[HN Gopher] uBlock Origin Lite in Apple App Store
___________________________________________________________________
uBlock Origin Lite in Apple App Store
Author : mumber_typhoon
Score : 366 points
Date : 2025-10-29 03:57 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apps.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apps.apple.com)
| tech234a wrote:
| I've been using uBlock Origin Lite on iOS for several months now,
| but one shortcoming I see with the newer WebExtensions
| implementation in Safari is that WebExtensions can't be used with
| the in-app Safari views, meaning extensions such as this one
| don't work with in-app Safari views. There was an older Safari
| content blocker API that did work with the in-app Safari views,
| but it seems like apps are being updated to stop using it. As a
| workaround, I've been trying to set my apps to open the Safari
| app for links where possible, but I would have preferred to use
| the in-app Safari views.
| djxfade wrote:
| As a side note, I personally HATE apps that opens links in an
| in-app web view (apps like Instagram, Facebook, etc). I really
| wish Apple could have a system wide preference where it could
| force in-app web views to open in the browser.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Gmail insists on doing this and always screws it up.
| bazmattaz wrote:
| Gmail is the worst for this
| OGWhales wrote:
| On iOS I have the chrome and gmail app installed and it
| always opens my links in chrome. Does it use the built-in
| browser if you don't have chrome?
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Yes I don't have Chrome just Safari and it used to still
| insist on doing this. So it had none of my passwords
| saved etc. and was some brain dead Gmail browser.
|
| I just tried again and it opened Safari, so maybe at some
| point they enabled a way to tell it to not do that? I see
| in the Gmail settings I have a setting checked for use
| default browser app.
|
| So if you fixed this Gmail or iOS people thank you!
| dostick wrote:
| This small technical annoyance is one of the biggest
| issues... of modern society. They do that deliberately to
| keep users within their apps to drive up engagement. Which in
| turn drives down exposure to different opinions by keeping
| the user within the app driven by the same algorithm
| uninterrupted. If they to change default opening of web links
| as you would expect it, their revenue numbers would drop
| dramatically.
|
| The lawmakers should be competent enough to recognise this
| problem and have laws against keeping people within the apps
| for no reason. (The only reason may be to use the web sign-
| in).
|
| Imagine on desktop computer os, you click a link within
| WhatsApp app and it opens a window within that app and load
| the webpage there, without your login cookies, and makes you
| login if you need using mouse with on-screen keyboard only...
| technothrasher wrote:
| I get more frustrated from when they go the other direction.
| Google Maps, for instance. When I go to the website, it asks
| if I'd like to use the app instead, with the usual dark
| pattern of having the "no" button greyed out. But after I
| tell it no, as soon as I touch the search bar, it
| automatically opens the app anyway. I wish there was a
| setting in Safari that disabled websites from opening apps.
| ljm wrote:
| Add to that list:
|
| - showing focus-stealing modals when loading the page/app,
| which breaks the quick look functionality on iOS
|
| - interrupting your workflow with tutorial popups
| (especially multi-step ones that point to different parts
| the screen) that demo or upsell a new feature, requiring
| you to dismiss them to continue
|
| - not having an option saying "I'm a power user, stop
| explaining shit I already know"
|
| To be honest, if the concept of growth hacking was erased
| from the universe, pretty much none of this crap would
| exist. Atlassian, Browserstack: I'm looking at you.
| macNchz wrote:
| > I wish there was a setting in Safari that disabled
| websites from opening apps.
|
| This has been one of my biggest iOS peeves for a long time
| --I really wish that installing an app wasn't a commitment
| to letting it handle all of the links it wants to.
|
| It's particularly annoying because a lot of apps are
| terrible at actually handling the link: the app will show a
| login screen or some kind of interstitial and then just
| forget where you were going. That stupid behavior isn't
| limited to web links either, it's really great when it's
| the _app's own push notification_ (thus irretrievable once
| tapped), but which the app will not even open properly 100%
| of the time.
|
| There are a couple of imperfect workarounds (long pressing,
| incognito), but mostly I'd just rather have an option to
| limit or disable this behavior entirely--in the absence of
| that I've actually just uninstalled all of the worst
| offenders, I'm sick of having a million damn apps.
| noname120 wrote:
| > letting it handle all of the links it wants to
|
| It doesn't. App developers have to verify that they own
| the corresponding domain names that they want to handle
| with their apps: https://developer.apple.com/documentatio
| n/xcode/supporting-a...
| macNchz wrote:
| I understand that, what I was getting at is more that I,
| as a user, have little insight or control around when or
| where my phone will decide to open an app when I click a
| link, vs continue to work like a normal browser. The app
| developers declare their associations and url patterns
| and that's it.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Not sure about iOS Firefox, but on Android you can
| disable that altogether. Turn off "open links in apps".
| bazmattaz wrote:
| My favourite part is when it opens a form or something to
| fill out but if you navigate away from this in-app web view
| to another app and back (say to get a password) you lose the
| session. It's incredibly frustrating
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| That's generally annoying though -- web sites that can't
| preserve your session if you should click a link and then
| try to go back.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah Gmail does this on Android. Super annoying. You
| basically have to remember to always click "open in
| chrome". It's not like it even does anything different
| because it's _already open in chrome_ , just in a tab that
| it will throw away at the drop of a hat.
