Apple and google did everything for you to not know about it. It’s not the first thread where people either don’t know about it or will read but won’t try.

Works fine on my machine. You might need to update your filter lists or try another content blocker app.

>Content blockers often block cookie banners too which can often result in broken functionality - a nightmare when you’re trying to buy tickets to something and have to “reload without blockers” for the website to work.

So don't enable the filter lists that try to block cookie banners?

There's also a new extension that was posted on hn a few weeks that's free and claims to have scriptlets to block youtube ads as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406#43208085

You can perform video search through DuckDuckGo, Invidious, or Piped.

The latter two are often blocked themselves, copy the video URL and feed to mpv to play through your preferred video player on the command-line:

<https://mpv.io/>

Recent mpv / ytdl can almost always gain access. If you are blocked, check for updates to ytdl (which mpv typically uses for video/media downloading).

In my experience only the big ad networks let you post anything. Small specialized ad platforms usually have actual moderation.

Edit:// by the way it wasn't that hard to get ads trough ublocks filters by self hosting them either. But that's rarely really evil and I never saw that abused.

You're telling me you block ads, but have to unblock ads to view your ad sales?

Is this in the DSM-V?

If the page is too ad-ridden to tolerate, I may consider to just close that page, and go search for other options.

I use Firefox + uBlock Origin, because going to the wide commercial internet without some form of ad blocking is like going out without an umbrella when it's raining heavily.

Ad blockers usually block such stuff, for a good reason. But I don't mind it on a checkout page specifically though, because on a checkout page I wilfully disclose a ton of my private details, such as name, address, etc.

Good checkout pages work well with an ad blocker on.

The big deal was allegedly these small shops exposed you to viruses, but Walmart, Kroger, and Lowes did not.

Make it make sense.

Wasn’t Mozilla accused of selling data they collected from Firefox users?

Correct me if I’m wrong.

It's just the paradox of when you present yourself as "the good guys" - people will hold you extra accountable for things that others easily get away with as nobody expects them to do better.

Unfortunately, Mozilla tends to shoot themselves in their foot this way somewhat often.

I almost exclusively use Safari and I havent seen a single ad in almost a decade

Ps changed the term to avoid confusion, thanks!

The webRequestBlocking api, which allows the extension to inspect all request/responses in real time and act on them. With manifest v3 the extension can only supply a list of expressions to block, and the expressions that can be used is very limited.

The main difference between this and current element blockers is that Web Defuser allows you to block annoying behaviors (by modifying requests/responses in flight) in addition to elements.

At the moment it's a bit lacking in the UI department, I'd appreciate early adopter feedback (you can contact me at gmail with my username).

I understand that nerfing adblocking is definitely a big draw for Google, but Apple went the ManifestV3 route many years before, specifically to increase extension performance and privacy.

Back then there was a big uproar too, but mostly because Safari extension developers charged for a new version because they had to rewrite the entire thing.

This reasoning is so bogus that it’s hard to believe anybody could believe it in good faith. Ad blockers are essential for performance and user privacy and security.

If Apple truly bought into this reasoning then they’d integrate an ad blocker like Brave does. Follow the money.

And Apple does care because later on they started to allow blockers to spread blocking rules over multiple sub-extensions. Initially they were limited on... 15 000 rules? Can't quite remember.

But you're right. When I'm using Safari with 1Blocker, I don't even notice that I'm not using Chrome with uBlock Origin. And it accomplishes that with static rules instead of with an API that reads every request.

In other words, Google pays Apple ~$20B per year to be default search engine because they make ~$53B in revenue from those searches. This is profitable for both Apple and Google -- no "wildly illegal under-the-table measures" required.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/apple-gets-36percent-of-goog...

It's not that weird that people are a bit suspicious that it's really worth Google $20B/year.

I don't know if or how much that's changed.

I just gave Bing a quick try, and it seems to be a bit more useful (for Singapore) now than it used to be. I haven't tried all the other alternatives.

The power of the default is just that, they it is the default.

Also Apple themself has only one incentive which is to get the best deal for themselves. Is Microsoft willing to offer more money than Google? The evidence points to no.

even when an outsider tries to think of the nastiest scam, an insider shows up to explain the boring day to day is already worse.

Defaults is exactly how Microsoft has been getting away with everything they did for forever. Anti-trust investigations? Irrelevant if you can just make it configurable but the default is Microsoft.

Most people don't change default settings unless prompted and guided. And adding a setting shuts up most of "us" coz we'll just change it.

The only reason they're remove the ability to configure something would've been if too many of us change the settings for too many of our friends and relatives for it to register negatively on their end and they'd try to get away with not allowing it to be configured / hiding it as much as possible until they actually get anti-trust investigated // convicted (Re: requiring Windows to ask if you want to install other browsers than Internet Explorer).