Amazon follows Google and Apple and bans system-wide ad blockers on app store(adguard.com)
adguard.com
Amazon follows Google and Apple and bans system-wide ad blockers on app store
https://adguard.com/en/blog/goodbye-amazon/
304 comments
The linked app is a Safari-only adblocker which doesn't cover apps, so I feel the title is pretty accurate. There have been full system ad-blocking solutions developed for iOS and apple refuses to host them, it's a statement of fact.
`a` is permitted for other apps; `b` is, as far as I know, not a criteria anything else gets judged on; and `c` is the point of having a curated store, because any app "may allow [...] abuse".
`a` is permitted for other apps; `b` is, as far as I know, not a criteria anything else gets judged on; and `c` is the point of having a curated store, because any app "may allow [...] abuse".
It's not strictly "Safari only*. It works with any embedded web view that uses the SFSafariViewController.
For instance, ad blocking also works with Feedly - my RSS reader.
For instance, ad blocking also works with Feedly - my RSS reader.
That's a rather uncommon exception. Very few apps load ads in a web view. Mainly because, imo, the ad platforms want a lot more user data than they'd get that way. And fraud would be a bit harder to detect.
So instead we should install an untrustworthy intermediary that can record all of your internet data (the VPN), and do God knows what with it?
[deleted]
Isn't that all of them? It was my understanding that Apple forbids any non-Apple web view.
There are two modern web views in iOS. The SFSafariViewController is an out of process view. The hosting app doesn't have access to the DOM or what the user enters. The user has access to all of the same cookies, saved passwords, and ad blockers that they would have in Safari. The other (WKviewController?) is your standard embedded web view. It doesn't share cookies, passwords, etc and the embedded app has more access to the web view.
The latter is WKWebView
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview
As of iOS 11, cookies are no longer shared between SFSafariViewController and Safari or instances of SFSafariViewController in other apps.
Why stretch the facts to make it seem like Apple is allowing system-wide ad blockers? You seem to concede repeatedly it doesn't, yet argue that as long as Safari is covered, even when hosted in 3rd party apps, it's the same thing?
How am I "stretching the facts" by stating the technical limitations and benefits of Apple's approach (i.e. not introducing a third party that can potentially track all of your internet activity)?
This isn't theoretical. iOS apps were in fact storing and selling data that went across the ad blocking VPN solutions.
Ad blocking Chrome plugins have a sordid history. Why would I trust them on my phone when I can set up my own solution relatively easily?
The IOS solution for in browser plug ins is more secure and it protects your privacy.
This isn't theoretical. iOS apps were in fact storing and selling data that went across the ad blocking VPN solutions.
Ad blocking Chrome plugins have a sordid history. Why would I trust them on my phone when I can set up my own solution relatively easily?
The IOS solution for in browser plug ins is more secure and it protects your privacy.
Sure, you also get it in embedded safari views. You still can't block apps in ads, you can just block ads in content your apps show, usually incidentally - those ads in the feedly view are not _Feedly_'s ads.
I can honestly say that I have no apps with embedded ads. If it's an app I'm going to use, I pay for the no-ads in app purchase. If it's an app that doesn't allow me to pay for a no ads version or that's not worth paying for, I uninstall it.
There is one exception. Overcast, my podcast player. There is a no ads in app purchase, but the ads are usually for other podcasts in the same category that I'm listening to. The ads are actually useful.
https://marco.org/2016/09/09/overcast-ads
There is one exception. Overcast, my podcast player. There is a no ads in app purchase, but the ads are usually for other podcasts in the same category that I'm listening to. The ads are actually useful.
https://marco.org/2016/09/09/overcast-ads
Only VPN apps doing regular VPNs are allowed, obviously they have a performance impact, but that’s necessary for what they do. Anything using a VPN to implement other behaviour is not. Apps get judged on usability when it comes to system level concepts like VPNs all the time - keyboards are an example where there’s a lot more review for usability and “playing nicely”.
Not quite true. Charles Proxy uses a VPN in order to inspect network traffic, and that was approved. But I think in the general case what you said is correct and that Charles Proxy's approval is an exception.
True. I wonder if that’s because it’s explicitly a developer tool, and developers will understand what’s going on, and the risks/benefits of using a VPN.
I think the main reason they block apps using VPNs for other things is that it’s very easy for them to break internet on the whole phone with buggy software, and Apple don’t want lots of support time at the Genius Bar of turning off crappy ad blocking VPN apps.
I think the main reason they block apps using VPNs for other things is that it’s very easy for them to break internet on the whole phone with buggy software, and Apple don’t want lots of support time at the Genius Bar of turning off crappy ad blocking VPN apps.
It's probably partially that, and partially the fact that the VPN usage here is obviously beneficial. The information doesn't leave the device and it doesn't interfere with the normal workings of the apps (like ad blocking does). There's no reasonable complaint to levy against what Charles Proxy is doing. Versus ad blocking, which many people think is beneficial but which is clearly detrimental to app developers (especially when they end up blocking more than just ads, as sometimes happens).
Indeed, Apple is significantly worse in this regard. Both Amazon and Google devices allow you to install system-wide ad blockers from other sources.
Amazon does not allow you to install anything from other sources without hacking the device.
Sure they do. My Fire HD tablet has a simple option in Settings-->Security & Privacy-->Apps from Unknown Sources. I have a number of F-droid apps installed. I also have the Play Store hacked in, but F-droid only required downloading the app from the web. Standalone APKs can also be installed.
What makes you say that? It is clearly false.
Apple's move against device-level ad-blocking came coincidentally soon after the news regarding Facebook using a non-FB branded VPN to gather user data.
Walking the line between the pro-privacy aspects of VPN ad blocking and the the very anti-privacy possibilities that such functionality enables isn't easy. There's nothing to stop any VPN from scary levels of metadata collection, but Apple did close the door to one way of promoting or selling these services.
App devs hate hearing this, but I've always found it interesting that Apple doesn't try to take a cut of ad revenue that apps receive. And yet they insist on taking a cut of "tips" and pretty much any other revenue stream. I'm glad they don't because it would put them in an adversarial position with privacy.
I guess they tried with iAds, but even that was going to be optional I believe.
Walking the line between the pro-privacy aspects of VPN ad blocking and the the very anti-privacy possibilities that such functionality enables isn't easy. There's nothing to stop any VPN from scary levels of metadata collection, but Apple did close the door to one way of promoting or selling these services.
App devs hate hearing this, but I've always found it interesting that Apple doesn't try to take a cut of ad revenue that apps receive. And yet they insist on taking a cut of "tips" and pretty much any other revenue stream. I'm glad they don't because it would put them in an adversarial position with privacy.
I guess they tried with iAds, but even that was going to be optional I believe.
> There's nothing to stop any VPN from scary levels of metadata collection, but Apple did close the door to one way of promoting or selling these services.
What I do now -though on Android- is using WireGuard as VPN to my home router which runs basically a Pi-Hole (and WireGuard).
The benefits:
1) I get a system-wide adblocker on top of uBlock Origin.
2) My mobile provider cannot perform DPI (Though its owned by same company as my cable company. YMMV, plus it will work when you roam internationally. Heck, I can perform DPI on it via my router.)
3) When on a public WiFi (e.g. railway station) all my data is encrypted.
4) When I switch networks it automatically swaps connection.
5) Far less performance hit and battery usage than traditional VPNs such as OpenVPN. Home router also barely uses any Watt.
Brilliant software, I can highly recommend. My only beef with it is that a full blown SDN such as ZeroTier is a lot easier to set up.
What I do now -though on Android- is using WireGuard as VPN to my home router which runs basically a Pi-Hole (and WireGuard).
The benefits:
1) I get a system-wide adblocker on top of uBlock Origin.
2) My mobile provider cannot perform DPI (Though its owned by same company as my cable company. YMMV, plus it will work when you roam internationally. Heck, I can perform DPI on it via my router.)
3) When on a public WiFi (e.g. railway station) all my data is encrypted.
4) When I switch networks it automatically swaps connection.
5) Far less performance hit and battery usage than traditional VPNs such as OpenVPN. Home router also barely uses any Watt.
Brilliant software, I can highly recommend. My only beef with it is that a full blown SDN such as ZeroTier is a lot easier to set up.
Which router are you using that runs wireguard?
I recently acquired an Edgerouter-Lite (EdgeOS / Linux MIPS), with a RPi (Raspbian / Linux ARM) behind it also running WireGuard/ZeroTier/Tor (WG in case I need more horsepower on the ER-L). WG works on OpenWRT as well, though ZT doesn't work on EdgeOS (there's an obscure Linux MIPS *.deb somewhere but the c++ lib is too out of date on EdgeOS). [1] OPNSense is in the works [2], and also runs ZT. If you're not afraid to build your own I can recommend PC-Engines APU2 + OPNSense [3]. For me it'd cost too much time/effort to build/maintain, YMMV.
[1] https://www.wireguard.com/install/
[2] https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=8758.0
[3] http://www.pcengines.ch/apu2.htm
[1] https://www.wireguard.com/install/
[2] https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=8758.0
[3] http://www.pcengines.ch/apu2.htm
Thanks. I have a similar setup, with Edgerouter X and rpi running pi-hole. I hadn't realized what Edge route can run wireguard, thanks. I've been thinking about running VPN on the rpi since pihole barely uses any cpu but have been procrastinating, might have to take a relook.
This isn't true :/
Easiest way to address the claims, let me know if you need a more detailed breakdown: Note Facebook's VPN is still available - they're just not allowed to advertise it blocks ads, which they never did in the first place.
Easiest way to address the claims, let me know if you need a more detailed breakdown: Note Facebook's VPN is still available - they're just not allowed to advertise it blocks ads, which they never did in the first place.
There is no misinformation about it. Apple has made it clear to the system-wide blockers developers that this was happening because of ad blocking.
There are still a lot of apps using the VPN API for additional purposes. For instance, AdGuard Pro for iOS is still there, and it lets users use DNSCrypt or block domains manually. The difference is that it does not do system-wide ad blocking by default.
There are still a lot of apps using the VPN API for additional purposes. For instance, AdGuard Pro for iOS is still there, and it lets users use DNSCrypt or block domains manually. The difference is that it does not do system-wide ad blocking by default.
I don’t think they’ve made that clear at all. To me it seems they’ve made it clear they don’t want misuse of VPNs. The fact they provide APIs to do ad blocking across all web content says that they are very much ok with it.
I note from reading AdGuard’s App Store description that it seems to do as blocking with the content blocking APIs, and uses the VPN only for DNS changes.
I note from reading AdGuard’s App Store description that it seems to do as blocking with the content blocking APIs, and uses the VPN only for DNS changes.
Blocking ads system-wide with DNS filtering (intercept dns requests, block ad and tracking domains) is exactly what AG was doing before the policy shift; and it is still able to do it, but now the default blacklist is empty because of Apple.
Right. So now it is NOT a VPN ad blocker. It’s an ad blocker using the system frameworks, plus a VPN app that allows finely grained network customisation, one use case of which is ad blocking, but not one that the app itself encourages. That fits my hypothesis.
I am moving towards the much more radical solution of blocking advertising supported sites entirely.
I am not against advertising in general. It doesn't bug me that there are ads for car dealerships on TV, but the flood of personal injury lawyer ads damages the perceived legitimacy of the government and social system. (As well as the many other ads that are not aimed at getting people to spend their own money but instead to get benefits such as the "Medicare Advantage" scam.)