| mort96 wrote:
| It has frustrated me for a _LONG_ time that we have all
| collectively seemingly decide to break links.
|
| It used to be that you could click a link in an app, it opens
| in your web browser where you're already logged in to the
| relevant service, so you get to see the content the link
| points to.
|
| These days, you click a link in an app, it opens in an in-app
| web view where you're _not_ logged in, so you just see a
| login screen.
|
| Not even the "open in Safari" button works, since by the time
| you have the opportunity to click it, you've already been
| redirected to the login page. You literally have to long-
| press on the link, copy it, switch to your browser, and paste
| it in to the omni-bar. I don't understand how this god
| forsaken industry's UX "experts" have all agreed that this
| should be the universal user experience.
|
| It's especially bad in apps like Slack, where 99% of the
| links I'm ever interested in are links to our internal
| gitlab, some internal knowledge base article, some internal
| tool, or some other thing that requires being logged in to
| view any of the content. Links just plain do not work almost
| ever in Slack without the manual long-press -> copy -> switch
| to Safari -> paste dance.
| latexr wrote:
| > you click a link in an app, it opens in an in-app web
| view where you're not logged in
|
| But you could be. You could log in from the in-app web
| view, and it would be remembered and compartmentalised in
| that app, so that next time you click a link you're logged
| in.
| mort96 wrote:
| I could be, but I'm not. And I don't want to
| compartmentalize logins to Slack.
| latexr wrote:
| To be clear, what I meant is that the logins inside the
| in-app browser do not affect the other in-app browsers
| and the main browser. I understand this is not your
| preferred solution, but it is a way to make the situation
| suck less.
| mh- wrote:
| Nowadays most providers (and IT teams managing SSO) log
| out stale sessions quickly, so by the time he clicked
| another link to it in Slack he'd probably be logged out,
| again.
|
| It really is a bad user experience all around.
| latexr wrote:
| If it happened that fast, then logging in outside the in-
| app browser wouldn't make much of a difference, you'd
| have to be constantly doing it anyway.
| array_key_first wrote:
| This sounds like a fantastic way to get phished.
| ptk wrote:
| This behavior (as far as I can tell) has broken the
| Expensify iOS app for us at work. We have a conditional
| access policy that requires a "compliant" device to succeed
| the SSO login. However, only the iOS Edge browser can prove
| compliance and Expensify refuses to hand over that login
| process to the Edge browser preferring to use its own
| built-in browser. So login fail and as far as I can tell
| there is nothing we can do about it except for exempt that
| app from the conditional access policies.
| mort96 wrote:
| I wonder what iOS Edge does which iOS Safari doesn't do,
| considering both are just UIs over WebKit...
|
| Not that it matters, it's still an excellent example of
| stuff not working because links don't work as links
| anymore.
| pmontra wrote:
| Maybe what breaks that process is what Edge does not do
| and Safari does. There is more to a browser than the
| rendering engine. Furthermore, does Safari still uses an
| optimized JS engine that the other browsers cannot use?
| lapcat wrote:
| > I wonder what iOS Edge does which iOS Safari doesn't
| do, considering both are just UIs over WebKit...
|
| "just" is not an appropriate word here. There's a ton of
| functionality in the native UI and non-WebKit code.
| Someone wrote:
| > I wonder what iOS Edge does which iOS Safari doesn't do
|
| I don't know whether that's right, but I read "We have a
| conditional access policy that requires a "compliant"
| device to succeed the SSO login. However, only the iOS
| Edge browser can prove compliance" as "our access policy
| does not allow logging in from Safari". If that's true,
| it's not something Edge or Safari does or doesn't do.
| FateOfNations wrote:
| > I wonder what iOS Edge does which iOS Safari doesn't do
|
| Being a "Managed App" through MDM/Intune. Typically it's
| used when installing corporate apps in a BYOD scenario.
| The managed apps are isolated from information sharing
| with unmanaged apps, e.g. policies can be applied
| preventing copy/paste, access to Files.app, etc. It (and
| it's isolated storage) can also be remote wiped without
| nuking the whole device. Edge.app still uses the Safari
| rendering engine, etc. like is generally the case with
| 3rd party browsers on iOS.
|
| You can't do this with Safari.app unless the whole device
| is managed, which doesn't work well for BYOD.
| FateOfNations wrote:
| The reason Expensify does that is because they want/need
| access to the cookies from the login flow. The in app
| browser provides the hosting application access to those,
| but they can't access Safari's cookiejar. The modern way
| of doing it is to put the login in Safari (or iOS's
| dedicated "in app browser for logins") and then redirect
| to something like
| expensify://login_complete?token=xxxxxx, which pops back
| over to the app. This is mostly tech debt on Expensify's
| part, but it might not solve the Edge vs. Safari issue.
| ericrallen wrote:
| I hate in-app browsers, too, but there is a Slack setting
| that will let you open in Chrome or Safari (choosing Safari
| opens whatever your default iOS browser is).
|
| You can change the Browser Application setting under
| Preferences after tapping on your Avatar in the Slack app.
| semiquaver wrote:
| I'd think it was about tracking if I didn't know that the ios
| api most apps use gives no access to what the user is doing.
