Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 282 posts

Re: YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

#61

Post by cuddlybacon »

cuddlybacon wrote: post #48
Flow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Wipr as a content blocker on both macOS and iOS. I never see ads on YouTube. But I've always felt that it might not be enough some day. Perhaps that day is nearly here.

I've been using Wipr. I've been getting the white placeholder screen for just about a year now. Every one in a while I get actual ads getting thru, before a new update fixes it.

In response to this article, I've disabled it in place of using the standalone Adguard app. So far I haven't gotten either symptom.

Re: YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

#62

Post by Dah00n »

viktorcode wrote: post #44

There's some misconceptions being put forth in the article which I, as a developer of a Safari ad blocker, would like to address. Content blockers are limited by design to ensure privacy and speed, but they may work together with other kinds of Safari extension. So, when AdGuard guys say that the only debugging tool you can use is Console, know that this isn’t true. There’s SFSafariExtensionHandler API which you can…

>The number of rules limit is a non-issue

The big controversy some time back when Chrome wanted to implement a limit just like this with Manifest v3 says otherwise. This was both from users and adblock developers and it is exactly as bad as people said it would be. Saying it is a good idea because of privacy risks is completely off the rails. Sure you might run a tiny risk but without a proper adblocker like uBlock you do run a risk on every single webpage you open and unlike a good adblokcer you have no idea if you can trust a webpage until after they have already harvested everything they can about you. You cannot uninstall yourself from the thousands of databases you get added to to so it is in a totally other ballpark.

Re: YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

#63

Post by saagarjha »

ameshkov wrote: post #54
viktorcode wrote: post #44

There's some misconceptions being put forth in the article which I, as a developer of a Safari ad blocker, would like to address. Content blockers are limited by design to ensure privacy and speed, but they may work together with other kinds of Safari extension. So, when AdGuard guys say that the only debugging tool you can use is Console, know that this isn’t true. There’s SFSafariExtensionHandler API which you can…

As someone who contributed to the post we're discussing, let me please respond. > There’s SFSafariExtensionHandler API which you can use with blockers as another extension with higher privileges to track who blocked what. I am not sure what you mean here. This API (available only on macOS) does allow injecting scripts and stylesheets, it does not provide any feasible debugging tools. Granted, you may inject a script…

You may be amused to know that I debug my content blockers by keeping around a debug build if WebKit with a handful of breakpoints at the right spots to trace them. The experience really does suck…

Re: YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

#64

Post by Labo333 »

Unfortunately, the web gets everyday closer to some kind of "interactive TV". Computations are moving to the server side and clients are merely there to get input and display information. An illustration is the very controversial Mighty browser. As a result, programs will shortly become dependent on having an internet connection. Today, people use more Google Docs than Notepad. This removes a lot of freedom because computing now comes at the price of a subscription (for internet but also for other services be it SaaS, data monetization or server costs for self hosting).

Re: YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

#65

Post by tambeb »

tyingq wrote: post #27
tambeb wrote: post #24

It's because of things like this—not to mention the added overhead/middleman—that I think ad blocking at the DNS level is the best way to go. With both Android and iOS supporting encrypted DNS system-wide, blocking at the DNS level is more convenient than ever (mobile & wifi are covered, no need to set DNS for each wifi network, etc.). I realize of course, though, that DNS level blocking is mostly a non-starter with…

If, at some point, all we have is hostnames and url lists to block with, the ad folks will figure out how to unblock themselves.

I run my own little ad blocking DNS service and the thing I'm probably most concerned about is websites/publishers/etc. deciding to serve their ad and user tracking assets from their own domains. Though most would probably need—or choose—to use subdomains and be easily blockable all over again.

Re: YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

#66

Post by ameshkov »

saagarjha wrote: post #63
ameshkov wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who contributed to the post we're discussing, let me please respond. > There’s SFSafariExtensionHandler API which you can use with blockers as another extension with higher privileges to track who blocked what. I am not sure what you mean here. This API (available only on macOS) does allow injecting scripts and stylesheets, it does not provide any feasible debugging tools. Granted, you may inject a script…

You may be amused to know that I debug my content blockers by keeping around a debug build if WebKit with a handful of breakpoints at the right spots to trace them. The experience really does suck…

Well, I have the same exact experience and frankly, it is not what I intend to repeat again.

At least developers can do that. But most of the people who maintain filter lists are not developers and cannot afford enjoying compiling WebKit for the sake of finding what exact rule has blocked this or hidden that.

Re: YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

#67

Post by topicseed »

decasteve wrote: post #36
twobitshifter wrote: post #2

The battle between ad platforms and users is going to be never ending. For YouTube, the _right_ thing to do is to pay for the premium option which removes ads. Otherwise as difficult as it is to say, you are getting something for nothing and people do make a living from YouTube videos. Ok, maybe you can contribute to a patreon outside of YouTube, but you’re not going to do that for everyone and those videos are not s…

Serving videos without ads was how YouTube's monopoly was built. It became an ad platform later. That created an expectation that YouTube was a library in the public interest. Pre-2010 Google marketing had that public interest and internet stewardship angle to it. Serving content over the web assumes that the content will be downloaded by a browser for rendering. Control over what and how that content gets rendered i…

You're mentioning the end user's learned expectation to get videos for free.

But what about the creator's expectation to get paid for their hard-earned views, to then pay for the gear purchased and the production of the entire video, including team members?

If you're really anti ads, don't take the content for free, find another piece of content that answers your ad-free philosophy.

Re: YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?

#70

Post by ameshkov »

cgb223 wrote: post #68

Has anyone used iOS browsers with adblocking built in? How do Firefox and Brave compare to Adguard or 1BlockerX? Any other browsers out there that do a better job?

All those browsers have to use Safari (WKWebView) internally so they are close.

There’s an important difference, these browsers can also run additional JS on web pages and partly compensate for missing content blocking capabilities. This could help to an extent, but I am not sure if the said browsers do that.

Post reply on HN