Adblock Plus for Safari released(adblockplus.org)
adblockplus.org
Adblock Plus for Safari released
https://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-for-safari-out-of-beta
8 comments
Is this really more shady, than making millions of USD with donations, you get from your users by pretending to need the money to support your family?
Michael Gundlach made enough money with AdBlock that he hired people to run AdBlock and don't work himself anymore. But he is way less transparent about it, than the guys from Adblock Plus. AdBlock has even closed their public source repository and issue tracker, to disguise who they are and what they are doing. I have never seen that any FOSS project ever did that before.
For example have a look at ~/.config/google-chrome/Default/Extensions/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom/*/stats.js. There you find rather interesting code, that silently sends data about your configuration, environment along with a unique user id to their server.
For me AdBlock looks way more shady. While Adblock Plus just has found a business model, which might be controversial. But at least they are transparent about what they are doing.
Michael Gundlach made enough money with AdBlock that he hired people to run AdBlock and don't work himself anymore. But he is way less transparent about it, than the guys from Adblock Plus. AdBlock has even closed their public source repository and issue tracker, to disguise who they are and what they are doing. I have never seen that any FOSS project ever did that before.
For example have a look at ~/.config/google-chrome/Default/Extensions/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom/*/stats.js. There you find rather interesting code, that silently sends data about your configuration, environment along with a unique user id to their server.
For me AdBlock looks way more shady. While Adblock Plus just has found a business model, which might be controversial. But at least they are transparent about what they are doing.
I really did try to find information on getadblock.com about this `userid` sent to `ping.getadblock.com` (along with browser/OS info) but I couldn't find anything.
I would expect some kind of disclosure to inform users of why this (once a day from what I gather) ping is required.
Maybe it is there and I am unable to find it though.
I also noticed a behind-the-scene connection to `https://goldenticket.disconnect.me/goldenticket/ticket/fetch...
I would expect some kind of disclosure to inform users of why this (once a day from what I gather) ping is required.
Maybe it is there and I am unable to find it though.
I also noticed a behind-the-scene connection to `https://goldenticket.disconnect.me/goldenticket/ticket/fetch...
It's a randomly generated String, see /stats.js in their release tarball, er, zip.
I saw this. I want to understand why. I am looking for a disclosure of this, and the purpose.
I was also pretty surprised when I saw that code. It is obviously there, that they know how many users they have, which browser and which settings they use.
It is absolutely unacceptable to that without asking the user. It is also illegal in some countries. Adblock Plus doesn't do that, and even provides an optional filter list to block tracking on websites.
It is absolutely unacceptable to that without asking the user. It is also illegal in some countries. Adblock Plus doesn't do that, and even provides an optional filter list to block tracking on websites.
> making millions of USD with donations
[Citation needed]
>he hired people to run AdBlock and don't work himself anymore. But he is way less transparent about it, than the guys from Adblock Plus.
What? Just as the ABP project does outline their whitelisting process, Gundlach openly states the fact that other people get paid.
>AdBlock has even closed their public source repository and issue tracker...
With the power of your search engines combined: http://code.getadblock.com/releases/
>...to disguise who they are and what they are doing.
That's what you might feel and assume. Don't make this into a fact.
I already lost too much time with this reply.
[Citation needed]
>he hired people to run AdBlock and don't work himself anymore. But he is way less transparent about it, than the guys from Adblock Plus.
What? Just as the ABP project does outline their whitelisting process, Gundlach openly states the fact that other people get paid.
>AdBlock has even closed their public source repository and issue tracker...
With the power of your search engines combined: http://code.getadblock.com/releases/
>...to disguise who they are and what they are doing.
That's what you might feel and assume. Don't make this into a fact.
I already lost too much time with this reply.
>>AdBlock has even closed their public source repository and issue tracker...
>With the power of your search engines combined:
>http://code.getadblock.com/releases/
Of course they have releases and since JavaScript isn't compiled they include the source code. But what I said was that they have closed their public source repository (SVN) and issue tracker.
>>...to disguise who they are and what they are doing.
>That's what you might feel and assume. Don't make this into a fact.
So pointing out that AdBlock is tracking you doesn't count as a fact? I think that is something you really don't want to involve your community in.
>With the power of your search engines combined:
>http://code.getadblock.com/releases/
Of course they have releases and since JavaScript isn't compiled they include the source code. But what I said was that they have closed their public source repository (SVN) and issue tracker.
>>...to disguise who they are and what they are doing.
>That's what you might feel and assume. Don't make this into a fact.
So pointing out that AdBlock is tracking you doesn't count as a fact? I think that is something you really don't want to involve your community in.
>>>...to disguise who they are and what they are doing.
>>That's what you might feel and assume. Don't make this into a fact.