| I feel like it must be some folk wisdom among app developers
| about "keeping people in the app". It's especially bad since
| the implementation always seems to struggle hard with self-
| links, eg if you open a web link in X then follow a link in
| the story to a tweet you get a broken result in most apps.
| braebo wrote:
| I wouldn't mind if it didn't break OAuth flows on _some_
| webviews on _some_ operating systems. Miserable rabbit holes
| mitigating all the edge cases.
| OGWhales wrote:
| I also love that app sizes get super bloated (several gigs
| per app) due to cached safari data from the in-app web view.
| Seems the only way to clear it is to go into settings and
| wipe the website data for safari entirely. I don't believe
| app developers can clear this themselves either, despite it
| appearing as their app taking up so much space when really
| it's just due to safari cache that seemingly doesn't clear on
| its own.
| lou1306 wrote:
| THAT is the source for the bloat? Oh dear. Absolutely
| shambolic. It is embarrassing that iOS gives no way to just
| completely nuke an app's cache, short of reinstalling the
| app.
| RileyJames wrote:
| I couldn't agree more.
|
| I find gmail to be the absolute worst offender in this
| category.
|
| 1. They dark pattern you into downloading their browser (they
| give three options, two of which are chrome)
|
| 2. In not launching iOS, I'm not logged into the session I
| may already have open in safari. Which is incredibly painful
| for any product that sends notifications via email, which id
| like to action.
|
| And if I do login, and it asks for an email verification
| code... fail. I can't access it in gmail without closing the
| browser...
|
| 3. Their in app browser (or the way they re-write links?)
| doesn't seem to play nice with opening the corresponding app.
| Never seems to work.
|
| Incredibly user hostile.
|
| Is there a better alternative mail client I can use with
| gsuite?
| QuiEgo wrote:
| What does "better" mean to you? The native Apple Mail app
| works with Gsuite.
| mh- wrote:
| I use the Gmail app and just have it set to always use the
| default browser?
|
| Gmail app -> hamburger menu (top left), scroll down to
| settings, Default apps, Browser = "Default browser app
| (Configure in iOS settings)".
|
| I think I must be misreading your concern - if so, not
| intentional.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| The main point of it is to force ads and tracking links. It's
| just anti-privacy. Any app that does it without a permanent
| way to disable it doesn't respect its users.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Same thing in Android... I'd just prefer to launch the
| default browser (Brave in my case).
| mrguyorama wrote:
| _Not_ the same thing.
|
| Every link I click on my Android phone opens up and uses my
| preferred browser; Firefox.
|
| What are you seeing different?
| lapcat wrote:
| > There was an older Safari content blocker API that did work
| with the in-app Safari views, but it seems like apps are being
| updated to stop using it.
|
| Which apps are being updated to stop using it?
|
| The difference is simply that the Safari content blocker API is
| Apple-specific, so it can be used only on iOS and macOS,
| whereas uBlock Origin Lite uses the cross-platform
| DeclarativeNetRequest API, because uBlock Origin Lite is itself
| cross-platform.
| tech234a wrote:
| Adblock Plus did so on iOS in version 3.0.0. I haven't used
| ABP on other platforms in years but for awhile it was only of
| the few decent free options I knew of on Safari.
| lapcat wrote:
| Ah yes, I see in the release notes, "Rebuilt with
| WebExtension technology for improved ad blocking
| performance".
|
| I'm not sure why they did that or whether it's actually
| improved, but the Apple-specific content blocker API is
| certainly not deprecated or anything like that.
|
| The biggest difference is that the Safari content blocker
| API is _native_ , in other words, Swift or Objective-C,
| whereas DeclarativeNetRequest (invented by Google) is a
| JavaScript API.
|
| In-app views can't really have DNR unless they also have
| full browser extensions too.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Apparently iOS 26 adds new APIs that allow filtering
| everywhere, including in all apps. Wipr added this
| functionality.
| nvr219 wrote:
| But then I have to upgrade to iOS 26... The cure is worse
| than the disease!
|
| For now I am using wireguard+pihole on a cheap VPS for all my
| devices. It's not perfect (data center IP so some places
| block it) but it's good enough for now. When I'm forced to
| update to 26 will definitely look at Wipr since I tested that
| out and it was really good other than the in-app issue.
| thiht wrote:
| Or just do the 26 upgrade, the Liquid Glass changes are
| grossly overstated, it's not a drastic change...
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| True. macOS Tahoe is far worse. It looks like a poorly
| designed Linux variant.
| oktoberpaard wrote:
| Without having any experience with the APIs to back up my
| claim, I believe that the WebExtensions API is more powerful in
| the sense that it allows more complex blocking rules. AdGuard
| seems to include both options simultaneously, where you have
| "advanced protection" (WebExtensions API) that only works in
| Safari and separate blocking lists (old API) that work in both
| Safari and WebView. This is precisely what keeps me from using
| uBlock Origin Lite.
| lapcat wrote:
| > I believe that the WebExtensions API is more powerful in
| the sense that it allows more complex blocking rules.
|
| This is not really accurate.
|
| The Safari content blocking API and the WebExtensions
| DeclarativeNetRequest API are comparable. The difference is
| that WebExtensions are JavaScript and can run in the context
| of the web page. With WebExtensions, you get DNR _plus_
| arbitrary JS, whereas the Safari content blocker API is
| native code and doesn 't run in the context of the web page.