Web advertising and other distractions (pop ins, "will you let this site make notifications?", Taboolah, Outbrain, "This web site uses cookies...", 20 email messages a day about IBM Cloud outages that didn't affect me, "GDPR is here and our policy has changed...") are immediately harmful in terms of cognitive load (lowers effective IQ,) stress, mistakes, missed appointments, opportunities, bills not paid on time because you had to delete 200 spam messages and accidentally deleted something important. That and the phone that never stops ringing with somebody who wants to lower my interest rates...
I think long term you are training your brain to not accept the cues that "something is important". After 20 or 30 years of that who knows what that will do you? (Whenever I show my wife something from a porno site she can't see the content in the midst of all the lurid and animated advertising.)
It is like Milo Yiannopoulos; it looks like communication but it is better to think about it as noise, static, or nerve gas.
I am not against advertising in general. It doesn't bug me that there are ads for car dealerships on TV, but the flood of personal injury lawyer ads damages the perceived legitimacy of the government and social system. (As well as the many other ads that are not aimed at getting people to spend their own money but instead to get benefits such as the "Medicare Advantage" scam.)
Web advertising and other distractions (pop ins, "will you let this site make notifications?", Taboolah, Outbrain, "This web site uses cookies...", 20 email messages a day about IBM Cloud outages that didn't affect me, "GDPR is here and our policy has changed...") are immediately harmful in terms of cognitive load (lowers effective IQ,) stress, mistakes, missed appointments, opportunities, bills not paid on time because you had to delete 200 spam messages and accidentally deleted something important. That and the phone that never stops ringing with somebody who wants to lower my interest rates...
I think long term you are training your brain to not accept the cues that "something is important". After 20 or 30 years of that who knows what that will do you? (Whenever I show my wife something from a porno site she can't see the content in the midst of all the lurid and animated advertising.)
It is like Milo Yiannopoulos; it looks like communication but it is better to think about it as noise, static, or nerve gas.
I blacklist any site that is anti-adblocker. You should grab an old computer and install pi-hole on it and you will be able to blacklist sites and just stop the ads from getting into your home.
https://pi-hole.net/
This is a great solution for hacker news types (I run pihole at my home - love it!) but it's not a feasible solution for most people.
We need a hard brake on adtech and a restructuring of business models, not a band-aid that only 5% of the population bothers to apply.
We need a hard brake on adtech and a restructuring of business models, not a band-aid that only 5% of the population bothers to apply.
You mean like the GDPR?
The GDPR is a huge step forward and it would be wonderful to see something similar happen in the States.
GDPR is a disaster. Already I am getting overwhelmed by requests from people who don't want people to know that they are running a business at such and such an address and I can only assume they are running a criminal business.
There are two ways that "privacy" can be violated: (1) somebody exploits your data, or (2) somebody violates your space. Something like GDPR addresses (1) and might put an end to those shoes from Zappos that keep following you around, but it does not stop the disincentives that destroyed the world wide web.
There are two ways that "privacy" can be violated: (1) somebody exploits your data, or (2) somebody violates your space. Something like GDPR addresses (1) and might put an end to those shoes from Zappos that keep following you around, but it does not stop the disincentives that destroyed the world wide web.
> Already I am getting overwhelmed by requests from people who don't want people to know that they are running a business at such and such an address
Huh? What does this mean? I've been getting the usual "Please consent to let us continue spamming you" emails, but I have no idea what your sentence above means. Can you elaborate as it's not clear what you're talking about.
Huh? What does this mean? I've been getting the usual "Please consent to let us continue spamming you" emails, but I have no idea what your sentence above means. Can you elaborate as it's not clear what you're talking about.
(sorry for out of sequence reply but I could not reply directly to the message in question)
I run a business directory site, or at least used to until this morning. If I was like many people I would blame GDPR, but really I figured I rather spend the money I was spending on AWS on something else.
I run a business directory site, or at least used to until this morning. If I was like many people I would blame GDPR, but really I figured I rather spend the money I was spending on AWS on something else.
I'm still not getting this... did people get in touch and say "I don't want people to know I'm running a business at this address"? Or did they say "Please remove me from your business directory which you added me to without asking"?... and how does your mind jump to "must be criminals" - are there intermediate steps in your logic or is it just: doesn't want me to have their business address on my database = criminals?
My directory was generated from public information (the Legal Entity Identifier)
The EU has been making moves towards financial transparency largely driven by the UK getting on the open data bandwagon. (Ten years ago they were much worse than the US in terms of seeing government data as a revenue source, now they are far ahead of other countries.)
This is endangered by Brexit and GDPR.
One part of the global governance crisis is that legislators have been captured by a "one dollar one vote" situation and in turn cannot maintain tax rates that produce sufficient government revenues. Thus the bureaucratic sectors have focused on keeping the lights on by trying to get people to pay what they owe. Given massive tax evasion by the rich that has to be a priority so general transparency around cross-border financial transactions has to increase.
Perhaps some people who want to be "forgotten" are not criminals, but when you look for specific cases of people who are making these requests they are frequently white collar criminals who are hoping they can sweet talk somebody again into another chance to lie, cheat and steal to pay for gambling or cocaine or whatever.
The EU has been making moves towards financial transparency largely driven by the UK getting on the open data bandwagon. (Ten years ago they were much worse than the US in terms of seeing government data as a revenue source, now they are far ahead of other countries.)
This is endangered by Brexit and GDPR.
One part of the global governance crisis is that legislators have been captured by a "one dollar one vote" situation and in turn cannot maintain tax rates that produce sufficient government revenues. Thus the bureaucratic sectors have focused on keeping the lights on by trying to get people to pay what they owe. Given massive tax evasion by the rich that has to be a priority so general transparency around cross-border financial transactions has to increase.
Perhaps some people who want to be "forgotten" are not criminals, but when you look for specific cases of people who are making these requests they are frequently white collar criminals who are hoping they can sweet talk somebody again into another chance to lie, cheat and steal to pay for gambling or cocaine or whatever.
Perhaps some people who want to be "forgotten" are not criminals, but when you look for specific cases of people who are making these requests they are frequently white collar criminals who are hoping they can sweet talk somebody again into another chance to lie, cheat and steal to pay for gambling or cocaine or whatever.
This seems like a slightly modified version of the old, “if you have nothing to hide...” saw and I don’t like it.
This seems like a slightly modified version of the old, “if you have nothing to hide...” saw and I don’t like it.
I will put it this way.
I have an aunt who has a nursing degree, burned down a barn with horses in it and attempted to kill two people (her mother and her sister) by injecting them with insulin. At some point in between all of that she drove a school bus and for some reason decided to slash herself up with razor and claim that she was assaulted.
We heard that she'd gotten a job as a nurse and we we wonder how that happened. My father-in-law was in the hospital (not where she worked) and she changed his IV bag when it ran out and started beeping.
A week later we read in the paper that she was raiding the medicine cabinet at the nursing home she worked at and found out she was also stealing ADHD medication from her grandson.
Turned out she failed to tick the box that asked if she'd ever committed a felony and the employer was too busy to run a background check on her SSN.
Dangerous people are out there.
That kind of behavior is a direct threat to life but I think tax evasion, corruption, rent-seeking, a lack of responsiveness to problems such as global warming, homelessness, and affordable housing and similar behaviors threaten our civilization and one thing we know is that when a civilization goes down the people left behind turn their back on everything that civilization stand for. (Ex. look what happened when the Christians took over Rome)
The main thing our civilization stands for is individualism and if you like the idea of being able to decide anything at all for yourself (or people 50-100 years) you should have been helping turn the ship around 20 years ago and it might be too late now. (Eg. Listening to people like Frederick Hayek is the real "road to serfdom")
An Iranian physicist living in the UK threatened to sue me under the UK libel laws because he thought I brought attention to him that might lead Iranian grad students to come around looking for job. Well, I was chewed up and spit out by that system and I was not going to be intimidated by that -- if you are sitting pretty on a tenured job on the back of young people in an unfair situation you deserve to hear the voices and see the faces of people who are harmed by your privilege. It is not such a big thing.
Somehow your domestic intelligence service, foreign intelligence services, organized criminals, rip-off artists and other people are going to steal your information and the more that information is pushed underground the more impunity that they are going to operate under.
(To paraphrase Heinlein: a transparent society is a going concern)
I have an aunt who has a nursing degree, burned down a barn with horses in it and attempted to kill two people (her mother and her sister) by injecting them with insulin. At some point in between all of that she drove a school bus and for some reason decided to slash herself up with razor and claim that she was assaulted.
We heard that she'd gotten a job as a nurse and we we wonder how that happened. My father-in-law was in the hospital (not where she worked) and she changed his IV bag when it ran out and started beeping.
A week later we read in the paper that she was raiding the medicine cabinet at the nursing home she worked at and found out she was also stealing ADHD medication from her grandson.
Turned out she failed to tick the box that asked if she'd ever committed a felony and the employer was too busy to run a background check on her SSN.
Dangerous people are out there.
That kind of behavior is a direct threat to life but I think tax evasion, corruption, rent-seeking, a lack of responsiveness to problems such as global warming, homelessness, and affordable housing and similar behaviors threaten our civilization and one thing we know is that when a civilization goes down the people left behind turn their back on everything that civilization stand for. (Ex. look what happened when the Christians took over Rome)
The main thing our civilization stands for is individualism and if you like the idea of being able to decide anything at all for yourself (or people 50-100 years) you should have been helping turn the ship around 20 years ago and it might be too late now. (Eg. Listening to people like Frederick Hayek is the real "road to serfdom")
An Iranian physicist living in the UK threatened to sue me under the UK libel laws because he thought I brought attention to him that might lead Iranian grad students to come around looking for job. Well, I was chewed up and spit out by that system and I was not going to be intimidated by that -- if you are sitting pretty on a tenured job on the back of young people in an unfair situation you deserve to hear the voices and see the faces of people who are harmed by your privilege. It is not such a big thing.
Somehow your domestic intelligence service, foreign intelligence services, organized criminals, rip-off artists and other people are going to steal your information and the more that information is pushed underground the more impunity that they are going to operate under.
(To paraphrase Heinlein: a transparent society is a going concern)
This is one of the principal reasons the EFF opposes the Right to be Forgotten. It's more often used for censorship or crimes than anything else.
Dangerous people are out there.
Yes, and psychopaths like your aunt exist, but if we design society around authoritarian ideals designed to totally eliminate their ability to do harm society breaks every time. A balance has to be struck that acknowledges the presence of a significant minority of criminals, while protecting the rights of the majority. A thousand anecdotes will not change that.
Yes, and psychopaths like your aunt exist, but if we design society around authoritarian ideals designed to totally eliminate their ability to do harm society breaks every time. A balance has to be struck that acknowledges the presence of a significant minority of criminals, while protecting the rights of the majority. A thousand anecdotes will not change that.
Just as a meta note, if you click the timestamp of the post, you'll be taken to a page with a comment box. HN has some rate-limiting where it hides the comment box for some period of time, but you can get around it by clicking the timestamp next to their name.
I'm not following you here.
(Loved your initial comment on this thread though.)
(Loved your initial comment on this thread though.)
GDPR doesn't do anything about all of the advertisement issues the OP highlighted.
