> 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. 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.

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. 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. As long as enough of the general public continues to not Adblock I’ll enjoy my free ride.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

> 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.

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

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

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

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.

"better than nothing"

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.

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

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

I wish that were true

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Cross platform bookmark support is my favourite feature.

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?

> 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.

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

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.

I try Orion periodically but always find it to be buggy

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?

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.)

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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 :-/

Works well enough for me

> 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.

*EU is not one country

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

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.

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.

Brave said they will be keeping its functionality.

iOS Firefox the same though.

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

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...

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

Thanks for the link, I like it so far

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).

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

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.

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.

Does it work on YouTube?

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

> Linux phones barely handle the basic functions.

The one I'm typing this on right now reliably handles all the functions I need and lets me run any software I want. While not everyone's needs will be met by it, let's not paint a picture that hasn't been generally true for many years now already.

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

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 LibreFox, 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...

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Fair enough and good for you. My point was that currently your only options are either giving up a freedom to run the software you want, or losing utility. In neither case I feel like being in control. The war is over and the users lost.

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

Which phone, which OS, and what functions?

Both losing and gaining utility. It's a different platform with different strengths. I'd lose utility if I switched to Android.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49190176 and replies.

> I am not talking about myself.

well then, you should stick to the context

:( 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.