| The arbitrary runtime JS is what allows you to do things that
| you can't do with declarative content blocking rules.
|
| You could also have a Safari content blocker with an optional
| WebExtension for additional functionality with no usage of
| DeclarativeNetRequest.
| oktoberpaard wrote:
| > You could also have a Safari content blocker with an
| optional WebExtension for additional functionality with no
| usage of DeclarativeNetRequest.
|
| That's exactly what AdGuard and some other content blockers
| do. The result is that content blocking works everywhere,
| but it's most effective in Safari. As a user, I prefer that
| over the approach of uBlock Origin Lite, which is a pure
| WebExtension and doesn't do anything outside of Safari. Too
| bad, because I prefer using uBlock Origin on other
| platforms.
| givinguflac wrote:
| I agree, and I feel it's worth mentioning that in-app web views
| bypass private browsing, so they store cookies even if you run
| Safari in private browsing 100% of the time. PITA to clear
| them, buried in settings.
| uxjw wrote:
| Meta uses the in app browsers to inject trackers on every site
| you visit. https://krausefx.com//blog/ios-privacy-instagram-
| and-faceboo...
|
| Probably others doing the same. I always open pages in full
| safari and use NextDns to block trackers in all apps.
| monocularvision wrote:
| This is heavily dependent on whether the app is using a
| WKWebView, in which the app developer has almost total
| control over the experience or SFSafariViewController, which
| essentially provides a mini-Safari with
| back/forward/reload/reader mode buttons with a button in the
| lower right hander corner that takes you to full Safari. In
| the latter case, the app developer has very little
| customization and cannot see or really control what is
| happening inside of the web view.
| advisedwang wrote:
| You have it backwards: whether an app injects tracking is
| not a result of whether they use WKWebView of
| SFSafariViwController. Rather, if they want to inject
| tracking, they _will_ use WKWebView.
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| We already have Wipr 2 (https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html) on the
| App store which is a pretty dang great ad blocker and well worth
| the price.
| nottorp wrote:
| Is it better than Wipr 1? Because I paid for that one and it's
| kinda ... unsatisfactory.
|
| Edit: at least compared to full uBlock Origin on desktop
| Firefox. No idea how good or bad are the other mobile
| solutions.
|
| Most of the time i solve my mobile ad blocking needs by ... not
| browsing on mobile.
| latexr wrote:
| Yes. I used to use Wipr 1 and also found it underwhelming,
| eventually settling on 1Blocker. Eventually I decided to give
| Wipr 2 a shot and it's much improved.
|
| It also now allows blocking even outside of Safari. Though
| that requires iOS/macOS 26, which I have no intention of
| installing any time soon, so can't speak for how effective
| that is.
|
| https://kaylees.site/wipr-filtr.html
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Adguard works well and is free. I did pay for Wipr 1 but now
| switched to Adguard.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Yeah AdGuard seems to work great for me. Any reason to switch
| to unlock Origin Lite?
| Mistletoe wrote:
| *uBlock
| rckt wrote:
| I've been using Wipr for a long time. Both on iOS and macOS and
| it works perfectly. I don't see any ads. When I happen to use
| or see other people's devices I'm amazed by the amount of ads
| on the screen.
| 404mm wrote:
| Doesn't look like it supports Family Sharing, is that right?
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| I'm not sure I know what that is. It's a single purchase for
| a lifetime multi device license.
| jjice wrote:
| I use both Wipr 2 and Adguard Pro. $15 total and well worth it.
| Adguard is mostly just to run custom rules for blocking
| elements.
| HelloUsername wrote:
| Previous discussions of some months ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44335664
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43976898
| cherioo wrote:
| One annoying thing I have is, when I want to disable Adblock on
| some website (suspecting Adblock impair functionality, or where
| Adblock is not needed), I need to grant the extension full access
| before I can disable it.
|
| Is there some trick I am missing?
| eptcyka wrote:
| Is this legitimate? I can't find any reference to this on Raymond
| Hill's github or ublock's web site.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home mentions it.
| ge96 wrote:
| I use lite on firefox android it's great
|
| It's funny my Motorolla phone keeps installing random games on it
| like ugh...
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Why use lite on Firefox/android, considering the normal one is
| available too?
| ge96 wrote:
| Oh yeah my bad I mis-rememebered, I use lite on chrome pc and
| the regular mobile firefox
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| So you are using Firefox on Android which is frankly janky
| but not on computer where it actually shines ?
| ge96 wrote:
| Still primarily Chrome but use Firefox for other accounts
| f4uCL9dNSnQm wrote:
| Which model is that? I have a single "Moto" app on mine that is
| un-removable and that is all bloat I can find.
| ge96 wrote:
| Moto G Power 5G 2024
|
| It is a cheap phone I think I got it new at $160 and that's
| the thing it has 8GB of RAM, the pictures are subpar
| (blurring) but other than that it works for me, multi-app
| non-game
|
| This is on Verizon but yeah it'll just install new games and
| say "Enjoy these new apps" I'm like wtf I think most recently
| one of the games it installed is Mahjong
|
| edit: apparently it's MotoApps doing it
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| How? Mozilla famously refused to add uBlock Origin lite to
| extension store
| ge96 wrote:
| I was mis-remembering, elbatorated in another comment, I'm
| using regular UBO on android firefox
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| I believe the parent means proper full-fat uBlock Origin. Not
| the neutered lite WebExtension Manifest v3 versions. Using real
| Firefox with uBlock Origin on Windows, macOS, and Android with
| sync is simple to set up and works great.