>So pointing out that AdBlock is tracking you doesn't count as a fact? I think that is something you really don't want to involve your community in.
I was referring to your statement of their alleged intentions.
I was referring to your statement of their alleged intentions.
"Adblock without the plus" isn't the original Adblock (from which Adblock Plus was forked), it's an extension created for Google Chrome once Google Chrome enabled support for extensions. Very disingenuous name.
It piggy-backed on the work already done for Adblock Plus (for Firefox). Adblock Plus for Google Chrome came much later.
It piggy-backed on the work already done for Adblock Plus (for Firefox). Adblock Plus for Google Chrome came much later.
Adblock Edge is a fork of Adblock Plus version 2.1.2, without the sponsored ads whitelist.
Couldn't you just uncheck the sponsored ads whitelist?
AFAIK, the checks magically disappears each time the plugin updates. Given that their primary revenue channel must be Google, which pays them to whitelist their domains [0], such behaviour is to be expected.
It's why I switched permanently to Adblock Edge.
[0] http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/5/4496852/adblock-plus-eye-go...
EDIT: Downvoting doesn't change facts, although at times we wish it did.
(a) Acceptable ads always enabled after update - https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17198
(b) Bug in Adblock Plus for Chrome and Opera caused acceptable ads setting to be reverted - https://adblockplus.org/blog/bug-in-adblock-plus-for-chrome-...
P.S. I've faced this issue numerous times on Firefox, so it wasn't just an issue on Chrome and Opera.
It's why I switched permanently to Adblock Edge.
[0] http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/5/4496852/adblock-plus-eye-go...
EDIT: Downvoting doesn't change facts, although at times we wish it did.
(a) Acceptable ads always enabled after update - https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17198
(b) Bug in Adblock Plus for Chrome and Opera caused acceptable ads setting to be reverted - https://adblockplus.org/blog/bug-in-adblock-plus-for-chrome-...
P.S. I've faced this issue numerous times on Firefox, so it wasn't just an issue on Chrome and Opera.
This is not a fact. This is a conspiracy theory.
Indeed there was a bug on Chrome and Opera that re-enabled Acceptable Ads during an update. And of course it is tempting to believe that this was intended, given the controversy around Acceptable Ads. But believe it or not, every release of every software has bugs. And consider the complexity of the code initializing Adblock Plus, migrating old settings, setting up default filter lists and dealing with different storage APIs for almost every browser. Also a single setting being reset during update, is not a case you easily notice during testing. So it is no surprise that a bug like that made it into the release at some point.
Beside that there are several cases where browser profiles can be corrupted. That includes browser crashes, bugs in the browser itself, unreliable storage devices and a few other cases. You will realize that users of every extension that can be configured, occasionally report that their settings had been reset. Of course that don't bothers you if you use the default settings anyway. But also there is not much extension developers can do against that.
Indeed there was a bug on Chrome and Opera that re-enabled Acceptable Ads during an update. And of course it is tempting to believe that this was intended, given the controversy around Acceptable Ads. But believe it or not, every release of every software has bugs. And consider the complexity of the code initializing Adblock Plus, migrating old settings, setting up default filter lists and dealing with different storage APIs for almost every browser. Also a single setting being reset during update, is not a case you easily notice during testing. So it is no surprise that a bug like that made it into the release at some point.
Beside that there are several cases where browser profiles can be corrupted. That includes browser crashes, bugs in the browser itself, unreliable storage devices and a few other cases. You will realize that users of every extension that can be configured, occasionally report that their settings had been reset. Of course that don't bothers you if you use the default settings anyway. But also there is not much extension developers can do against that.
The real point is that ABP originally pushed an update that enabled Google Ads by default.
That's not an ad blocker. The trust is gone.
In the future they can just push more updates with new "features" enabled by default that allows more kinds of ads from their whitelist.
That's not an ad blocker. The trust is gone.
In the future they can just push more updates with new "features" enabled by default that allows more kinds of ads from their whitelist.
There is no way I or you - as users - can either prove or disprove whether automatic unchecking of "allow acceptable ads" was a big or feature.
There's enough conversations on the web (and HN) on whether ABP "sold out" by white listing Google domains in return for cash. So when as a user you see a "bug" suspiciously and continously disregarding your choice of not wanting to see Google ads, the benefit of doubt ceases to rest with ABP. Especially when there are less compromised alternatives like Adblock Edge.
There's enough conversations on the web (and HN) on whether ABP "sold out" by white listing Google domains in return for cash. So when as a user you see a "bug" suspiciously and continously disregarding your choice of not wanting to see Google ads, the benefit of doubt ceases to rest with ABP. Especially when there are less compromised alternatives like Adblock Edge.
I've never had the whitelist checkbox revert its setting.