It does a lot to curtail the invasive tracking that is one of the worst parts of some of these ads.
> This is a great solution for hacker news types
How is it a great solution when hacker news has ads that most ad blockers can't block?
How is it a great solution when hacker news has ads that most ad blockers can't block?
HN has ads?
Hiring notices, by Ycombinator projects.
news.yc has job ads for YC portfolio companies
it probably does have a certain degree of astro-turfing
Job ads being one. Also, HN has behind the scene deals to peddle certain news organizations ( nytimes, wapo, wsj ) and certain ngos with certain agendas.
What do you think HN is? What do you think dang, sctb and the mods do?
What do you think HN is? What do you think dang, sctb and the mods do?
HN has no such deals. Please don't make things up.
Got a source on that you'd be willing to share?
Also if you run OpenWRT/Lede there is a package called 'adblock' that does roughly the same thing as pihole, without the extra hardware requirements.
The company in the source article also has a DNS service (adguard dns: 176.103.130.130 & 176.103.130.131) that blocks ad domains.
It works pretty well, but requires trusting them to follow their privacy policy (which is good) as with any DNS provider.
I've found it useful and lower maintenance than other approaches, but you trade power and flexibility. And is presumably less performant than preventing the lookups in the first place.
It works pretty well, but requires trusting them to follow their privacy policy (which is good) as with any DNS provider.
I've found it useful and lower maintenance than other approaches, but you trade power and flexibility. And is presumably less performant than preventing the lookups in the first place.
That's what I'm also thinking of.
I'm in very early phase of the development of a search engine. I will _not_ index ad serving pages maybe sometimes even whole hosts. Adblock rulesets like easylist will help with this.
I know about Million Short, but it's not that comprehensive and AFAIR uses Google's index.
Also I'm expecting it will result with a significantly smaller index, so maybe I will be able to finance it from my pocket. Small index will enable offline use - download via torrent the whole index and use it offline. With some incremental updates afterwards. However it would still be in the magnitude of tens of gigabytes, on the condition it would really be small enough.
The next level for me would be a HTML-only web browser that would offer permanent reader-mode like behavior. But I have too many projects already.
I'm in very early phase of the development of a search engine. I will _not_ index ad serving pages maybe sometimes even whole hosts. Adblock rulesets like easylist will help with this.
I know about Million Short, but it's not that comprehensive and AFAIR uses Google's index.
Also I'm expecting it will result with a significantly smaller index, so maybe I will be able to finance it from my pocket. Small index will enable offline use - download via torrent the whole index and use it offline. With some incremental updates afterwards. However it would still be in the magnitude of tens of gigabytes, on the condition it would really be small enough.
The next level for me would be a HTML-only web browser that would offer permanent reader-mode like behavior. But I have too many projects already.
Hey, I am in exactly same shoes. I am also in early phase of development of a search engine with only free, non-auth walled content, apart from blocking ad serving platforms. I would like to discuss and see if we can work together. Care to talk? Email in profile.
Allow me to join you both. I've never done this but I always wanted to. Email in profile as well.
What tech do you guys plan to use exactly, for a start?
What tech do you guys plan to use exactly, for a start?
Just because you don't like Milo doesn't mean he doesn't raise legitimate points. It's better to think of him as a standup comedian. He's really no different than any other politically-charged standup act.
I've actually found some of his critiques insightful. I mean, yea he's loud and says a lot of crazy shit, but overall he is challenging people, getting them to think about unpopular opinions.
Just because you like him doesn't mean he does raise legitimate points.
He's an awful person and I'm glad he destroyed his own celebrity.
He's an awful person and I'm glad he destroyed his own celebrity.
malmsteen(8)
> It is like Milo Yiannopoulos; it looks like communication but it is better to think about it as noise, static, or nerve gas.
You surely don't have an agenda. /s
So much HN comments are also just noise, static or nerve gas as well. And I highly doubt you have a wife.
You surely don't have an agenda. /s
So much HN comments are also just noise, static or nerve gas as well. And I highly doubt you have a wife.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like that again.
What personal attacks? I responded directly to the guy's comment. It was an attack on what he said, not who he is.
"I highly doubt you have a wife" is a nasty swipe in more ways than one.
So, my next smartphone will be iPhone, even if I prefer open source. AdBlockers are just too important. Not only they protect your privacy, but they also stop some malware programs that use ads for spreading. And don't Google & Amazon already make 30% from app sales?
Hurry not, Apple did the very same thing last year: https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/15/apple-reportedly-shifts-app-s...
We've changed the title above to the relevant phrase from the article, which mentions both Google and Apple.
(Submitted title was 'Amazon follows Google and bans system-wide ad blockers on their AppStore'.)
(Submitted title was 'Amazon follows Google and bans system-wide ad blockers on their AppStore'.)
That’s not about adblocking but about using vpns for a purpose that is not a virtual private network. The general adblock system works in Safari as well as other apps that use web views though.
If we're talking about non-VPN solutions, then Android continues to allow several ad-blocking solutions such as browsers with it built in, or browsers like Firefox which run extension systems which support popular blockers like Ublock Origin.
Does iOS support custom browsers like Firefox running their own engine and extension systems? They never did when I was a user.
Does iOS support custom browsers like Firefox running their own engine and extension systems? They never did when I was a user.
> as well as other apps that use web views though
Actually, they only work in the specific case of SFSafariViewController. This isn't available for any old webview to implement.
Actually, they only work in the specific case of SFSafariViewController. This isn't available for any old webview to implement.
I was under the impression that Firefox Focus blocked ads in some other apps as well but that doesn’t appear to be the case indeed, at least not in Chrome.
Firefox Focus ships with a content blocker extension, I think, so it can block ads in Safari and third-party apps using SFSafariViewController. Chrome uses a webview, so the content blocker won't work there.
It's exactly the subject of this article. They even say so.
Firefox for Android supports uBlock Origin, which is the most efficient ad blocker for the web.
Safari's ad blocking is piss poor compared to it, because it is technologically limited.
Safari's ad blocking is piss poor compared to it, because it is technologically limited.
Applefans forgetting that Apple does as much BS are the best!
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, such as sports-team-style BigCorp flamewars.
Don't run off so quickly.
You can install either:
DNS666: https://f-droid.org/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/
or
Blokada: https://f-droid.org/packages/org.blokada.alarm/
from the F-Droid store: https://f-droid.org/en/
And achieve system wide ad blocking, without worrying about Google's selfish policies.
You can install either:
DNS666: https://f-droid.org/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/
or
Blokada: https://f-droid.org/packages/org.blokada.alarm/
from the F-Droid store: https://f-droid.org/en/
And achieve system wide ad blocking, without worrying about Google's selfish policies.
I personally use AdAway https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.adaway/
It is a simpler design and works great. It works by adding mapping to your hosts file.
It is a simpler design and works great. It works by adding mapping to your hosts file.
That's root-only though, which the vast, vast majority of people don't do.
So why do you continue to use apps that are supported by ads, rather that patronize FLOSS apps, or apps that charge an up front price?
The answer is obvious: they want to freeload.
Everyone basically wants to exert just enough elbow grease to get something for free rather than contribute to the world they say they believe in.
"If you need ads to make money then your business should fail" is a common thing you'll hear among people who continue using sites/apps that depend on ads instead of investing in ones that don't.
If HNers can't even be bothered, then how is anyone else? We're going to be stuck in this status quo for a long time and the only survivors will be the large businesses that can afford it until the main websites people use are about as varied as our ISPs, maybe even the same.
Everyone basically wants to exert just enough elbow grease to get something for free rather than contribute to the world they say they believe in.
"If you need ads to make money then your business should fail" is a common thing you'll hear among people who continue using sites/apps that depend on ads instead of investing in ones that don't.
If HNers can't even be bothered, then how is anyone else? We're going to be stuck in this status quo for a long time and the only survivors will be the large businesses that can afford it until the main websites people use are about as varied as our ISPs, maybe even the same.
Which of these do you prefer? I used fdroid but haven't installed a system ad blocker. I just use firefox focus which does a good job of preventing trackers and most ads but it's not perfect.
I'm actually running Blokada, but both perform the same function.
Blokada does track how many ads it blocks and gives you a count (and notifications if you wish to be so notified [configurable]).
Both are free (as in the GNU 'freedom' definition as well as the 'beer' definition) so you could try both and see which you prefer.
Blokada does track how many ads it blocks and gives you a count (and notifications if you wish to be so notified [configurable]).
Both are free (as in the GNU 'freedom' definition as well as the 'beer' definition) so you could try both and see which you prefer.
I've used DNS66, but I think I will give Blokada a shot. I really wish either one would offer the option of using DNSCrypt!
I have run AdAway for years. It works great and has great features such as auto-update of sites. It also lets you whitelist or blacklist additional domains locally.
On Samsung phones you can get "Disconnect" or "SABS" or "Adhell" to remove ads systemwide (based on Samsung's Knox security thing)
I'm not sure I'd trust Samsung to act in your best interest.
Plus Samsung doesn't support is products. Last year I got a critical security update labeled july.. In December. And they have a bunch of garbage custom apps. Great hardware, poor service
and you can't even install a custom ROM to fix the software issues or it will cap your battery charge at 80%, among other annoyances
I wouldn't. They forced ads into my tv after I purchased it.
Thank you for referring me to these. I went with Blokada and had no idea these existed, very happy!
Check out https://blokada.org/index.html . Creates a VPN tunnel for your traffic and routes through a host file. Even let's you set name servers. Can't do that on iPhone necessarily. Root not required!
To add to this, because it's not immediately clear from your comment, the VPN tunnel runs locally on your phone.
I'd never heard of blockada, just installed it and it seems to work great! Thanks!
Thank you for referring me to this!
The problem is that on an iPhone you are locked into those
applications in the Apple App store (unless you jailbreak).
On an Android device, you can install 3rd party applications
directly. AdGuard, for example, has a stand alone method
for direct downloads.
Not entirely, you can sign applications for 7 days at a time without paying. Still an annoyance, though, for some.
Tools for example: http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/
EDIT: Someone thinks I'm wrong, can you explain why? Thanks!
Tools for example: http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/
EDIT: Someone thinks I'm wrong, can you explain why? Thanks!
I'm guessing you're downvoted because your implied solution is no better (and arguably worse) than parent's "unless you jailbreak". Regardless, it's not a solution for "normals":
1. Download and install Xcode.
2. Find the source code for the application you want. You know GitHub works, right, Grandma?
3. Compile, sign, and deploy to your device. Assuming it built without error, that is.
4. Aww, shit, Apple's signing process is still a hot mess. Best get to Googlin' on those validation errors!
1. Download and install Xcode.
2. Find the source code for the application you want. You know GitHub works, right, Grandma?
3. Compile, sign, and deploy to your device. Assuming it built without error, that is.
4. Aww, shit, Apple's signing process is still a hot mess. Best get to Googlin' on those validation errors!
Generally, those that go down this path use a much more streamlined solution like downloading an IPA file and using something like Cydia Impactor (http://www.cydiaimpactor.com) to sign and install the app. It least, I think that that's easier than finding a kernel bug in iOS…
Do you need to pay Apple for a Developer ID in order to be able to do this?
No, you can do this with a free license as well. Impactor basically automates the tasks that Xcode's doing when it installs apps.
Nope! You don't even need to be on OS X. You just get limited by the 7 day signing period if you don't pay.
