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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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...
For all their faults, Mozilla has never done anything that holds a candle to the kinds of stunts Brave keeps pulling.
I wonder if he'd have done the same at Mozilla.
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
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).
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
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.
I'm a Firefox user.
Depending on money from Google is worse than the aggregate of Brave behavior, for me.
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.
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 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.“
On AdGuard: can act as your PiHole and allow you to see network requests when run in non-native mode.
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
> 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.)
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'.
A kid reading up on security from age 6 through college could have a decade of experience, for example.
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’ve found it to work exceptionally well after trying other free adblockers.
However of the three I trust AdGuard the least, for no objective reasons.
That said, IMO on Safari Wipr all the way (though I use Brave Origin with its built-in blocker now, which is stellar).
Developing for that spec means your extension is incompatible with idk, 98% of the browser market?
There are probably additional things behind the scenes just due to the limitations of uBOL but you again in practice don't see it.
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.