Yes, you can in the options.
Adblock Edge just disabled Acceptable Ads by default and removed that option from the UI. Also considering that Adblock Edge is less maintained, it's not worth using it instead of Adblock Plus, if you ask me. You can just disable that option in Adblock Plus.
Adblock Edge just disabled Acceptable Ads by default and removed that option from the UI. Also considering that Adblock Edge is less maintained, it's not worth using it instead of Adblock Plus, if you ask me. You can just disable that option in Adblock Plus.
But Adblock Edge isn't available for Safari/Chrome though IIRC?
Extensions in Chrome and Safari are not as powerful as the ones in Firefox. There's no API in Chrome and Safari to prevent network requests, so extensions can't fully block ads like they do in Firefox. They're only capable of hiding ads on the page.
> They're only capable of hiding ads on the page.
This point is untrue, at least in Safari, there is beforeload event and canLoad[1] function for preventing content from being loaded at all, not just hiding it after it is loaded.
https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/documentation/Too...
This point is untrue, at least in Safari, there is beforeload event and canLoad[1] function for preventing content from being loaded at all, not just hiding it after it is loaded.
https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/documentation/Too...
Chrome has a webRequest API [1], that lets you block any request initiated by your browser. Adblock Plus is using that API, and blocks everything that it blocks on Firefox also on Chrome.
But even on Safari Adblock Plus blocks requests loading images, frames, scripts and other resources, by cancelling the beforeload event. Though it is not possible to block XMLHttpRequests and requests initiated by third-party plugins like Flash.
[1] https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/webRequest
But even on Safari Adblock Plus blocks requests loading images, frames, scripts and other resources, by cancelling the beforeload event. Though it is not possible to block XMLHttpRequests and requests initiated by third-party plugins like Flash.
[1] https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/webRequest
> There's no API in Chrome and Safari to prevent network requests
Wrong (for Chromium-based browsers). I am genuinely curious about how you came to believe this. Trying to understand how come that myth is still so spread.
Here, the API:
https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/webRequest
Edit: To make it clear my comment is about chromium-based browsers.
Wrong (for Chromium-based browsers). I am genuinely curious about how you came to believe this. Trying to understand how come that myth is still so spread.
Here, the API:
https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/webRequest
Edit: To make it clear my comment is about chromium-based browsers.
It used to be true (for years) that Chrome extensions couldn't block loading, so my guess is not everyone's realized that it's changed. Pre-2012, Chrome had no way to block a request, so you could write an ad-hiding extension, but not an extension that blocked web-bug/tracker loading. The webRequest API was added in 2012, so now extensions can do that.
Is fundamentally more shady than leeching off an ad-supported Web site in the first place?
>"leeching"
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I unblock ads when the site that chooses to display them takes full responsibility for any malware or privacy leakage those entail.
That does not happen, therefore the ads stay blocked.
There are a few sites that run their own ad networks without the privacy issues and because they're reputable. Reddit is one such site that I will not block.
My hourly rate for fixing a machine is a lot more than the few tenths of a penny that ad view is worth. I never click on ads out of principle anyways.
Further, you as the web dev don't get to decide how and what content renders on my screen. That is my decision. If your business model doesn't pay the bills, that is your problem.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I unblock ads when the site that chooses to display them takes full responsibility for any malware or privacy leakage those entail.
That does not happen, therefore the ads stay blocked.
There are a few sites that run their own ad networks without the privacy issues and because they're reputable. Reddit is one such site that I will not block.
My hourly rate for fixing a machine is a lot more than the few tenths of a penny that ad view is worth. I never click on ads out of principle anyways.
Further, you as the web dev don't get to decide how and what content renders on my screen. That is my decision. If your business model doesn't pay the bills, that is your problem.
People who use adblockers probably aren't people who would click ads anyway. Showing the ads to such people might allow the website owner to leech more money from advertisers, but it wont actually provide any value to anyone. One might even argue that if there were no adblockers, the views/clicks ratio of ads would go down enough to make advertisers less likely to spend so much money on them. Thus ad-supported services might not even make much more money after all.
I find it hard to believe that there is anyone that straight up clicks ads. I've absolutely never in my life seen an ad for something that I was actually interested in buying. For a multi-billion dollar business it is seriously one of the most useless things on the internet.
Oh well, adblock deals with it now anyway. In my opinion there is no such thing as a good ad. All ads go on the blacklist.
Oh well, adblock deals with it now anyway. In my opinion there is no such thing as a good ad. All ads go on the blacklist.