Nice :) Does it work with Linux or is “not OS X” only Windows?
Works with Linux. Binaries at http://www.cydiaimpactor.com
It's still a valid solution is all. And there are tools available to make it easier for the "normals" as you call them. http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/
> AdBlockers are just too important.
I mean you can still install them from F-Droid, especially if you prefer open source.
I mean you can still install them from F-Droid, especially if you prefer open source.
But its incredibly easy to install system wide adblockers on Android. Just get adaway from f-droid.
> its incredibly easy to install system wide adblockers on Android
I wouldn't call acquiring root access so that I can install a adblocking app "incredibly easy".
I wouldn't call acquiring root access so that I can install a adblocking app "incredibly easy".
Blokada doesn't require root. Been using it for a while and it's fantastic.
…so it uses the VPN API, just like the apps that have been banned from the App Store/Play Store/Appstore. Adaway requires root because it modifies /etc/hosts.
>"…so it uses the VPN API, just like the apps that have been banned from the App Store/Play Store/Appstore."
Yes precisely. And that's not a problem because F-Droid doesn't ban these sort of things.
Yes precisely. And that's not a problem because F-Droid doesn't ban these sort of things.
Apple bans system-wide adblock as well. Mobile Safari ships with adblock IIRC but that doesn't help with all the other random apps that want to show you ads. Meanwhile, despite Google & Amazon's changes, you can still install any adblock you want on an Android device without using a computer or paying for a signing key as you'd need to on an Apple device by just downloading the APK using Chrome and installing it directly. Alternatively, you could install an alternative app store like F-droid and then install & upgrade adblock apps through there.
I'm confused. Doesn't the article say that Apple similarly prohibits ad blockers from their app store? And besides, installing a "third party" apk on an Android phone is trivial, and there are third party "stores" like F-Droid which offer a myriad of open source apps. I seem to recall that Apple makes the installation of third party apps relatively more difficult. I have not used an iPhone in quite some time, so I feel that I must be missing something.
You do not have to go that far to that kind of apps, fou can check f-droid or fossdroid for free and opensourcer android apps.
Apple also blocks VPN-based adblockers from their appstore, and unlike Android you cannot easily sideload apps on iOS.
There's technically a way to do it, but you need to plug your phone into your computer and re-push them every 7 days, unless you pay $99/year for a developer license. Or jailbreak, of course, which has its own problems.
There's technically a way to do it, but you need to plug your phone into your computer and re-push them every 7 days, unless you pay $99/year for a developer license. Or jailbreak, of course, which has its own problems.
This is still available on iOS, amongst others:
https://adguard.com/en/adguard-ios-pro/overview.html
Of course, the limits on installing software on one's own device are still a concern.
https://adguard.com/en/adguard-ios-pro/overview.html
Of course, the limits on installing software on one's own device are still a concern.
Yes, but not for long:
https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-ios-1-3-0/
https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-ios-1-3-0/
That article appears to be somewhat out of date; Adguard Pro is still available:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adguard-pro-no-ads-popups/id...
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adguard-pro-no-ads-popups/id...
It is, but system-wide ad blocking is disabled by default. You need to manually add filters subscriptions or hosts files in order to get it back. Not that it's much of a problem, though.
Does adding said hosts files require a jailbroken device or are the files added in the app?
The files are added in the app - it seems to work well, though I’ve seen reviews suggesting that some users have been confused by it.
I believe this is about blocking ad-blockers that work outside of the browser. As in, in apps, which are solely supported by those ads.
I believe Google shares the 30% cut with the telecom companies but not sure what the actual split is.
Try Librem 5.
Easy to not have ads on a theoretical phone.
The above was about the next device. So it's one option.
You can also install something like Plasma Mobile today on Nexus 5 if you really want to have a proper open source option.
You can also install something like Plasma Mobile today on Nexus 5 if you really want to have a proper open source option.
In my home network, I run https://pi-hole.net on a Raspberry Pi that is plugged into a USB port in the wall where it can't be seen.
Almost all generic ads are blocked and those that do get through can easily be blacklisted. No need for any help from Apple/Google/Amazon. I wish I could somehow make it portable.
Don't worry, the marketers will get to you soon enough.
Google has already wedged themselves in as the "gold standard" dns provider. My gut says eventually Apple/Google/Amazon will start forcing blessed devices to use their own name services. For the good of the user, of course. Ahem.
Google has already wedged themselves in as the "gold standard" dns provider. My gut says eventually Apple/Google/Amazon will start forcing blessed devices to use their own name services. For the good of the user, of course. Ahem.
> Google has already wedged themselves in as the "gold standard" dns provider.
Run. Your. Own. Resolver [full stop]
I'm both amazed and devastated how even seasoned privacy hackers will just pop 8.8.8.8 into their respective resolv.confs. What are they thinking?
I know how people tell stories about how 8.8.8.8 (or 1.1.1.1) are so nice and fast (which simply sounds like they are mirroring the advertising for these services by the letter), but honestly, that doesn't matter: The first visit to any site is slow, and has been slow for years (downloading all those megabytes from a dozen origins simply takes its time); waiting another half-second to have your own resolver look after some unknown hostname – which will be cached, locally, much faster than anything 8.8.8.8 could do for you – really isn't worth spilling your entire browsing history onto Google's reception desk. Not for me, anyway.
Run. Your. Own. Resolver [full stop]
I'm both amazed and devastated how even seasoned privacy hackers will just pop 8.8.8.8 into their respective resolv.confs. What are they thinking?
I know how people tell stories about how 8.8.8.8 (or 1.1.1.1) are so nice and fast (which simply sounds like they are mirroring the advertising for these services by the letter), but honestly, that doesn't matter: The first visit to any site is slow, and has been slow for years (downloading all those megabytes from a dozen origins simply takes its time); waiting another half-second to have your own resolver look after some unknown hostname – which will be cached, locally, much faster than anything 8.8.8.8 could do for you – really isn't worth spilling your entire browsing history onto Google's reception desk. Not for me, anyway.
I think that's unlikely, as there are too many internal services within corporate networks that will never show up in the global DNS. Google would rather people use Chrome at work.
That's okay if you run your own router. Point your device to that as default gateway, then the router can catch any DNS connections and do pi-hole style lookup mapping.
Pfsense is one good example.
Pfsense is one good example.
That's a hard game to win in the end. Odds are the new and improved name services you're required to use won't really look much like DNS today.
Initially they'll be implemented as DNS over HTTPS, with devices being shipped preconfigured to favor those HTTPS endpoints over name servers provided by the local network. From there the traditional DNS bits will eventually be removed in favor of whatever proprietary mechanisms defined by Google/Amazon/Apple.
The only way to use Google/Amazon/Apple services will be by bootstrapping from hardcoded list of bootstrap ips in their product, secured by a similarly hardcoded CA certificate.
Initially they'll be implemented as DNS over HTTPS, with devices being shipped preconfigured to favor those HTTPS endpoints over name servers provided by the local network. From there the traditional DNS bits will eventually be removed in favor of whatever proprietary mechanisms defined by Google/Amazon/Apple.
The only way to use Google/Amazon/Apple services will be by bootstrapping from hardcoded list of bootstrap ips in their product, secured by a similarly hardcoded CA certificate.
Would a Pi Zero W powered by four 18650 Li-ion cells in parallel with a charging board [1], and a 4G HAT module [2], that runs a little over 24 hour continuous operation, work for your definition of "portable"? The drawback with this approach is you would own a separate SIM and plan for the 4G data. I'd also like to figure out how to cram another WiFi board on to run WiFi As WAN, but HAT stacking is hit and miss.
[1] http://www.samplerbox.org/article/howtopowerrpiwith18650
[2] https://www.pianywhere.com/product/pianywhere-4g-raspberry-p...
[1] http://www.samplerbox.org/article/howtopowerrpiwith18650
[2] https://www.pianywhere.com/product/pianywhere-4g-raspberry-p...
How do you deal with https traffic? Wouldn't you need to MITM proxy everything and install CA certs on the client? And wouldn't that reduce client side security since all certs would be signed by the same CA?
Pi-Hole is just a DNS-based adblocker. It returns 127.0.0.1 (I believe) for ad-serving domains, so it happens before https even starts to be negotiated.
Actually, the local address of your Pi-Hole server, though that's configurable.
https://docs.pi-hole.net/ftldns/blockingmode/
For hosts files, 0.0.0.0 is generally preferred, which marks the host as unreachable, rather than localhost (127.0.0.1, etc.), which might well recieve and try to process the request.
https://serverfault.com/a/300410
https://docs.pi-hole.net/ftldns/blockingmode/
For hosts files, 0.0.0.0 is generally preferred, which marks the host as unreachable, rather than localhost (127.0.0.1, etc.), which might well recieve and try to process the request.
https://serverfault.com/a/300410
Neat! I'm going to have to play with that a bit.
I'm using the defaults, but from the sounds of the documentation having it return 0.0.0.0 might be beneficial. It certainly explains some weirdness that I've seen when using Pi-Hole.
Thanks!
I'm using the defaults, but from the sounds of the documentation having it return 0.0.0.0 might be beneficial. It certainly explains some weirdness that I've seen when using Pi-Hole.
Thanks!
DNS isn't (yet) encrypted. It happens before HTTPS is negotiated.
PiHole acts as a local DNS server. So it blocks ad network domains.
You could run it on a vpn and just connect through it all time on your devices.
I have this on my mobile device. I'm using Wireguard as a VPN and the DNS sinkhole is on the server. I haven't noticed any severe latency problems, but yea, I've noticed that the battery runs out sooner. Encrypting/decrypting adds enough overhead that it's noticeable.
This doesn't help when running on non-wifi though, where adblockers are even more important (bandwidth saving).
You can run PiVPN (via, say, OpenVPN) to tunnel back to your PiHole. Just tell PiVPN to use your PiHole DNS. You can VPN into the same rPi as PiHole and get an ad-free experience when you are not at your home.
Works for everything that goes through your router if you set your router's DNS to be the piHole's IP.
> They need to realize that it is your device, your personal data, and it is you who should be in control.
The idea is sound but it doesn't apply to Amazon, or Google's stores. They're under no obligation to host any app in particular and it should be expected that apps that bite the hand that feeds them would be quickly removed.
The idea is sound but it doesn't apply to Amazon, or Google's stores. They're under no obligation to host any app in particular and it should be expected that apps that bite the hand that feeds them would be quickly removed.
If people don't like it, they are free to direct their governments to enact and enforce anti-trust laws that address these platforms.
And Google is free to use its billions of dollars of stashed away money for "lobbying".
I'm sure it's going to be a fair fight between the little guy that has a million other worries in his little life and the corporation whose business model is being threatened and therefore will have a laser like focus across years or even decades.
I'm sure it's going to be a fair fight between the little guy that has a million other worries in his little life and the corporation whose business model is being threatened and therefore will have a laser like focus across years or even decades.
You're right. That's why we need stronger medicine. Anti-monopoly sentiment is rising quickly.
If people don't like a product or service then they simply shouldn't use it, no matter how many of their peers and friends do.
It's really simple and doesn't involve bringing in (literal) government guns that'll just end up controlled via regulatory capture anyway.
Be responsible for your own choices.
It's really simple and doesn't involve bringing in (literal) government guns that'll just end up controlled via regulatory capture anyway.