| ornornor wrote:
| In all these years I haven't found a better solution than DNS
| blocking with NextDNS on iOS. The only place I get ads is YT (but
| for that I have an Albanian VPN)
| moontear wrote:
| How does the Albanian VPN help? No ad revenue in Albania?
| ornornor wrote:
| For some reason there are no YT ads in Albania. It's
| refreshing.
| jim180 wrote:
| The CPM difference in US vs. rest of the world is huge. If
| Albania has cpm near zero, it's not worth to show ads there.
| v7engine wrote:
| Safari ads are not blocked when using NextDNS. Is it just me?
| ornornor wrote:
| It's is.
| latexr wrote:
| It's not, and a basic "Safari DNS" web search shows you
| it's not.
| latexr wrote:
| Safari does not respect the operating system's DNS settings,
| it uses its own. I have seen several reports online that you
| can disable this behaviour by turning off iCloud Private
| Relay or disabling Advanced Tracking and Fingerprint
| Protection, but was never able to do so with various
| combinations.
| drcongo wrote:
| iCloud Private Relay is the only thing that stops Safari
| using your NextDNS config, turn that off and you're golden.
| I've been using NextDNS since it launched, I _love_ it.
| latexr wrote:
| > iCloud Private Relay is the only thing that stops
| Safari using your NextDNS config
|
| Maybe that's true for the NextDNS configuration--I don't
| know, I haven't tested, so I'll take your word for it--
| but not true for DNS settings in general.
|
| > turn that off and you're golden.
|
| Unless you _want_ iCloud Private Relay, in which case
| you're not.
| drnick1 wrote:
| > Safari does not respect the operating system's DNS
| settings, it uses its own.
|
| I have known this for a long time, and still find it
| shocking. I run Graphene on a Pixel now (with my own DNS
| server), so I don't really care, but I feel bad for the
| hundreds of millions of Apple users who think that Apple is
| a "privacy-respecting" company.
| 8fingerlouie wrote:
| If you're in Europe, there's the newly launched DNS4EU project
| which is free for personal use, and also includes adblocking at
| the DNS level like NextDNS.
|
| I use it in conjunction with Adguard and secure DNS, but they
| also publish configuration profiles for iOS.
|
| https://www.joindns4.eu/
|
| https://www.joindns4.eu/dns-guidelines
| Havoc wrote:
| Thanks for pointing this out
| nottorp wrote:
| Humm they only mention wifi. Can't do it on [3-4-5]G?
| 8fingerlouie wrote:
| of course it can, it's all TCP/IP anyway, and the DNS has
| no clue about your transport layer.
| nottorp wrote:
| I did look at iOS and couldn't find DNS settings for the
| [3-5]G connection, that's why I'm asking...
| pprotas wrote:
| Did some research on this DNS since it seemed promising.
| Apparently they rely on non-EU services?
| https://cybernews.com/security/european-independent-dns-
| reli...
| 8fingerlouie wrote:
| Interesting article, i will have to dig around some more.
|
| I want to say though, that the initiative is sponsored by
| the EU and has privacy preservation as one of it's main
| objectives, so until proven, i will assume that this is all
| circumstantial.
|
| For me at least, it solves exactly the use case i was
| previously using NextDNS for, which was basically DNS level
| ad blocking, and while i still have a NextDNS subscription,
| my previous months of testing have proven DNS4EU to be more
| stable and slightly faster responding than NextDNS (for my
| usage).
| hopelite wrote:
| EU? Sponsoring privacy preservation? I'm skeptical, to
| say the least.
| Rebuff5007 wrote:
| If you're in the _EU_
| rsync wrote:
| You don't need to be in Europe.
|
| It works everywhere.
| dry_soup wrote:
| I block YouTube ads on iOS by watching in the browser (with no
| YouTube app installed) and using AdGuard.
| ornornor wrote:
| YT in the browser on iOS is torture.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| It's fine if you use Vinegar [0]. No ads and you can even
| lock your phone and keep listening to the videos.
|
| [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-
| cleaner/id1591303...
| ornornor wrote:
| Thanks will check it out
| jaffa2 wrote:
| How so? I also use adguard and yt on browser in ios works
| brilliantly.
| ornornor wrote:
| Rewinding the video by double tapping left or skipping
| ahead by double tapping right, enabling subtitles,
| watching in 2x speed, full screen, toggling back and
| forth without losing your place in the video.
|
| You get no ads but everything else sucks. I haven't tried
| sibling's suggestion for vinegar though, I'm taking about
| stock with a dns blocker.
| wasting_time wrote:
| Why not just pay for a subscription instead of VPN?
| ornornor wrote:
| Because I don't want to give google any money. And mullvad
| has many other uses besides blocking YT ads.
| bazmattaz wrote:
| I read that if/when Google find out that you're not actually
| Albanian they'll immediately band your entire account. So I
| wouldn't recommend doing this trick for your main Google
| account that has your email and Google drive stuff....etc. you
| likely want to create a burner account just for this.
