[happybuy]

That’s not true re the Safari ad blocker ecosystem.

We develop a Safari ad blocker [1] that works on iOS and macOS which provides performant and private ad blocking. Unlike previous ad blockers using other extension mechanisms, it also can’t see which web pages you visit. We recently released best in class YouTube ad blocking features too. The mechanisms for doing this is different, but the ad blocking results are as good with better performance.

[1] https://www.magiclasso.co/

[zwaps]

did you ever notice how the only people who ever say anything positive about Safari's adblock ecosystem are those who literally sell adblocker software? It is like clockwork.

Despite the fact that most of your posts on HN are ads for magiclasso, the fact remains that even most basic features (like whitelisting or blocking cookie banners) require payment.

Furthermore, you do not even come close to uBlock origin. Of course, we both know this, because it simply is not possible. Apple does not allow it. And yet, you continue to state the opposite even though it simply is not true.

On other platforms, using *entirely free* addons like uBlock, you can zap away annoying elements/bars/overlays... or enable some requests while blocking others selectively. You can block videos on some news websites, but allow javascript galleries, and do the opposite on a video site. You can block that overlay disabling right clicks or hijacking the scroll bar. Once you know that it is possible, you do this every day.

None of that is possible with your product, magiclasso.co, no matter how much money I pay you or how many ads you write on hackernews.

There's a fine line when shilling your own product here. One should be humble.

If you write: Yes, compared to other platforms, the adblock ecosystem in Safari is absolutely dismal. However, we have this product where we are doing our best... Okay...

What you write there? ugh sorry, but no.

[happybuy]

Does uBlock Origin have a lot more customisable power user features? Yes. Are they relevant to the majority of users who want to be able to enable an ad blocker and get great results without a lot of fuss? Probably not.

Does uBlock Origin also use a slow, memory and performance inefficient means of blocking ads? Yes.

Does uBlock Origin also use ad blocking ruleset that have thousands of obsolete rules that are rarely pruned, leading to the complaints that Safari only supported 50,000 rules in a single extension? Yes.

There's a lot of Pros and Cons with different products. uBlock Origin has a lot of Pros for certain types of users and it's a fantastic tool – but it's approach to ad blocking is becoming legacy at this stage. They should be planning to re-architect their approach to suit a more modern, privacy focused API that is supported by the two biggest browser makers.

[zwaps]

I am really not breaking new ground when I say that the "modern API" is entirely neutered. It has been discussed here at length. It is so neutered, that literally no one uses it except where it is mandatory. And here is the real banger: YOU DON'T EVEN USE IT when you try to block ads on youtube.

Let's recap: You are worse at blocking ads, because you can not block dynamically and the user can not add rules to sites or elements. For example, whenever my favorite news site fixes its ad block blocker, I'd have to wait for you to update the block list instead of just killing the new script. This happens on the reg, and you can't do anything about it. Or consider websites who hijack right-clicking or scroll bars. Consider people who have to use usability tools to make those sites work for them, like text2speech. Your product doesn't do a single thing there.

Let's recap more: You have "best in class" ad blocking on youtube? uBlock blocks all ads, period, with 100% success, on any video site. For years now. Your product? "More or less" perhaps a good description? And best of all, you have to follow 1Block and inject your own browser addon, literally breaking your privacy promise to the user for EVERY WEBSITE THAT HAS VIDEOS. This is not even close to being a good option, but you come here and say your ad blocker is more privacy conscious when it just isn't (if it is supposed to block ads). What?

Let's move on: You can't block trackers because you cannot block fingerprinting. You only have a block list when we now know that's not enough. You can't do things PrivacyBadger does, since the EFF has already determined it doesn't work due to the new and "improved" API. You are selling snake-oil here.

So. Even without any expert features, your product is simply inferior. You can not even hold the promise of privacy, because you literally need to break it to have any chance of blocking anything on youtube. Well guess what, there are more sites than youtube out there.