Be responsible for your own choices.
Laws don't protect consumers or enforce moral obligation and you know it. They serve as a facade to the population to keep society from disintegrating.
Direct boycotting of companies forces change very quickly.
Direct boycotting of companies forces change very quickly.
I don't know it. Laws get written and enforced for lots of reasons, enforcing morality and protecting the population are among them.
The state can be very effective at breaking up monopolies, if there is the will. You'd be surprised.
I'd say Amazon is different, but Google has a monopoly in mobile operating systems worldwide (certainly in the EU), so I don't think it should be allowed to block apps that hurt its business. That seems quite anti-competitive to me. Plus, ad-blocking has been deemed legal by at least four courts in Germany, and I believe in the U.S. and Canada, too.
Also you could have used the same "don't bite the hand that feeds you" argument with VOIP apps on carrier networks. And yet, most countries have passed laws against ISPs banning competing services on their networks.
Also you could have used the same "don't bite the hand that feeds you" argument with VOIP apps on carrier networks. And yet, most countries have passed laws against ISPs banning competing services on their networks.
In general I agree with your sentiment. I do think this is different, in a nuanced way, from the ISP bans though.
The ISPs banned them from their platform. Google and Amazon allow these apps on their platform (the Android OS), but are banning them from their app distribution channels.
Taking Google's perspective for a moment, they are not willing the facilitate distribution of apps whose sole purpose reduces their revenue.
These ad-blocker apps can still be distributed and installed outside the app store. I can download from adguard.com and sideload it onto my device.
The interesting question here is if the app stores are considered a functioning monopoly on apps. I lean toward yes.
The ISPs banned them from their platform. Google and Amazon allow these apps on their platform (the Android OS), but are banning them from their app distribution channels.
Taking Google's perspective for a moment, they are not willing the facilitate distribution of apps whose sole purpose reduces their revenue.
These ad-blocker apps can still be distributed and installed outside the app store. I can download from adguard.com and sideload it onto my device.
The interesting question here is if the app stores are considered a functioning monopoly on apps. I lean toward yes.
Surely you recognize a difference between not allowing certain apps to be installed and refusing to host that app in their store?
Although, if the only place you can install software (within reason) is though their store then I think we're in a different situation.
Although, if the only place you can install software (within reason) is though their store then I think we're in a different situation.
I wonder if there should be a similar law to the “right to repair” automotive laws, but for general software installation or removal for other devices?
If a company both controls the production of the device and the sole means by which a user can install software on the device, then maybe the company should be legally obligated to host some app, or jump through hoops to get approval to ban an app, or the app can go through an appeal process to argue if the ban is anti-consumer.
I’m not saying this applies to Google or Amazon right now, under the current mechanisms for installing software on devices. I’m sure it’s a complicated issue.
But I think it’s a fair and important question.
If a company both controls the production of the device and the sole means by which a user can install software on the device, then maybe the company should be legally obligated to host some app, or jump through hoops to get approval to ban an app, or the app can go through an appeal process to argue if the ban is anti-consumer.
I’m not saying this applies to Google or Amazon right now, under the current mechanisms for installing software on devices. I’m sure it’s a complicated issue.
But I think it’s a fair and important question.
That's actually startling close to the GNU/FSF ethos. The whole Free Software movement is about being able to control the software that runs on your devices (and be able to fix/modify that software as well). The difference is that they don't seek to do it through legislation, but instead through advocacy.
It indeed does not apply to Google or Amazon, as both Android and FireOS allow sideloading.
It does effectively apply to Apple/iOS, as it doesn't. (With a bunch of caveats.)
It does effectively apply to Apple/iOS, as it doesn't. (With a bunch of caveats.)
I completely agree, although it would only apply to Apple right now.
That's only true if you limit your focus to phones. There are a lot of other consumer electronics that only let you download software from their appstore. Game consoles are a big one (as I understand it, purchasing physical media from 3rd party stores isn't an exception to this because in order for a company to publish their software for these platforms on physical media they must still go through Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's approval process.
True, I should have expanded my line of thought : I don't think that consumers are majorly hurt when a game console can only install apps/games under its manufacturer's approval.
Sure, it is not a black and white situation and indies are certainly hurt by this. Also you can install general purpose apps on consoles nowadays; so the line is blurring.
When we are talking about a general purpose device like a phone or a desktop computer though; it really irks me that you need an approval to distribute your app.
We have already seen OS creators forbid an app before sherlocking it, or refusing to validate a satirical app.
Recently both Valve and Telegram have been unable to get their apps approved. I have worked in the music industry and this is sadly really common .. if you work on a music streaming service, it is a huge PITA to get your app approved. It is almost if the people in charge of the OS do not want the competition..
I make this distinction because I think it is way more hurtful when communication or news apps are impacted by this kind of practices and these are pretty vital.
Entertainment apps being hit by this also hurt the consumers by artificially distorting the competition.
Ads Blocker are an edge case. They interfere with other apps, which I feel is ok to forbid. I think that all apps should be obligated to provide a tracking + ads free version but I don't think they should be mandated to make that version free. Especially when ads blockers are often a racket to get your ads networks whitelisted as long as you pay.
Sure, it is not a black and white situation and indies are certainly hurt by this. Also you can install general purpose apps on consoles nowadays; so the line is blurring.
When we are talking about a general purpose device like a phone or a desktop computer though; it really irks me that you need an approval to distribute your app.
We have already seen OS creators forbid an app before sherlocking it, or refusing to validate a satirical app.
Recently both Valve and Telegram have been unable to get their apps approved. I have worked in the music industry and this is sadly really common .. if you work on a music streaming service, it is a huge PITA to get your app approved. It is almost if the people in charge of the OS do not want the competition..
I make this distinction because I think it is way more hurtful when communication or news apps are impacted by this kind of practices and these are pretty vital.
Entertainment apps being hit by this also hurt the consumers by artificially distorting the competition.
Ads Blocker are an edge case. They interfere with other apps, which I feel is ok to forbid. I think that all apps should be obligated to provide a tracking + ads free version but I don't think they should be mandated to make that version free. Especially when ads blockers are often a racket to get your ads networks whitelisted as long as you pay.
IMO there's a moral problem with ad blocking, which is that it's basically stealing.
Like it or not, many popular websites and services online gain income from advertising. By using them while blocking their ads you're basically getting something for nothing by gaming the system. It's probably against their ToS (but who reads that right?). It probably says: We serve ads. If you don't like that don't use this site.
One might say that ads are distracting, annoying, resource heavy, and sometimes downright malicious. I think so too. However that is essentially the "price" of ads, and this price is known in advance. Blocking ads for these reasons while continuing to use the sites is not unlike eating at a restaurant and leaving without paying because you think their prices are exorbitant: It might seem morally justified but it's theft because the prices were known in advance.
I think one of the main reason people don't dine-and-run (yet install adblockers) is that it's hard to do a moral wrong so close to the source, e.g seeing the waiters, being there in person, risking an unpleasantness drama, etc. (This is well known psychological phenomenon which name I can't recall.) In contract installing an adblocker is fast and feels totally unrelated to the 2nd party. It makes it easy to feel like you're fighting the bad guys (ads and the terrible ad-tech) and forget whose revenue you are withholding for your own benefit.
Personally I resisted installing adblockers for a long time though eventually I caved in (ad-tech got really bad). I honestly don't know what the solution is.
Like it or not, many popular websites and services online gain income from advertising. By using them while blocking their ads you're basically getting something for nothing by gaming the system. It's probably against their ToS (but who reads that right?). It probably says: We serve ads. If you don't like that don't use this site.
One might say that ads are distracting, annoying, resource heavy, and sometimes downright malicious. I think so too. However that is essentially the "price" of ads, and this price is known in advance. Blocking ads for these reasons while continuing to use the sites is not unlike eating at a restaurant and leaving without paying because you think their prices are exorbitant: It might seem morally justified but it's theft because the prices were known in advance.
I think one of the main reason people don't dine-and-run (yet install adblockers) is that it's hard to do a moral wrong so close to the source, e.g seeing the waiters, being there in person, risking an unpleasantness drama, etc. (This is well known psychological phenomenon which name I can't recall.) In contract installing an adblocker is fast and feels totally unrelated to the 2nd party. It makes it easy to feel like you're fighting the bad guys (ads and the terrible ad-tech) and forget whose revenue you are withholding for your own benefit.
Personally I resisted installing adblockers for a long time though eventually I caved in (ad-tech got really bad). I honestly don't know what the solution is.
It's certainly nothing remotely close to actual larceny, so when you say "stealing" I assume you mean "acquiring something in violation an explicit or implicit contract." I couldn't disagree more. If such a contract existed, it would mean that every time I download an HTML document, I am obligated to download and execute each resource, document, script, etc. that the HTML document links to, and to do so recursively for each linked document. This would include CSS styles and JavaScript that might make the page unusable for people with certain disabilities or on certain browsers and connections. It would also include all media, which could be slow and/or expensive depending on my Internet connection. It would also include all advertisements, including those that include malware. It would also include all tracking and analytics scripts, which may violate my privacy or even threaten my safety depending on my circumstances and location.
If this is not your argument, please clarify, but it seems like the inevitable conclusion of your claim that visiting a web page obligates me to download and execute other resources that the web page publisher desires. If, at the end of a meal, my waiter brought me a check and a USB drive with software that the restaurant wanted me to install on my computer, I would pay the check, but I wouldn't install the software. If, before the meal, the restaurant informed me that I could not dine there unless I installed the software, I would gladly do neither.
If this is not your argument, please clarify, but it seems like the inevitable conclusion of your claim that visiting a web page obligates me to download and execute other resources that the web page publisher desires. If, at the end of a meal, my waiter brought me a check and a USB drive with software that the restaurant wanted me to install on my computer, I would pay the check, but I wouldn't install the software. If, before the meal, the restaurant informed me that I could not dine there unless I installed the software, I would gladly do neither.
I don't see what the technical capabilities have to do with the morality of the issue. You might just as well modify a downloadable binary to neutralize license checking code to avoid paying for the software. Does the fact that you can do this make it not stealing?
If you want to exploit your technical capabilities to deny publishers their revenue, don't fret when publishers do the same with DRM, walled gardens and other such measures.
Current adtech practices need to be made both illegal and technically impossible, but that obscenity does not make ad blockers more moral. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you want to exploit your technical capabilities to deny publishers their revenue, don't fret when publishers do the same with DRM, walled gardens and other such measures.
Current adtech practices need to be made both illegal and technically impossible, but that obscenity does not make ad blockers more moral. Two wrongs don't make a right.
No one owes publishers revenue. As a society, we might have some conditional agreement to restrict freedom of information transfer for some specific purpose like encouraging art, but if that purpose isn't being served well, or even isn't popular, them it is that same societies right to remove those restrictions.
Publishers are not merely "information transfer". They are largely content creators. Whether that content is music or news or something else, it costs money to produce.
Using that content without paying for it (with ad impressions or direct sales) when those payments make the creation you consume possible in the first place – there is no moral high ground in that.
By ad blocking you're just taking things for yourself while relying on others to pay for your share of the cost to produce the content you're consuming. Zero marginal cost is not such a big intellectual barrier to understanding that this is unfair and unsustainable.
People are quite content with ad blocking only because someone else has to pay for creation of the content they consume. Of course people are content getting a better deal than other people.