|
| Also do you connect to the Albanian VPN all the time? That
| would mean all the websites you connect to now think your in
| Albania
| ornornor wrote:
| Google DGAF. And I don't use their other services. Especially
| not email.
|
| I use their WireGuard endpoint with the WireGuard app in iOS.
| I have the WireGuard app icon next to YT and toggle it as I
| start using and stop using YT. I've set mullvad dns to also
| block ads etc so if I forget to turn the VPN off it's not a
| big deal.
|
| I tried selective routing but it's impossible to figure out
| the YT IPs. They overlap with GCP infra and a lot of apps
| block connections from Albania so they break and the VPN has
| to be toggled.
|
| If someone knows of a list that only includes YT servers I'd
| love that because wireguard lets you do routing easily if you
| have CIDR blocks.
| bazmattaz wrote:
| The to be honest for me toggling on and off the VPN every
| time I want to watch YT is just too annoying. I'm happy
| just watching YT as free in safari with ad block installed.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Why not pay for YouTube premium instead of paying for an
| Albanian VPN? Then your money goes to the video makers you
| watch.
| ornornor wrote:
| I abhor google and don't want to give them money.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >Then your money goes to the video makers you watch.
|
| It does not actually, a large chunk of the money goes to
| Youtube.
|
| And actually, I would happily pay for either the creator or
| myself to fund the content hosting. I pay for Nebula for
| example.
|
| What I refuse to pay for is a company who has routinely
| _fucked over_ innocent creators doing _nothing_ wrong, and a
| company who has threatened to burn those people 's
| livelihoods to the ground for triggering false positives in
| terribly made automated systems that Google leans on to have
| a higher profit margin.
|
| What I refuse to pay for is a company who uses their absolute
| control of the platform to _enforce_ a system of Clickbait
| thumbnails and titles, by insisting on an _adversarial_
| system of surfacing content. I am subscribed to a creator,
| but if I don 't click on their next video one of the first
| times google shows it to me, google will stop showing me
| content from that creator _that I am still subscribed to_. If
| enough people do not click on it in the first couple
| impressions, google will not show that video to _anyone_.
|
| Google will also punish users who make such awful and
| deplorable content as... War history (accurate or not), until
| recently swearing, videos about aircraft (somehow ended up
| labeled as a content mill), An end of year summary and
| highlights video that is exclusively crafted out of content
| that exists already live on your channel and _is not
| demonitized_ but when you release that highlight reel it
| immediately gets demonitized so since you are a big ish
| channel you ask your account rep wtf and they tell you oh its
| a mistake it wont happen again. And then, next year, it
| happens exactly the same, with the added bonus of this time
| all the content on your channel that wasn 't previously
| demonitized _also_ gets demonitized to go with it, even
| though your rep once again says this is a mistake.
|
| Remember how youtube used to have so much small time
| animation, and some of it was great? Notice how it's gone
| now? Youtube changed what they were prioritizing in the
| algorithm, and that killed the entire business of small time
| animation. An entire era of internet media that started
| before youtube and drove the power and influence of
| Newgrounds was just wiped out because it wasn't profitable
| _enough_. This was separate from the time that youtube also
| cut ad rates in _half_ without warning.
|
| I will pay for youtube when they demonstrate that they want
| good content on their platform. I will pay for youtube when,
| instead of platforming and supporting and paying big bucks
| for Mr Beast and his awful empty content, they support
| channels like Applied Science, and Breaking Taps, and
| NileRed, and Explosions&Fire, and Thought Emporium, and Stuff
| Made Here, and BPS.Space, and Jeff Geerling, and Dave from
| EEVBlog, and Brandon F, and Technology Connections, and
| Practical Engineering, and How to Cook That, and Ze Frank,
| and AvE, and the other _Mountains_ of people who make great
| content that is high quality and well made and carefully done
| and not feeding into gross addiction systems.
|
| But their hard work does not match Youtube's desire to be a
| constant churn 24/7 watching ad delivery platform, so google
| punishes them and rewards the people literally trying to scam
| children instead.
|
| That is why not pay for Youtube Premium.
| totostache wrote:
| Would it work with Firefox iOS?
| weikju wrote:
| No, that browser does not support extensions.
| JSR_FDED wrote:
| I'm wondering which ad blocker you've had success
| with...specifically I'm wondering:
|
| - Does this also block ads on Youtube (in the browser)?
|
| - Can this block Youtube Shorts (they're way too addictive for
| me)?
| reddalo wrote:
| The best way to block YouTube Shorts is using a modified APK on
| Android. Plus, you don't get ads.
|
| I'd almost use the "real" YouTube app with ads on, if I could
| disable Shorts entirely.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I don't know about YT Shorts but Vinegar [0] blocks ads.
|
| [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-
| cleaner/id1591303...
| SG- wrote:
| yes this blocks YouTube ads in the browser.
| insin wrote:
| Control Panel for YouTube[^1] can block ads and Shorts in the
| browser
|
| [^1]: https://soitis.dev/control-panel-for-youtube
| joak wrote:
| The normal uBlock origin extension can be installed on Orion
| browser for iOS
|
| Orion is webkit and can be set as default browser.
| SoKamil wrote:
| Unfortunately uBlock Origin on Orion is a bit flaky. Also, the
| phone heats up a bit, but that might be due to Orion itself.