Impressions create brand awareness. Those Amazon tracking ads, showing you stuff you have looked at, might not make you click them but they serve as a reminder that you might want to reconsider buying that roomba. There is also a distinct difference between product and brand advertising. The latter is not conversion oriented. They aim to add their brand to the relevant set for your next purchase decision. So even if you don't click them, you are still being affected. There is even evidence that you don't have to read them, subconscious exposure suffices.
>Is fundamentally more shady than leeching off an ad-supported Web site in the first place?
It is, but IMO adblockers wouldn't have sprung up if Ads were kept at an reasonable level. I remember some sites blaring fullscreen flash ads, where the 'X'-Button did not close the ad and forwarded to wherever, but the '█' did close it. I'm not making this up. This is not even touching the security and privacy implications and incidents.
I really think the there were too much grievances with the whole internet ads.
Related: It somewhat similar to the problem with torrents, people nowadays want their dope instantly – not necessarily gratis. Imagine HBO making GoT available at the same time world-wide for a moderate price. They would be swimming in cash.
It is, but IMO adblockers wouldn't have sprung up if Ads were kept at an reasonable level. I remember some sites blaring fullscreen flash ads, where the 'X'-Button did not close the ad and forwarded to wherever, but the '█' did close it. I'm not making this up. This is not even touching the security and privacy implications and incidents.
I really think the there were too much grievances with the whole internet ads.
Related: It somewhat similar to the problem with torrents, people nowadays want their dope instantly – not necessarily gratis. Imagine HBO making GoT available at the same time world-wide for a moderate price. They would be swimming in cash.
If you want to block all ads for any browser on OS X, I have to recommend GlimmerBlocker, the ad blocking proxy.
http://glimmerblocker.org
In addition to blocking ads at the response level, GlimmerBlocker can be used block ads on mobile devices, do string replacement in requests or responses, keyword expansion, even entire page transformations w/ JavaScript.
It's not as idiot proof as ABP's "right-click and block", but nothing more complicated than anything else we see on HN. Also unlike ABP, there is no whitelist advertisers can buy into.
I set it up as a proxy for all known clients on my network, and it really makes the Internet better.
http://glimmerblocker.org
In addition to blocking ads at the response level, GlimmerBlocker can be used block ads on mobile devices, do string replacement in requests or responses, keyword expansion, even entire page transformations w/ JavaScript.
It's not as idiot proof as ABP's "right-click and block", but nothing more complicated than anything else we see on HN. Also unlike ABP, there is no whitelist advertisers can buy into.
I set it up as a proxy for all known clients on my network, and it really makes the Internet better.
Bit unrelated, but for IE, I'm using the TPLs, which are basically just Adblock filters in disguise. Surprised they'd actually put that in.
(http://i.imgur.com/pJ26iSr.png - screenshot of EasyList loaded)
(http://i.imgur.com/pJ26iSr.png - screenshot of EasyList loaded)
Thanks! I was looking for such an option for IE.
I normally use Ghostery and ClickToPlugin in Safari, which in combination seem to block everything annoying.
Not wedded to the combination though - is ABP a better option?
Not wedded to the combination though - is ABP a better option?
Adblock Plus not only prevent ads from loading, but also hide their elements. And also hides text ads that don't require a separate request. So you will see less ads and the space reserved for ads will be used for the actual content instead.
Adblock Plus also blocks tracking when you add the EasyPrivacy filter list [1]. So you won't need Ghostery anymore. But you can also use both extensions at the same time, if you want.
[1] https://easylist.adblockplus.org/#easyprivacy
Adblock Plus also blocks tracking when you add the EasyPrivacy filter list [1]. So you won't need Ghostery anymore. But you can also use both extensions at the same time, if you want.
[1] https://easylist.adblockplus.org/#easyprivacy
Is it possible to block all that crap using the hosts file? It would block on all browsers that way. Or would it be way too long?
I don't like the hosts file approach because I still might want to visit the sites sometimes. For example I block facebook.com on all other site because I don't want to see Facebook embeds, but I want to visit Facebook directly once in a while.
Not really, it's a fairly limited approach. You can only block entire hosts. Adblock Plus uses a combination of URL-based resource blocking and CSS-based element hiding.
I use the hosts file approach. It's a broadsword and it works very well but yes, it's long, one has to update it manually (or script an update) and it will break certain aspects of a website (such as video clips on ESPN.com, they'll fail to play because the ads won't load).
One of the primary reasons I use Firefox Mobile on Android is because of the Adblock Plus, as we all know that the Chrome team has no plan/incentive to support extension on Android in the foreseeable future :)
Oh yay now I can use an ad blocker that doesn't block ads on Safari too! woot woot
Even if the allegations were completely untrue (which I doubt, since offline articles read seemed quite well and thoroughly researched), the fact that companies could buy a place on the whitelist seems the absolutely wrong approach to solve the underlying problem to me.
Edit: Highlight platform issue.