder for alternative browser to support extensions by requiring them to add their own support. That wouldn't be an issue if Apple allowed alternative browser engines but since they don't (in most places) then it's arguably an added hurdle.

Safari does support extensions (implemented as Safari App Extensions that can wrap standard Web Extensions if desired).

There was a time where WKWebView didn’t support Web Extensions (i.e. Web Extensions could only be used with Safari). But since iOS 18.4, the WKWebExtension API has made it possible. I’ve been using it successfully to embed a Web Extension into my ebook reader app.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebextens...

WIPR 2 is working great on Safari on iOS and MacOS. Worth the money https://apps.apple.com/si/app/wipr-2/id1662217862

Unrelated but:

Firefox on iOS has a terrible problem with its autocomplete (I think they replaced the algo with a janky Llm-style autocomplete). When I type “news” into the url bar, it will suggest one of it’s marketing partners (or whatever) but incorrectly such as: newsyorker.com

I dont ever visit The New Yorker but even after clearing caches and site data the problem still persists. I can delete the app and the problem goes away for a short while.

I left a review on the App Store about this and the person (bot?) they hire to respond to reviews asks me to open a ticket. No! How about you port my review over as a ticket and fix your damn software.

> Firefox does not block:

> Ads shown on search engine results pages, including Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search providers

> Sponsored content on the Firefox Home or New Tab page

I guess I'm not surprised, but it's still annoying.

https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/panora...

So they still don't support the Content Blocker API? Wouldn't that have been easier? Then I could use whichever lists or providers (Adguard, uBlock, etc.) that I want.

I was really hoping to see something like this. On both my android mobile and my linux machine I use firefox-based browsers with uBlock Origin installed. When I got an iPad for Work, I was disappointed that extensions where not supported on the iOS version of Firefox.

Now, I can finally watch pirated content without the suspicious ads popping up all the time. (^-^)

Took them long enough. Desktop Firefox is still the only place I can run real uBlock. iOS was the hole. Native is better than nothing, even if it's still WebKit under the hood.

That may give firefox a bit of percentage back, since some folks can not stand ads anymore. Google garnered a lot of opposition to its evil rule by destroying ublock origin (on chrome).

Even as a lifelong Android user this kind of news makes me happy

Why did it take so long?

Firefox was a mainstream browser. After it stopped being one, it did what all the other browsers did: bake adblock within. Even now they do so with trepidation.

No clue. I once gave Firefox a 4 star review on the App Store saying my only qualm was that there was no adblocker, despite other browsers having them (I gave examples of Edge & Brave). They replied within a day or two stating it was a "limitation of the web engine" and there was nothing they could do until Apple changed their policy. Then, they deleted my bad review. Really changed the way I looked at Mozilla.

This is awesome and long overdue! I've always argued that ad blockers should be literally built into the browser! Very excited to see this happen on Firefox!

good time to remember firefox mobile (specially ios) does not have reproducible builds!

on android, f-doid fennec and all other forks do! it's not even hard, so in my view this "is a feature" for mozilla.

then, further remember one person from the board was involved in AdBlock extension who charged firms 1mi to "whitelist good ads". my emoloyer at the time paid under a nda.

still better than nothing (and who am i kidding? 99% here chose to use chrome on their main machine)

It this still only DNS blocking or does cosmetic blocking too?

"Firefox blocks many types of advertising at the network level. It uses a filter list based on EasyList to block many ads before they load."

I guess still all DNS it seems? For which NextDNS is much more useful.

How does it compare with Brave iOS's?

(I ask because I want to use one of these for my own app - I don't care which app is nicer to use.)

Based on easylist, but you can't add your own lists. I guess it's a step in the right direction...

Can you block mozilla?

I've never been able to block their phone-home stuff using about:config

wrt the native adblocker, I like the idea, but I suspect that companies will now be unified in code targeting the adblocker (or the entire browser) to preserve their revenue.

(there was a precedent - when "Do Not Track" was turned on for all users in the browser, companies used that as a reason to ignore it)

Tried it out, used youtube music without a subscription. Hit an ad immediately, back to brave.