But you can't translate this individual selfishness into a general society-level desire because ad blocking only works when not everyone is doing it. On a society level, if you don't pay for something, you don't get it, because there is no one else to pay for it. Whereas what people want is to get something without paying for it.
And if you claim the society is in agreement that ad based business models are unacceptable, I'm yet to see any indication of that. People really like not paying for things with money, and ads let them do that.
But what people like to do even more is taking without giving in the name of some unconvincing ideology.
Using that content without paying for it (with ad impressions or direct sales) when those payments make the creation you consume possible in the first place – there is no moral high ground in that.
By ad blocking you're just taking things for yourself while relying on others to pay for your share of the cost to produce the content you're consuming. Zero marginal cost is not such a big intellectual barrier to understanding that this is unfair and unsustainable.
People are quite content with ad blocking only because someone else has to pay for creation of the content they consume. Of course people are content getting a better deal than other people.
But you can't translate this individual selfishness into a general society-level desire because ad blocking only works when not everyone is doing it. On a society level, if you don't pay for something, you don't get it, because there is no one else to pay for it. Whereas what people want is to get something without paying for it.
And if you claim the society is in agreement that ad based business models are unacceptable, I'm yet to see any indication of that. People really like not paying for things with money, and ads let them do that.
But what people like to do even more is taking without giving in the name of some unconvincing ideology.
> However that is essentially the "price" of ads, and this price is known in advance.
No. The price is absolutely not known in advance by design. There's no way to me to audit which "partners" a site I visit will share my browsing data with. If ad providers were transparent about how my data would be used and who it would be shared with you might have a point. But most current TOSs leave the door open for tracking data to be shared with anyone for just about any purpose in the future.
It's as if I walked into a department store and the price on goods was unknowable - the store just reserved the right to take money out of my account at any point in the future but assured me that amount would be "small" with nothing contractually binding them to that.
No. The price is absolutely not known in advance by design. There's no way to me to audit which "partners" a site I visit will share my browsing data with. If ad providers were transparent about how my data would be used and who it would be shared with you might have a point. But most current TOSs leave the door open for tracking data to be shared with anyone for just about any purpose in the future.
It's as if I walked into a department store and the price on goods was unknowable - the store just reserved the right to take money out of my account at any point in the future but assured me that amount would be "small" with nothing contractually binding them to that.
I don't agree. If someone got a magazine, and before reading it they cut out all the ads are they committing theft? If I mute my radio while ads play, am I a thief? I'd bet that most reasonable people would say no. The content providers serve the ads, how end users interact with them is up to said users.
Ad blocking, in my view, is analogous to muting your radio. The content provider delivered the ads, how the user interacts with them is up to each individual.
Ad blocking, in my view, is analogous to muting your radio. The content provider delivered the ads, how the user interacts with them is up to each individual.
> If someone got a magazine, and before reading it they cut out all the ads are they committing theft?
While cutting the ads you'll get such a good look at them, ads companies will be thrilled and beg you to do it :-)
> If I mute my radio while ads play, am I a thief?
The behavior of people watching TV or listening to radio is well studied. Here's some facts:
1. even if you change the station, you'll still see or hear some ads, especially if you want to get back to what you were watching, as people keep changing back and forth — and those ads are for brands mostly, therefore it's enough for you to see Coke's logo for you to pick it in a store as the "safe" choice
2. many TV and radio stations synchronize their ads breaks
So are you committing theft when skipping commercials? If you use automation for it, the jury is actually still out and there have been several lawsuits already.
Also skipping ads might be legal still, but there are always legal loopholes. For example circumventing DRM is not legal and it's only a matter of time before media networks wise up.
And note there have been other doomsday scenarios in the past. For example the rise of VHS was a similar event, allowing people to record shows and skip ads. But even so, ads kept being efficient and publishers and media networks survived. However this time the automation has reached a level unprecedented in history.
What do you think will happen if companies start going out of business due to ad blockers? They'll start lobbying of course and lobbying works.
While cutting the ads you'll get such a good look at them, ads companies will be thrilled and beg you to do it :-)
> If I mute my radio while ads play, am I a thief?
The behavior of people watching TV or listening to radio is well studied. Here's some facts:
1. even if you change the station, you'll still see or hear some ads, especially if you want to get back to what you were watching, as people keep changing back and forth — and those ads are for brands mostly, therefore it's enough for you to see Coke's logo for you to pick it in a store as the "safe" choice
2. many TV and radio stations synchronize their ads breaks
So are you committing theft when skipping commercials? If you use automation for it, the jury is actually still out and there have been several lawsuits already.
Also skipping ads might be legal still, but there are always legal loopholes. For example circumventing DRM is not legal and it's only a matter of time before media networks wise up.
And note there have been other doomsday scenarios in the past. For example the rise of VHS was a similar event, allowing people to record shows and skip ads. But even so, ads kept being efficient and publishers and media networks survived. However this time the automation has reached a level unprecedented in history.
What do you think will happen if companies start going out of business due to ad blockers? They'll start lobbying of course and lobbying works.
For magazines you could have a friend or a robot cut out the ads, for radio you could switch to a CD while the ads run. Basically, I'm trying to get at the more fundamental question: do users have an obligation to consume the ads that are served to them, in the manner that the content provider dictates? And if so, how should this be enforced?
>Do users have an obligation to consume the ads that are served to them
Yes, if it's part of the content and they want more of that content. But they have no obligation to want that content.
> in the manner that the content provider dictates
They don’t dictate how you consume ads, they try to predict it and adjust for it, but they don't dictate your actions
>And if so, how should this be enforced?
Legally it shouldn’t be. The advertiser can do whatever they want to their content to get you to consume ads, but they shouldn’t be able to do anything past the boundary of their content.
Yes, if it's part of the content and they want more of that content. But they have no obligation to want that content.
> in the manner that the content provider dictates
They don’t dictate how you consume ads, they try to predict it and adjust for it, but they don't dictate your actions
>And if so, how should this be enforced?
Legally it shouldn’t be. The advertiser can do whatever they want to their content to get you to consume ads, but they shouldn’t be able to do anything past the boundary of their content.
There's a very simple way to enforce payment for content. It's called a paywall. If it turns out readers are not willing to work over actual money, then maybe the content is not as valuable as the publishers thought.
DVR allows automatic ad skipping. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_skipping
I wonder if fast-forwarding through the ad break is also theft?
Oh please. That's about as dishonest and manipulative as calling copyright infringement piracy.
The real truth is nobody really cares about how much money these people are losing. We're looking out for ourselves because companies won't. Just because you're serving some content I may or may not be interested in doesn't mean you get to rape my ears with loud autoplaying videos I don't want to watch.
The real truth is nobody really cares about how much money these people are losing. We're looking out for ourselves because companies won't. Just because you're serving some content I may or may not be interested in doesn't mean you get to rape my ears with loud autoplaying videos I don't want to watch.
Are you truly implying I have no right to control what my eyes and ears and brain experiences? That I have to be literally forced to view and remember every single piece of content --- ads or otherwise --- on a site that I visit, just because the "content author" wills it!?
It is very rare that I will use such strong language, but to anyone who truly believes such things: fuck you, and I very much hope you will be the one someday tied into a chair and unable to escape with your eyelids forced open to watch and listen to a barrage of unescapable ads and answer questions correctly about everything you were forced to consume before being allowed to consume the actual content itself in the same way. Because that's what you're implying the world should become --- literally a form of torture and mind-control.
It is very rare that I will use such strong language, but to anyone who truly believes such things: fuck you, and I very much hope you will be the one someday tied into a chair and unable to escape with your eyelids forced open to watch and listen to a barrage of unescapable ads and answer questions correctly about everything you were forced to consume before being allowed to consume the actual content itself in the same way. Because that's what you're implying the world should become --- literally a form of torture and mind-control.
IMO there is a moral problem with delivering content and software to my computer that I didn't ask for.
"Blocking ads for these reasons while continuing to use the sites is not unlike eating at a restaurant and leaving without paying because you think their prices are exorbitant"
Do we really have to replay all the arguments we had during the Napster days about the difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods?
These analogies to real-world objects never work. If you have a case, it's not going to rest on "you wouldn't steal a car" type arguments [0].
[0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/piracy-its-a-crime
Edit: well this is hilarious:
https://imgur.com/a/hD3h4Lm
Do we really have to replay all the arguments we had during the Napster days about the difference between rivalrous and non-rivalrous goods?
These analogies to real-world objects never work. If you have a case, it's not going to rest on "you wouldn't steal a car" type arguments [0].
[0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/piracy-its-a-crime
Edit: well this is hilarious:
https://imgur.com/a/hD3h4Lm
This one's gold as well :) [1]
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/scruffydan/1478541769
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/scruffydan/1478541769
It's obvious that piracy is also theft. But adblocking is worse: The damages of piracy are hard to measure (and are therefor overestimated by it's victims) because many "pirates" would not pay for the pirated, non-rivalrous good if piracy wasn't available.
However blocking ads (especially when done by prevent them being fetched) directly damages the 2nd party at a known price. Each individual pageview has a cost to serve it, and a revenue gained from it (via ads). In that sense what we're stealing is actually pageviews, which have (IMO) more in common with physical real-world objects (rivalrous) than a digital copy of a file.
However blocking ads (especially when done by prevent them being fetched) directly damages the 2nd party at a known price. Each individual pageview has a cost to serve it, and a revenue gained from it (via ads). In that sense what we're stealing is actually pageviews, which have (IMO) more in common with physical real-world objects (rivalrous) than a digital copy of a file.
> However blocking ads (especially when done by prevent them being fetched) directly damages the 2nd party at a known price.
Now what if I use ad nauseam and "click" on every ad on the site? Is that theft too? What if I'm blind and use a screen reader, am I stealing from the site?
Finally, if the answer is yes, why is stealing the other way ok? I don't recall any sites paying out victims after serving ads containing malware. What about sites (or ads) stealthily using my computer's resources for bitcoin mining? They're stealing measurable resources from me and I am not being compensated.
In a previous comment you called malicious ads "the price of ads" that is "known in advance". This doesn't seem fair. Why does the end user bear all the responsibility for keeping the ad economy afloat and healthy while the sites serving the ads bear none?
Edit: One last thing. If ad blocking is truly analogous to retail theft. Content providers and ad networks should be regulated just like retailers are to make sure they are not ripping off their users by serving malicious or harmful ads or using their data in ways not agreed to in advance (i.e. effectively charging users above and beyond the stated price).
Now what if I use ad nauseam and "click" on every ad on the site? Is that theft too? What if I'm blind and use a screen reader, am I stealing from the site?
Finally, if the answer is yes, why is stealing the other way ok? I don't recall any sites paying out victims after serving ads containing malware. What about sites (or ads) stealthily using my computer's resources for bitcoin mining? They're stealing measurable resources from me and I am not being compensated.
In a previous comment you called malicious ads "the price of ads" that is "known in advance". This doesn't seem fair. Why does the end user bear all the responsibility for keeping the ad economy afloat and healthy while the sites serving the ads bear none?
Edit: One last thing. If ad blocking is truly analogous to retail theft. Content providers and ad networks should be regulated just like retailers are to make sure they are not ripping off their users by serving malicious or harmful ads or using their data in ways not agreed to in advance (i.e. effectively charging users above and beyond the stated price).
