But we've already had examples of ad-blocking companies doing deals with advertisers to whitelist URLs and I simply don't trust them not to on-sell my browser history.
So you may criticise Apple for their position but I would rather have a 90% effective ad-blocker and a guarantee that my privacy is intact. With so much data reselling going on it's simply not worth the risk.
Huh? uBlock Origin is a free/open source project.
They are blocking ANY extension from being a MITM and accessing traffic/URLs.
This isn't a decision for apple or any other manufacturer to make. If you need an authority figure to babysit you while you use a computer then you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place, you should be in a nursing home.
I’ve cleaned out enough extension infested chrome browsers in my time…
while the malicious Company that profits from the 30% cut on in game items sold to kids (and non kids) on their platform, that is ok!
> The average user isn’t immune to those problems.
The average user is not immune to bullets too, we don't force people to wear vests though (even though in USA that should probably be a requirement, given how little they are able to do to stop the shootings)
> I’ve cleaned out enough extension infested chrome browsers in my time…
that's funny, because in 25 years of web browsing and fixing other less tech savvy people's mess, what really changed everything was the invention of ad blockers, like uBlock origin. It immediately made the web a better place, safer, lighter and immensely more enjoyable.
Those "web sites that force you to install malicious extensions" disappeared in an instant and voila, problem solved.
The reward is worth the (negligible) risk.
To be fair most countries deal with this via very strong national gun laws
That's true, but not the entire story.
Most countries don't escalate the issue to the level of public guns VS private guns and don't consider being armed a right, not even for some law enforcement officials.
So the real situation is that people are free to chose to buy arms, but the process is complicated enough that casual shooters won't even bother and criminals, well, criminals don't buy legal weapons anyway.
Most countries disincentivize buying and using guns.
In this context Apple decision is patronizing: you are entitled to spend thousands of dollars on my products because a bank approved the transactions and think you're fit to spend your money however you want, but I'll decide what you can or can't do because even though your government believes you can drive, have a family, raise kids, be a responsible citizen and also shoot guns, I'm sorry to inform you that according to my analysis you're too dumb to use a different web browser than the one provided by *me*. [1]
Even though you're probably already doing it on countless other devices and environments (another smartphone/OS/HW at work/school/library etc.)
Apple is not disincentivizing people from visiting malevolent websites, they are not making it harder for people to be scammed on the web, they are disincentivizing people from using the web because it harms their profits.
In this context, ad blockers protect users, so in theory they should be allowed by Apple that claimed more than once to be sensitive to privacy issues, but they could be used to make web browsing a better experience on iOS, which is against Apple interests. [2]
[1] of course the real reason is they want to control the platform 100% and want every single bit of information to pass through their pipes, not others' pipes.
[2] not differently from what Google does on Android, but at least on Android I can install alternative (for real) browsers. That's why OS vendors should not be allowed to dictate the browser platform, we know it's wrong since 1998 and the antitrust case against MS bundling IE, but here we are again...
They just need to agree to work without needing me to supply them the content of every web page I visit and every URL I click. Apologies for putting my privacy first.
> So you may criticize Apple for their position but I would rather have a 90% effective ad-blocker and a guarantee that my privacy is intact. With so much data reselling going on it's simply not worth the risk.
As I recall, uBlock Origin originated as a direct response to ad-blockers engaging in exactly this behavior.
Content blockers are nice, but I’m going to have to agree they are necessary but insufficient on my phone. uBlock Origin as it exists in say Firefox is pretty much exactly what I want and I’d be able to probably uninstall every other ad-blocking extension. I appreciate that Apple tried this approach initially but it’s time to change course and allow more powerful ad-blockers to also exist.
AdGuard implements similar script-based blocking if you buy & turn on its ‘advanced protection’
It doesn't. See all of the "Not supported" in this list, especially blocking webRequest: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/saf...
Does it? My understanding is that the Safari Extension API isn't suitable for uBlock Origin: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158
You need the power of a rules engine like uBlock Origin, which is able to do multiple types of filtering, pre and post rendering. There is a reason why uBlock origin insists on that model, because no other model really effectively works.
Eventually although, if adblock becomes very universal, all ads are going to be served internally from the same url / server as the webpage itself, with line noise identifiers and your going to start needing ML content recognition to start blocking ads effectively again.