| islon wrote:
| Yeah, I have the same problem. Had to stop using Orion
| because it always heated up the phone too much. A shame.
| Hopefully they fix it.
| ilt wrote:
| How does Orion manages to run chrome and firefox extensions
| when even iOS chrome and firefox browsers can't?
| latexr wrote:
| I had been wishing for uBlock Origin for Safari for years, but
| now that it's here (I've been using it since the betas), I'm
| disappointed. It's really ugly to look at (even the icon in the
| toolbar looks out of place), configuration is awkward and resets
| itself unless you give it full permissions for every website from
| the get go, and it doesn't seem to be more effective than other
| popular blockers. Additionally, pretty much every other blocker
| includes several extensions to overcome the well-known 150K rule
| limit, but uBlock Origin only includes one, meaning it can't be
| blocking as much.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| And it doesn't work anymore when you swipe back. The phone
| shows the previous page but without any adblocking.
|
| I too hoped for a ublock origin with filters lists, kind of
| what we have on Firefox or even the lite version for chrome but
| it's not nearly as good.
|
| And we can't say it's apple fault because other adblockers like
| Adguard does allow customs lists and custom rules.
| viktorcode wrote:
| It works for me, but not as good as the ones based on content
| list filters. It's also brings odd problems: google.com breaks
| on first search request, but ipv6.google.com does not.
| safehuss wrote:
| A more native open-source version:
|
| https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock
| microflash wrote:
| I've been using wBlock and it is fantastic. It supports nearly
| identical functionality as compared to uBlock Origin Lite.
| Random09 wrote:
| Why not use a phone that allows you to use the full version
| ublock? Ios is everything that is wrong with software today in
| one package.
| alarak wrote:
| Care to elaborate what is so wrong with it?
| timbit42 wrote:
| It doesn't allow you to use the full version of uBlock.
| Random09 wrote:
| No sideloading, forced safari, locked os apis to cripple 3rd
| party accessories and apps (like watches or cloud software),
| updates crippling performance, massive number of bugs,
| especially if you don't use iCloud (i lost data multiple
| times after the update), to mention a few.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Because I choose my phone based on hundreds of different
| factors.
|
| Whether it can use uBlock is just one factor.
|
| Other phones have their own downsides.
| mlok wrote:
| The lack of proper adblocker on iOS is what convinced me to use
| the Brave browser instead of Firefox or Safari. An adblocker is
| included by default.
|
| And as a bonus : possibility to keep music videos playing while
| changing app. (A parameter has to be switched for that though)
| bazmattaz wrote:
| I've been using Ad Block Pro with safari on iOS for awhile and
| works perfectly. Even blocks YouTube ads (I watch YT via
| Safari)
| 404mm wrote:
| That was my setup until recently. The ads are YT blocked well
| on iOS but it kept having hiccups on iPadOS. I switched to
| uBlock in safari and it works well. I wish it showed what is
| being blocked on each page instead of the little counter in
| the icon.
| 404mm wrote:
| Does it work on YouTube ads?
| agrounds wrote:
| Yes
| ed_mercer wrote:
| Brave has also been great here. It even blocks google/reddit
| login/gps/<insert annoyance> popups.
|
| With brave you can uninstall the native Reddit app and just use
| the webapp instead, without ads and stupid-ass "It's better in
| the app!" or "instead of taking a screenshot, use the share
| button!" messages.
| OGWhales wrote:
| I've been using Orion for the same reason. It supports
| chrome/firefox extensions too so you can install uBlock origin,
| though it's built-in ad-block is quite good but its still cool
| being able to install other extensions.
| voidmain0001 wrote:
| +1 for Orion.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yep, been on Orion for a few months now, not looking back.
| Safari was awful.
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| iOS Safari has adblock support; I've been using AdGuard for
| years. It's a little bit of a hack, but you can also get
| system-level ad-block in every app by using Lockdown. Lockdown
| works by registering itself as a VPN that works kinda like an
| on-device PiHole.
| layer8 wrote:
| What do you mean by "lack of proper adblocker"? I use Adguard
| and Ghostery and never see an ad. Ghostery also auto-dismisses
| cookie popups.
|
| Regarding playing music videos (I guess you're referring to
| YouTube), while the playback pauses when you switch away from
| Safari or lock the phone, you can unpause it via Control Center
| while in an other app, or on the lock screen.
| viktorcode wrote:
| Have you tried AdGuard?
| tensor wrote:
| What? iOS has had "proper adblockers" for years now. It's
| literally why I switched to iOS. Android was forcing ads in all
| sorts of places, and forcing things into webviews that had no
| adblocking. Being able to install adblock that even works in
| webviews was a huge advantage of iOS to me.
| gaws wrote:
| Orion on iOS allows you to install extensions, including uBlock
| Origin.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Every time I read this I ask for example of which web pages do
| you see ads using 1Blocker that uses th4 content blocking
| framework that has been around for a decade.
| eikenberry wrote:
| I recently switched to trying iOS after all of Google's recent
| Android nonsense and tried all the options. Brave didn't make
| the cut as it failed to block all the embedded ads on reddit
| (my personal litmus test). The Orion browser, OTOH, did a great
| job at it.. and it also supports the full version of ublock-
| origin if I need even better ad-blocking. It has a few rough
| edges, but is working out to be a nice default web browser for
| the phone.