None of this is news. We have been through this many times. In every measurable way the "legacy adblockers" are superior.

What IS necessary to discuss is you having the gall to come to this website and market your product with obvious falsities - things like the new API being anything but ineffective, and then going ahead and posting the refutation of exactly that point on your own website [1].

Are you even serious? I hope not.

[1] https://www.magiclasso.co/insights/youtube-adblocking/

[Nicksil]

>Does uBlock Origin also use a slow, memory and performance inefficient means of blocking ads? Yes.

Is this true? It's been a little while but last time I looked over things it seemed like gorhill implemented a rather efficient machine. I'd appreciate if you could expand on this.

[lovich]

I mean, it’s anecdotal, but all those features are ones I never knew existed and I’ve used ublock origin for years.

I was always fine with _some_ ads but eventually got ublock when the internet hit this critical mass of being all ads all the time. If safari adblockers can keep the browser experience _mostly_ ad free out of the box then they are equivalent to me as an unsophisticated user at least

[azalemeth]

For me, once Apple made that decision, I started migrating away from Safari, and I haven't tried your product. I note that it does have a pro subscription option -- which I'm not opposed to -- but I do also note that this seems to be much more common than the "donationware" licensing model of most other browser extensions.

Out of curiosity, can Magic Lassoo present a detailed list of domain connection attempts by category, i.e. do anything like uMatrix does? The thing that keeps me on FF, even on MacOS (aside from warm fuzzy open source feelings) is that I really think the extension ecosystem is the best -- uMatrix, greasemonkey and the ilk are brilliant. I like Safari's isolated private browsing mode most of the time, and I like its dev tools. But the adblock situation is just so much better on FF; it makes the web usable again whilst respecting my privacy ideals. I really like being able to say 'Thou shalt not set thine cookie and contact all of these domains via an XHR request' and the site just...continuing to work.

[zwaps]

No matter what all these adblocker advertisements tell you here on HN: Safari only allows these extensions to have a single blocklist and then your choice is whether to enable or disable the adblocker extension, with all its fixed and non-dynamic rules, on the website in question. From that perspective, Safari adblockers are virtually identical, simply because they are all using the same interface and (I would suspect) resell blocklists you get to use for free elsewhere.

It's people selling you a subscription product that is vastly inferior to any free extension on Firefox (not on iOS obv) and the same discussion has been had many times before.

I mean, I don't want to be a negative nancy here, but it does get annoying with these ads that seemingly have lost all perspective of how bad adblocking on Safari truly is.

[hendersoon]

Not exactly, you can have multiple blocklists limited to 50k entries apiece. Many Safari content blockers support that.

Safari content blocking (and thus Chrome v3 manifest blocking) basically works OK at blocking ads today. The problem is this is an arms race, and as the advertising agencies come up with inventive ways to evade these strictly controlled content blocks, they have no real way to adjust.

At that point we'll need to rely on Apple or Google to add new features specifically to support blocking ads. Google seems particularly unlikely to do that. To say the least.

And even if they do, there will be long periods before new browser releases are available with those features, and then the blocker developers need to support them.

[gorhill]

> the ad blocking results are as good with better performance

I invite you to go through all daily commits made in uBlock Origin's specific filter lists to solve reported real-world issues[1], and find out if every single one of these issues can also be solved in a typical Safari content blocker, just as they are immediately solved in uBlock Origin.

For instance, it would be an interesting exercise to find out how many of the fixes committed between Sep. 21 and Sep. 27 inclusively can or cannot be also be fixed in a typical Safari content blocker.

* * *

[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commits/master

[jen20]

I use Safari for everything both in macOS and iOS, and would be tempted to try your product, but can’t find the price, making it a non-starter.

[kemayo]

I don't use it, but it seems to be free, with an optional "pro" subscription for some extra features. The subscription pricing is only mentioned on the App Store page, and appears to be $3/month or $30/year.

[HWR_14]

When did "half the product is free, the full product is a $30/yr subscription" get rephrased as "free with extras"?