What I need is a better PWA installer

How is Firefox on iOS so fast compared to Safari or Orion? It is easily noticeable

Not available to me yet. I'll re-download and switch from Brave when it is.

Great news! This should be done for all platforms.

Well, not bad. But it's not uBlock, and Safari's blocker is already working fine for me. Brave's also been doing this for years. But at least it's something.

> It may not yet be available to all users.

Not me, bummer.

Same, if anyone figures out what the about:config toggle for this is (does that exist on Firefox iOS or is that a missing feature like how Firefox iOS is missing every other feature?), please share it so I can consider finally moving back from Orion and its myriad bugs and quirks.

I use wipr2 for safari, best ad block IMO

I swear Firefox for iOS already blocked the vast majority of ads for me until a few weeks ago. But then suddenly, a lot of pages where I didn't see a single ad before became unusably swarmed with them. Am I the only one?

Thanks!

I'm anxious to try it

If you haven't been using Firefox, what are you even doing with your life?

I've been using it for 20 years and switched 4 yearso ago to something else. My life is fine, thanks.

EDIT: so, the downvotes are because what, exactly?

I didn't downvote you, but your post has no useful information and looks like pure Firefox bashing for no reason. You don't tell why you switched, to what, what you gained. Not even mentioning that wherever you switched, your protection against ads and tracking must have become worse, as only Firefox supports Ublock Origin.

The comment to which I replied wasn't that useful either.

Does this justify adding more useless comments and asking why you're downvoted?

The comment they replied to is just as useless though.

Using Brave on desktop and Vanadium on my phone. They are more secure and private which is why I like them.

In what ways is Brave more secure or private than Firefox?

>On Android, Firefox still doesn't have a sandbox for sites at all.

>Privacy depends on security since an attacker able to exploit the browser can bypass the privacy protections.

GrapheneOS on X

https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/search?f=tweets&q=Firefox&sinc...

Cross platform bookmark support is my favourite feature.

I also use Firefox on my mobile device. I have to admit: I'm not a huge fan of the interface. Super clunky.

A chrome version of Firefox is Brave.

A chrome version of Opera is Vivaldi.

A chrome version of MSIE is MS Edge.

After FF kept breaking extensions with their switch to XUL, I stopped using them.

Except now you can just install standard extensions in Firefox.

I don't want a chrome version of something. I want an independent browser that isn't effectively some version of adware.

I'll never understand why people don't get on board with migrating away from adware.

I have been, on desktop and back when I used Android. When I kicked deGoogled Android out of my life and went to iOS where most things Just Work ™ and I could stop thinking about my phone and its bugs, I had to start using Orion because Firefox iOS sucks so much.

This news from TFA is the biggest step in the right direction; I might be able to use Firefox mobile again finally.

But advertising is the source of funding that many content creators rely on to make a living... Of course I don’t want Meta and Google profiting from mind-manipulating ads, but where is better business model? Crypto micropayments?

With AI I am reconsidering my stance on micropayments.

I recently loaded up a few dollars on Deepseek to try it out, and the value I got out of it far surpassed my balance lost (tens of cents). If this is a sustainable business model for Deepseek (I'm not sure yet), then this shifts the economics: in this scenario I feel totally fine paying pocket change for something valuable.

We already know google's searches cost orders of magnitude less than serving an AI model, so there is no reason to believe micropayments couldn't work there too. Of course, advertisements make Google a lot more money than micropayments, so they never tried it, but I suspect that while they might not work in all scenarios they are underexplored as a monetizing strategy.

I feel like website owners could band together and along with search engines figure out tiers for people viewing their content (free, minimal fee, larger fee, etc).

And some publishers would choose that, others would form different coalitions and say: get a subscription and you get access to xyz content, just like with streaming etc. It would need cooperation, so maybe the idea is already dead in the water, but the web being the realm of advertising is not set in stone.

This is the kind of “better internet” I want. Compared with ads, I’d much rather have a 0.05 dollar paywall.