| buyucu wrote:
| I can'e even imagine browsing the web without ublock origin. How
| and Why Apple users endured it, I fail to comprehend.
| latexr wrote:
| Not everyone uses Safari. But even so there are plenty of
| capable ad blockers for it, uBlock Origin is far from the only
| option.
| evelant wrote:
| Personally I've been using Brave browser on desktop and iOS. It
| has some of the best adblocking on mobile. Also use adguard pro
| which provides dns level filtering.
| dekoidal wrote:
| Vivaldi is mine as it blocks YouTube ads and lets me play yt
| videos with the screen locked.
| Bluescreenbuddy wrote:
| I use NextDNS on my iphone. It works well but be warned it can
| break some apps so you'll need to do some allow-listing
| jtokoph wrote:
| My biggest issue has been with captive portals for open WiFi
| networks. Allowlisting has helped some I think but not perfect
| tpierce89 wrote:
| uBo paired with 1Blocker and Hush has my safari running at 100%
| blocked on all the adblock test sites. I was only at 84% with
| Adguard. Its a small improvement, but I'll take it.
| gorhill wrote:
| Those "adblock test" sites misinform people, they should never
| be used as they lead people to make bad decisions regarding
| their choice of content blockers.[1]
|
| [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1985170#c3
| Barbing wrote:
| TIL direct from GOAThill
|
| Good read: adblock test sites can be wildly inaccurate
| (alerting to connections that never made it, given redirect
| to the local shim resource) and can easily be gamed.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Semi-OT: you can use Wireguard through a home network (with
| dynamic dns) that has a PiHole or similar setup if you want more
| broad ad blocking for all apps while away from your home network.
| nomilk wrote:
| What's the advantage of a macOS app over a browser extension?
| (currently I use the latter)
| beala wrote:
| Scrolling through the comments reading about all the adblockers
| that folks recommend makes my head spin. Why exactly should I
| trust any of these to have full access to my browser? Looking
| through the app store I see so many that are clearly trying to
| impersonate the well known ones by using similar names. It sounds
| like uBlock Origin Lite is trusted by many, but watch out for
| Ublock and 1Block, which are also top App Store results. Going
| off memory, the the chrome store is even worse. The whole
| situation is extremely sketchy. This is not even to mention
| supply chain attacks which could hijack even honest projects.
|
| Personally I've settled on blocking at the DNS level with unbound
| and a blocklist. It's not perfect but it limits the blast radius.
| gruez wrote:
| >Why exactly should I trust any of these to have full access to
| my browser?
|
| Content blockers on iOS don't have "full access". Most
| adblocking apps provide both a content blocker and an
| extension, the latter of which is used to work around stuff
| that content blockers can't block, or bugs that result as of
| blocking scripts from loading, but they're not needed. You can
| get 95% of the functionality by just using content blockers.
| beala wrote:
| I guess my head is still spinning.
|
| I took a second look at ad blockers on the app store, and
| many report that they collect various bits of data. Are you
| saying that there's a special content blocker component to
| all of these that can't collect data because they're isolated
| by iOS? I'm not sure how anyone who isn't a iOS developer is
| supposed to navigate this. To uBlock's credit, their App
| Store page reports that they collect no data, but is this
| enforced by iOS? Or just a checkbox that the developer
| clicked?
| gruez wrote:
| >I took a second look at ad blockers on the app store, and
| many report that they collect various bits of data.
|
| Because the "app privacy" disclosures that apple only
| contains broad categories about what data the app can
| possibly collect. If the app collects analytics in the UI
| itself (ie. the part where you select filters or whatever),
| it has to say the app collects analytics. It's not possible
| to say "we only collect analytics on your usage of the app,
| not what your browsing history is".
|
| >Are you saying that there's a special content blocker
| component to all of these that can't collect data because
| they're isolated by iOS?
|
| Yes.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > but watch out for Ublock and 1Block, which are also top App
| Store results.
|
| Honestly this is more of an App Store issue than an Adblock
| one. For all of Apple's purported talents in curation, they
| really cannot seem to filter out the odd trojan horses:
| https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-imper...
| batrat wrote:
| Meanwhile firefox with full adblock and adguard dns/pihole if you
| like to selfhost, never seen an ad on my samsung phone.
| Dwedit wrote:
| EasyPrivacy has too many false positives, and no way to report
| them. If you are a techie who understands what the messages mean,
| and can click the button to proceed to a site on a false
| positive, then it's fine to have it turned on. But if you are
| setting up ad blocking for a non-technical user, I would
| recommend turning EasyPrivacy off.
| runjake wrote:
| I wanted uBlock Origin Lite to win, but based on my personal
| experience with uBlock Origin Lite, 1Blocker, and Wipr, I find
| that 1Blocker blocks far more on the sites I visit. uBlock Origin
| Lite and Wipr are roughly equal in second place. YMMV.
|
| It helps to run everything by Cover Your Tracks[1], too.
|
| 1. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
| prrar wrote:
| Wipr 2 is my adblocker for all iDevices. It works flawlessly.
| EDIT: other extensions are Hush and Sponsorblock.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-29 23:01 UTC)