Seems analogous to say it's stealing TV when you don't watch the commercials, or clipping out ads before reading a paper? It doesn't make sense. I have control over what code is run on my computer. Allowing one party to show me content and blocking others isn't stealing or even in a grey area.
Why does your server indiscriminately accept connections from everyone in the world if you care so much about people "stealing" page views?
If a site can put up a "Turn off your adblocker" message, couldn't they just not serve content to me at all if I'm using an adblocker?
In that case, it seems like adblockers are _not_ theft, but more compared to a plate of cookies with a sign that says, "donations welcome".
In that case, it seems like adblockers are _not_ theft, but more compared to a plate of cookies with a sign that says, "donations welcome".
Yep- there is a sports chat site I frequent that straight up locks out my browser when I come through corporate proxy- because they are blocking ad pages on proxy.
No, piracy is piracy. In fact, the piracy you talk of isn't even "piracy".
>Like it or not, many popular websites and services online gain income from advertising.
A business model does not entitle you to force people to adhere to said business model.
These websites are free to ask me to contribute to them via patreon or via donations or a subscription service.
A business model does not entitle you to force people to adhere to said business model.
These websites are free to ask me to contribute to them via patreon or via donations or a subscription service.
A very important distinction between theft and adblocking is that you show yourself the ads. You (i.e. your browser on your behalf) requests that the server send you an html document, then you go and look up all of the ad links and make requests to those servers. Then you download all of the images and texts from those servers and render them on your own screen.
Every step in this process is voluntary:
- What if I decide I don't want to make requests to the advertiser's servers just because an html document suggested it?
- What if I decide I don't want to render an ad, just because I downloaded it from somewhere?
Contracts, like the one you're proposing here, are agreed upon by both parties. I agree to download your ads, if you agree to provide me access to the site. Paywalls work like this, ads don't. Ads are a polite suggestion that I'm free to ignore.
Every step in this process is voluntary:
- What if I decide I don't want to make requests to the advertiser's servers just because an html document suggested it?
- What if I decide I don't want to render an ad, just because I downloaded it from somewhere?
Contracts, like the one you're proposing here, are agreed upon by both parties. I agree to download your ads, if you agree to provide me access to the site. Paywalls work like this, ads don't. Ads are a polite suggestion that I'm free to ignore.
Online content is the textbook public good. It doesn't compare to anything like cars, food, or computers. There is no harm from using an adblocker. It doesn't compare to normal theft in any way. You can argue it's immoral, but calling it theft and comparing it to stealing physical things is always bogus.
Online content is not exactly the same as physical goods, but it's not that far either:
- it costs very real money to produce, and
- it costs very real money to be served and to remain online.
These costs may be covered by ads, by subscriptions, by sponsors, taxes, voluntary contribution or anything else, but the they still need to be paid for.
[edit: fixed formatting]
- it costs very real money to produce, and
- it costs very real money to be served and to remain online.
These costs may be covered by ads, by subscriptions, by sponsors, taxes, voluntary contribution or anything else, but the they still need to be paid for.
[edit: fixed formatting]
Back when the internet got started, it was borderline if not illegal to put ads or other commercial information on it.
I am not supporting that, just saying that it is more complicated than so.
I am not supporting that, just saying that it is more complicated than so.
I don't know anything about AdGuard in particular, but the general category of "Adblocker that is a really a VPN that really just loads a DNS server to block ads" is really problematic as:
- cause lots of weird networking issues (impacting perceived stability)
- are often "Free" b/c they are swapping in their own ads and malware [1]
- are just in general a poor way of loading a hosts/dns file that in many cases they don't even own (they're just pointing to a freely available one)
1 - https://www.cloudwards.net/worst-free-vpn/
- cause lots of weird networking issues (impacting perceived stability)
- are often "Free" b/c they are swapping in their own ads and malware [1]
- are just in general a poor way of loading a hosts/dns file that in many cases they don't even own (they're just pointing to a freely available one)
1 - https://www.cloudwards.net/worst-free-vpn/
I used adguard and still do without any issues. Maybe there are weird issues, but they are vastly overwhelmed by the immense data and processing savings from no data siphoning happening.
Adguard was/is a paid app that didn't substitute any ads nor collect data.
Adguard was/is a paid app that didn't substitute any ads nor collect data.
I am running pi-hole at home and push out that pihole DNS to my VPN clients and my phone is always connected to my VPN. I never trusted any of these phone platforms to do anything in my best interest anyway.
Related, I cannot wait for the Librem 5
Related, I cannot wait for the Librem 5
Last time I looked at a “system-wide” adblocker, it was just a vpn service with proxied your traffic (not just DNS) through a who-knows-what server. That seemed really sketchy to me, and I doubt most users knew the implications of it.
You may have looked on a bad one.
System-wide blockers on both iOS and Android do use the VPN API, but the idea is to intercept your outgoing traffic on the TUN interface, emulate the TCP/IP stack, and filter it locally, right on your device.
System-wide blockers on both iOS and Android do use the VPN API, but the idea is to intercept your outgoing traffic on the TUN interface, emulate the TCP/IP stack, and filter it locally, right on your device.
How do you know which one the app is doing? From my perspective the vpn was “on”
The easiest way would be to visit a website like "whatsmyip" and check that your IP address stays the same.
Not perfect, but you could connect to wifi, and look at the connections the phone makes.
Of course, it could change its behavior if it detects a cellular connection...
Of course, it could change its behavior if it detects a cellular connection...
[deleted]
Exactly. It's a VPN in name only, and the only reason is to route traffic to be able to bypass the security features in the OS.
They are actually local VPNs looping back to your device. That's the only way to change DNS servers when on cellular data. Until Android P, which will finally allow that.
Would it be possible to skirt these policies by having a system-wide ad blocker that's only partially configured? Either the user has to modify their systems settings to use the local VPN or take some action to load or enable the blocklist.
The ones I have used on Android just use the /etc/hosts file.
Those ones need root. The VPN ones are there to bypass this requirement.
Bans like this seems to increase the opportunity/value for "alternate" app stores outside the recommended vendor, offering things that the vendor wont.
EDIT: Point is that many apps receive a ban because they conflict with the interest of the phone vendor, but they can still be of great use to users.
EDIT: Point is that many apps receive a ban because they conflict with the interest of the phone vendor, but they can still be of great use to users.
Why would I want to put my apps in a store that is also going to aid users in bypassing my means of revenue?
Why should Amazon care? Because Amazon is a large advertiser?
At least because of this:
* https://developer.amazon.com/mobile-ads
* https://aws.amazon.com/mobileanalytics/
Not as large as Facebook or Google (at the moment ~5% of top Android apps connect to their servers). Apparently, they are going to grow.
* https://developer.amazon.com/mobile-ads
* https://aws.amazon.com/mobileanalytics/
Not as large as Facebook or Google (at the moment ~5% of top Android apps connect to their servers). Apparently, they are going to grow.
Yes, that's exactly it. FireOS is a fork of Android with all Google's stuff pulled out, and Amazon wants their piece of the mobile advertising pie as well.
Care about what? Someone using an adblocker?
Because they're in the business of selling things, and many of the "things" they sell monetize via ads. It's an indirect way to killing their rev.
Also, yes, Amazon does lots of retargeting/ad purchasing, so it means they're wasting those dollars as well, again killing their rev.
There's no reason for them to support ad-blocking (other than like, being opposed to massive corporations doing nefarious things, but how could THAT thinking infect a massive corporation)
Because they're in the business of selling things, and many of the "things" they sell monetize via ads. It's an indirect way to killing their rev.
Also, yes, Amazon does lots of retargeting/ad purchasing, so it means they're wasting those dollars as well, again killing their rev.
There's no reason for them to support ad-blocking (other than like, being opposed to massive corporations doing nefarious things, but how could THAT thinking infect a massive corporation)
Presumably Amazon wants developers to continue to support their devices. That becomes much harder to do if, given that the market already does not favor apps which charge up front, they are seen as aiding the only other (semi-?) reliable form of raising revenue.
Amazon offers discounted products if you're willing to accept ads on the lock screen.
they do have product ads that can be placed on a website
I couldn't think of a better advertisement for AdGuard.
I think ads are just fact of life nowadays and not necessarily a bad thing. Ads shouldn't be annoying nor should they be creepy. Like for example, if you google tips to lose weight, you shouldn't be bombarded by pictures of half naked dudes with six pack abs. Nor should you be seeing things you buy frequently due to the fact that you used an in-store membership card.
I wish Google, Facebook and Apple would provide a way to say what kind of ads they'd like to see. Like I have no problem in seeing ads related to cool kickstarter projects, music equipment, tech devices, software development related tools, etc etc.
I mean sometimes that is what I only see and i am like happy with the fact that I am forced to see ads. And then other times I am starting to see things that I really don't care about simply because I had a whim to go down some rabbit hole on Google.
I think some developers use ads very responsibly and I think that overall denying those developers the right to generate money off your usage prevents them from growing their business and creating better products. I tend to think of flappy bird when I think of great ad placement. The ads don't get in the way of the game. They don't pop up while you are in mid game to try and trick you into clicking. They only appear after you died and they aren't full screen and annoying with a tiny little x you might miss.
I mean that is the kind of ads that I can live with and I think everybody else should have to live with too. Hell I even might give them a click every now and then despite the fact that I am not interested in buying the advertised product.
I just think of it like throwing some change in the hat of a busking street artist. It's the least I could do to encourage them to continue pursuing their art.
I mean sometimes that is what I only see and i am like happy with the fact that I am forced to see ads. And then other times I am starting to see things that I really don't care about simply because I had a whim to go down some rabbit hole on Google.
I think some developers use ads very responsibly and I think that overall denying those developers the right to generate money off your usage prevents them from growing their business and creating better products. I tend to think of flappy bird when I think of great ad placement. The ads don't get in the way of the game. They don't pop up while you are in mid game to try and trick you into clicking. They only appear after you died and they aren't full screen and annoying with a tiny little x you might miss.
I mean that is the kind of ads that I can live with and I think everybody else should have to live with too. Hell I even might give them a click every now and then despite the fact that I am not interested in buying the advertised product.
I just think of it like throwing some change in the hat of a busking street artist. It's the least I could do to encourage them to continue pursuing their art.
The only way to consume content the way you want to on locked-down devices is to basically MITM your traffic and run it through something like Proxomitron[1] or Proximodo[2].
I continue to find it ironic that the very same technology, often detested in discussions here, and present in the middleboxes that companies use to block/filter/inspect the traffic between their networks and the Internet, can also be used under your control to enhance your computing experience. I believe that everyone should have complete ability to modify the traffic that flows to/from the devices they own, and this is something which those who strongly support making connections "more secure" and harder to MITM often fail to consider.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron
[2] https://github.com/amate/Proxydomo (Japanese)
I continue to find it ironic that the very same technology, often detested in discussions here, and present in the middleboxes that companies use to block/filter/inspect the traffic between their networks and the Internet, can also be used under your control to enhance your computing experience. I believe that everyone should have complete ability to modify the traffic that flows to/from the devices they own, and this is something which those who strongly support making connections "more secure" and harder to MITM often fail to consider.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron
[2] https://github.com/amate/Proxydomo (Japanese)
I use a VPN service that happens to include an ad blocking feature. I wonder if that will be blocked too? It's PIA, which is very popular.