But for this to work, the technology has to be built on crypto micropayments. The total cost and friction of traditional payment systems, including online payment services like PayPal, would make this impossible. I think this is also one of the design goals behind Web3 and Project Xanadu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu

https://cloudflare.pay/

crypto is a solution in search of a problem.

If you live in a developing country and frequently make or receive cross-border payments in currencies other than USD, you’ll understand that's not the case. The fees and compliance burden of traditional financial system still represent a huge cost in cross-border trade. These costs kill micropayments.

I’m bullish on oracles and cryptography-secured monetary systems.

I like the idea of micro payments, but I don't think they'll take off versus existing ad/subscription models. The problem is economics: the vast majority of people are simply unwilling to pay even a cent. Part of this is people don't know the brand to feel comfortable spending money on random sites (I recall a comic where a user was deliberating heavily on a $0.99 app after easily buying a $7 coffee). Part of this is also the shape of the economy where most people just don't have spare income.

The fraction of people who are willing to pay a cent are likely to be willing to pay considerably more. It is much, much more lucrative to get those people into subscriptions, where they will keep buying -- potentially for years.

So for most businesses, they'd likely earn less revenue via micro payments, which means it's unlikely they'll get widespread adoption.

"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs."

- Banksy

I agree that they’re evil and there are legitimate reasons to use ad blockers. But ("But" is such an unwelcomed word here) we need a better business model than ads to support free content creators, if we want to push back against The Advertisers.

The advertising business model destroyed any possible alternative, like Google Maps destroyed virtually all commercial maps, by providing products "for free" with costs well hidden from the public. Yet those costs exist and burden the society even more by removing the competition and enabling monopolies.

Who knows which products and business models would exist without it? The (actually free, non-monopolized) market would show us. I wish it could and am curious, too.

The real solution is to ban advertising and let the free market do its job, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269

It's called paying for shit. Like we used to before everything went ad driven. You'd go and buy a magazine or a book or a newspaper. (Ironically, you often still got ads though, ugh).

Adblocking is basic security now. I gladly pay for quality services.

It is psychological security too. Most ads are manipulative inducements to expend money that could otherwise be more cerebrally spent elsewhere (or saved even). Our goal as individuals is expense reduction, which is an economic strategy that is diametrically opposed by any individual or business reliant on you spending money. Ads are the vector where psychological games can be played to erode our default economic strategy. Ads are an evil most don't recognize, and need more controls than firearms even!

Very true. It’s hardly a fair fight

Maybe "content creation" shouldn't be a day job? Maybe "content creators" should get real productive day jobs while the space is open for the creators who do it out of passion and love... for free and without ads? What if some of the high cost of goods we're seeing right now is due to too many non-productive consumers (middle managers, service workers, "content creators," etc.) at the expense of not enough producers (people taking things out of the ground and converting them to useful goods)?

Maybe strong anti-advertising laws are in order? No accepting pay to parrot a message, or at least heavily taxing such arrangements if allowed? IMO the only place I should ever see an ad is when I go to some YellowPages directory, like plumber ads when I look up plumbers. There should be a Nutrition Facts like description of costs, service or product description, etc, in lieu of pretty art and slogans for us thinkers. Never should I see an ad on random web pages, billboards, newspapers, entertainment media, etc. Imagine the ills banning advertising would reduce... like the data surveillance & brokering industry!

>not enough producers (people taking things out of the ground and converting them to useful goods)

This is an oddly outdated vision of progress IMO. Indeed a dematerialized economy of "content creation" among other things, where less of the dollars involve "taking things out of the ground" (and dumping them back there), is somewhat utopian from an environmental point of view.

Completely agree about advertising.

Yeah this is a pain. Good people who do good work and aren't responsible for figuring out some micropayments ecosystem for the rest of us are reliant on advertising.

The way I see it, advertisers have violated any implicit bargain by adding the spying and surveillance aspect.

The traditional billboard or TV-ad is not part of a global system that creates a personal dossier of everything you view, how long you view it, and everyone who might be friends you viewed or shared it with you, and what groups that forms, etc.

Basically no consumer anywhere is going into it with informed consent--and they've planned it that way.

Blocking ads wholesale is a terrible idea and unnecessary. What needs to be blocked is ads that execute client-side javascript (consuming your memory and cpu), ads that consume too much network bandwidth and so on. Ads are necessary so that content producers can generate income, without it they won't produce quality content. When you block abusive ads (as opposed to all ads), advertisers are encouraged to make their ads less abusive. Content producers get paid and you get to enjoy the content for free. Everyone wins.

I wish that were true

I’d be happy for a content producer wide subscription that would disable ads on all participating sites. As long as that doesn’t exist, I’m happy with my adblocker.

Next to that, my device, my choice what I get to see and what I don’t get to see.

I care about having a general purpose web content blocker. I use it for blocking all kinds of things that aren't ads, like YouTube comment sections, random noisy useless cruft I don't care about, etc.

No. We need to think in other ways than the ad economy. I’d gladly pay for good content if there was a decent system set up for it.

But there’s not and the end result is the same.

Youtube paid works. People pay, get no ads. Kagi so far seems to be doing well for search too. One model may not work for all content types but to say that there is no alternative is straight up not true.

I'm not sure Youtube doing fine while local news sources go under and such a is a positive.

What local news sources are going under? As far as I've seen not many actually are. I'm paying my local newspaper, it seems to be doing just fine.

Dwindling of news outsets / local news outlets has been pretty widely covered, as are the results:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31976955

I find the best content is free content, made from passion rather than monetary need.

> When you block abusive ads (as opposed to all ads), advertisers are encouraged to make their ads less abusive.

Ads were made abusive, malicious, and dangerous WELL before ad blockers existed. Ad blockers are a response to abusive, malicious, and dangerous advertising. Sadly there are very few reliable ways to whitelist trustworthy advertising. Google and Facebook et al. have all served harmful advertising at some point.

It's too late to turn this around. All trust is lost with advertisers, and to be honest, I'm not sure a system based on trust was ever going to work anyway. Content creators must now create new ways to derive value from their work. Perhaps we go back to an internet where people wrote blogs and posted pictures not for money, but as a hobby. I think that was a better internet.

No. I will not discriminate between which ads I block when neither the site operators nor the ad networks discriminate on what they host. The moment i turn off my ad block I’m up to my eyeballs in lies and scams and garbage. No. Thanks.

This ad funded internet needs to die. It is rotten to the core and advertising is the source of almost all the evils of the modern web. As long as enough of the general public continues to not Adblock I’ll enjoy my free ride.

If I allocated proportionally pieces of $5 to my favorite content producers a month they would get orders of magnitude more than what they get from me watching ads.

I hate ads, I hate the experience of having something in between me and what I want to do, having random images sent through my eyeballs, etc. So no, not everyone wins with advertising.

Google et al make more money (or at least think they do) through advertising and eschew micropayments for this reason, but that doesn't make micropayments unprofitable. And I don't want things for free if it means watching ads.

There are multiple standarss for better advertisements[1][2] and AdBlock Plus introduced "acceptable ads" whitelisting if your ad meets one of the criteria.[3] Consumers do not want this and this "acceptable ads" policy is what caused the shift from AdBlock Plus to uBlock Origin.

I'd rather the government sponsor a roundtable between advertisers/browser manufacturers to discuss coming up with a legally protected "acceptable ads" programme to be enforced by default without causing antitrust problems.

[1] https://www.betterads.org/standards/

[2] https://www.acceptableadscommittee.org/the-standard/

[3] https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads

> without it they won't produce quality content.

If the content would be really high quality and exceptional, people would pay for it. But if it close to something people publish even without ads, then they don’t pay for it.

No. All ads, and I mean all ads, must be blocked. Our children must be raised to hate the product and brand that is shoved in their faces by an advertisement. I already keep mental notes of what ads I see alot and never, ever expend money on those brands or products. The fastest way to get me to never ever buy your brand, product, or service is to show me ads for it, and I want to spread my thought process to others so you have to actually make something decent that can spread word-of-mouth... rather than something to advertise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com