Of course the feature goes unused; I simply refuse to install an application that includes advertising code. Instead, if available, I pay for the ad-free version of the app. Bonus points if that's the only option. The play store helpfully points out most advertising built into apps, so this is pretty easy to do. Combined with Firefox for Android which lets me run uBlock Origin, I have a completely ad-free mobile experience.
Of course the feature goes unused; I simply refuse to install an application that includes advertising code. Instead, if available, I pay for the ad-free version of the app. Bonus points if that's the only option. The play store helpfully points out most advertising built into apps, so this is pretty easy to do. Combined with Firefox for Android which lets me run uBlock Origin, I have a completely ad-free mobile experience.
System-wide Adblocker at the Apple App Store that doesn't exist according to the article:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id69121579?mt=8
Creates a fake VPN that does the filtering
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id69121579?mt=8
Creates a fake VPN that does the filtering
At home, I just block ads and the DNS level. Run dnsmasq, send all known ad serving domains to 0.0.0.0, and have DHCP point clients’ DNS to your dnsmasq server. Done! Site-wide ad blocking that works on all clients and platforms, without a VPN and without permission from any vendor.
The problem on iOS and other mobile devices is that, when not using WiFi, you don’t have any place to put such a block.
I find iOS content blockers work decently but it is still possible to have an overwhelmingly better experience on the desktop due to the multiple crap-blocking mechanisms available.
I find iOS content blockers work decently but it is still possible to have an overwhelmingly better experience on the desktop due to the multiple crap-blocking mechanisms available.
How hard is it really to run your own VPN from home, connect to it from iOS and have your home VPN block ads?
https://github.com/BobNisco/adblocking-vpn
Why trust a third party that can monitor your traffic?
https://github.com/BobNisco/adblocking-vpn
Why trust a third party that can monitor your traffic?
Fairly hard, especially for people without technical experience or expertise.
And those are the same people who will download "VPN ad blocking software" that records all of their private information and sell it.....
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/7jhr53/a_vpn_based_a...
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/7jhr53/a_vpn_based_a...
downloading the global ad blockers from the web (instead of the app store) is a more practical option
As long as you don't care about your privacy. Everything going through a third party VPN is yet another app that has access to your data.
With the built in web and web view ad blocking framework on iOS, the ad blocking app doesn't see your browsing history. It installs a JSON file that Safari uses to know what content to block.
It's not a complete system wide solution but it does protect your privacy.
With the built in web and web view ad blocking framework on iOS, the ad blocking app doesn't see your browsing history. It installs a JSON file that Safari uses to know what content to block.
It's not a complete system wide solution but it does protect your privacy.
Yes, I’m positive that the security/privacy risk is the reason why Apple banned VPN based ad blockers. There’s no way for Apple to verify that VPN apps aren’t siphoning off data, making the whole thing a gamble and huge PR disaster waiting to happen (“Apple found to have allowed internet siphoning apps on store for years”). Loss of blocking ads in apps is a casualty, not a goal.
If it didn’t mean a revolt from countless app devs I’m sure they’d be perfectly happy to implement something similar to Safari’s content blocker system for the entire OS.
If it didn’t mean a revolt from countless app devs I’m sure they’d be perfectly happy to implement something similar to Safari’s content blocker system for the entire OS.
Exactly. What does Apple have to gain from not blocking advertising? It makes no money from adverting. Blocking advertising not only hurts it's major competitor but would also force apps to monetize via actually getting people to pay for apps. They would get a cut from the revenue. Apple makes no money from free advertising supported apps.
Isn't the more practical and impactful option not patronizing services/apps that rely on advertising to raise revenue?
Are you willing to give up Google, StackOverflow, and almost every website on the Internet?
What about Android itself? The entire reason for Android's existence is for Google to make money on advertising.
What about Android itself? The entire reason for Android's existence is for Google to make money on advertising.
And yet on Android, you can easily install a systemwide adblocker, while on iOS you need to jailbreak or reinstall every seven days. iOS is user hostile, and I'm constantly surprised that anybody who is a developer would willingly use it.
If by "easily" you mean use a third party app store that most people aren't going to use and now you have one central app that has your entire data usage history to sell to the highest bidder....
> If by "easily" you mean use a third party app store that most people aren't going to use
Whether most people will use it or not is not relevant to how easy it is. Just go to https://f-droid.org, click the download button, click on the downloaded notification, and follow the prompts.
> and now you have one central app that has your entire data usage history to sell to the highest bidder....
The apps on fdroid are open source and use a reproducible build system.
Whether most people will use it or not is not relevant to how easy it is. Just go to https://f-droid.org, click the download button, click on the downloaded notification, and follow the prompts.
> and now you have one central app that has your entire data usage history to sell to the highest bidder....
The apps on fdroid are open source and use a reproducible build system.
you can easily install a systemwide adblocker
So now "easily" has turned into going to a third party App Store and either blindly trusting an app wont surreptitiously store and forward all of your data or either trusting that someone else has audited the code or audit the code yourself and to be doubly sure, build the code yourself.
So now "easily" has turned into going to a third party App Store and either blindly trusting an app wont surreptitiously store and forward all of your data or either trusting that someone else has audited the code or audit the code yourself and to be doubly sure, build the code yourself.
>So now "easily" has turned into going to a third party App Store and either blindly trusting an app wont surreptitiously store and forward all of your data or either trusting that someone else has audited the code or audit the code yourself and to be doubly sure, build the code yourself.
The thing with open source reproducible builds of popular software is that somebody else has already done that verification, so you don't have to do anything. That's how easy it is.
To get the same level of assurance on an iOS device, you would have to reverse engineer the app binary. Of course, it's not even possible to begin with because Apple doesn't allow system-wide adblockers at all.
The thing with open source reproducible builds of popular software is that somebody else has already done that verification, so you don't have to do anything. That's how easy it is.
To get the same level of assurance on an iOS device, you would have to reverse engineer the app binary. Of course, it's not even possible to begin with because Apple doesn't allow system-wide adblockers at all.
How well did that "open source reassurance" work for finding the security vulnerability that led to HeartBleed? The vulnerability went undiscovered for 1.5 years?
Much better than the lack of open source vetting that led to Xcodeghost and "goto fail."
"Are you willing to give up Google, StackOverflow, and almost every website on the Internet?"
I mean, if enough people are dodging ads, and the site can't make any money, you'd be going without anyway.
"What about Android itself? The entire reason for Android's existence is for Google to make money on advertising."
Then why are you using it?
Let me turn this on you: Why do you feel you shouldn't be paid for your work?
I mean, if enough people are dodging ads, and the site can't make any money, you'd be going without anyway.
"What about Android itself? The entire reason for Android's existence is for Google to make money on advertising."
Then why are you using it?
Let me turn this on you: Why do you feel you shouldn't be paid for your work?
I was responding to
Isn't the more practical and impactful option not patronizing services/apps that rely on advertising to raise revenue?
Then why are you using it?
Let me turn this on you: Why do you feel you shouldn't be paid for your work
I am not using Android, I buy products where the value proposition is simple -- I give Apple money and they give me stuff. Neither my computer or phone has third party crapware and my computer doesn't look like a NASCAR car with dozens of stickers you can't remove.
Isn't the more practical and impactful option not patronizing services/apps that rely on advertising to raise revenue?
Then why are you using it?
Let me turn this on you: Why do you feel you shouldn't be paid for your work
I am not using Android, I buy products where the value proposition is simple -- I give Apple money and they give me stuff. Neither my computer or phone has third party crapware and my computer doesn't look like a NASCAR car with dozens of stickers you can't remove.
For those on Android, here's a great one that's open source. Get it on F-Droid, XDA, or build from source:
https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66
I don't mind advertising...
I just object to how advertisers screw things up. Moving text while I'm reading. Hijacking the page and navigating away. Auto-playing loud videos.
(These problems are really symptoms of poor design in JavaScript)
All I want is a good ad blocker for my mobile browser!
I just object to how advertisers screw things up. Moving text while I'm reading. Hijacking the page and navigating away. Auto-playing loud videos.
(These problems are really symptoms of poor design in JavaScript)
All I want is a good ad blocker for my mobile browser!
Firefox for Android supports full extensions, so you can install uBlock Origin or even uMatrix.
Yeah, but then I'd have to use Firefox for all my browsing.
Tabbed browsing on Firefox is abysmal. I also like going back into my browser history.
It's like Firefox was only designed for viewing porn.
Tabbed browsing on Firefox is abysmal. I also like going back into my browser history.
It's like Firefox was only designed for viewing porn.
>I also like going back into my browser history.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Firefox has browsing history, if that's what you mean.
There is a different product Firefox Focus which erases your history when the browser closes, maybe you're thinking of that.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Firefox has browsing history, if that's what you mean.
There is a different product Firefox Focus which erases your history when the browser closes, maybe you're thinking of that.
I'm a big fan of AdAway on F-Droid, which blocks using the hosts file.
It does require root, however.
It does require root, however.
How can an app block ads system wide? I would have thought that apps are sandboxed. Just less strictly then websites.
Can an app intercept the network communication at will? Can an app call any operation system function?
Can an app intercept the network communication at will? Can an app call any operation system function?
I use AdGuard and it is great. It is not only ads that I happily block, but all the analytic, it is unbelievable all the requests that are made by apps, even when not using them.
That's an unpopular opinion but I am ok with that.
I would rather pay for the apps I use (with money, not eyeball time) than continue this course to the bottom.
I would rather pay for the apps I use (with money, not eyeball time) than continue this course to the bottom.
Maybe they should focus on the quality of ads, because currently they are complete garbage. And privacy invading.
> Maybe they should focus on the quality of ads, because currently they are complete garbage. And privacy invading.
I prefer low quality ads because I can be more confident that they won't effectively manipulate me. I like to avoid the influence of pure product-propaganda on my decisions.
I prefer low quality ads because I can be more confident that they won't effectively manipulate me. I like to avoid the influence of pure product-propaganda on my decisions.
"It's not antitrust if we all do it right?"
I mean, you could just not use apps that rely on ads for revenue.
I personally like getting paid for my work, and being able to buy food and pay rent.
I personally like getting paid for my work, and being able to buy food and pay rent.
There are many other other ways you can do that, so I simply cannot find a reason to care for your "plight". I hope the ad industry burns in flames and everyone who works in it finds other, better things to build then garbage no one is willing to pay for.
[deleted]
I use ad blockers since forever, howver I just find it extremely mean and unethical that a company like Adguard makes profit by depraving others from their lawful profits by blocking ads. Ad blocking by its nature should not be commercialized.
Brave (browser) is even worse.
Except they get bonus points for inventing their own coin which only exists to make the creator money, along with replacing ads with their ads.
Except they get bonus points for inventing their own coin which only exists to make the creator money, along with replacing ads with their ads.
Apple explicitly allows and provides APIs to develop content blockers.
Apple does not allow content blocking through custom VPN implementations, seemingly because these a) introduce a performance impact, b) may be confusing for users as it’s abusing the point of VPNs, and c) may allow more easy abuse, as VPNs can do a lot more than just block content. This is what the article linked as evidence for Apple’s policy covers, and the statement provided by Apple, while not especially clear, does match up with this.
I think the title should be reverted to remove Apple, as they do allow ad blockers on the store (I personally use 1BlockerX https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/1blocker-x/id1365531024?mt=8 )