Example of ad-block in Safari

[Abazigal]

A developer has given an example of what ad-block might look like once it is implemented in iOS 9.

http://murphyapps.co/blog/2015/6/24/an-hour-with-safari-content-blocker-in-ios-9

While i guessed as much, it is still shocking nonetheless how much resources advertising takes up, and just how much it degrades the user experience overall. This is going to have a huge impact on the way I consume my content on my ios devices.

While he does have a point that this might impact said websites financially, I am hoping that this will galvanize these websites to focus on making ads as unobtrusive as possible. If places like macstories can do it, they can too.

Your thoughts? Do you see yourself using this feature? Why or why not?

 

[KALLT]

I will use an adblocker as soon as possible and I will have no regrets. Third-party tracking scripts are out of control and need to be reigned in. At no point is it justified to load that many resources from third-party servers. It slows down your browsing experience, it will use up unnecessary data and it is an affront to user privacy. On iOS, you don't have any control over this and there is no transparency whatsoever. Just turn off blocking of third-party cookies and you will be surprised how many advertising-related cookies are set in no time, it makes you want to cry. Online advertising needs to become simpler again, not more and more convoluted.

 

[frozentoast]

Do you see yourself using this feature?

Absolutely.

 

[Menel]

That's fantastic.
But iOS Safari extensions have to be actioned intentionally and manually by the user now... e.g. Bing translate.

Are these automatic, always on? or do you browse to the page, then active...?

 

[Noble Actual]

Can't wait.

This is the true best mobile web browsing experience we should have gotten a lot time ago.

 

[afsnyder]

That's fantastic.
But iOS Safari extensions have to be actioned intentionally and manually by the user now... e.g. Bing translate.

Are these automatic, always on? or do you browse to the page, then active...?

These are content blockers not actions.

 

[rorschach]

That's fantastic.
But iOS Safari extensions have to be actioned intentionally and manually by the user now... e.g. Bing translate.

Are these automatic, always on? or do you browse to the page, then active...?

They are always on. They'll appear in Safari settings when you install an app with a content blocker extension.

 

[EdgardasB]

It is long way till iOS 9 public release. Apple may remove this feature because of advertisers and websites admins moans. I'm not against ads but there are a lot of annoying ads which prompts up constantly...

 

[baller1308]

uBlock creator also released a video. Extension is called Purity, still in early development.

 

[CTHarrryH]

Use ad blocking on non-IOS devices and would can't stand the ads- another example of took a not bad thing and made it really bad by over doing the ads significantly. Web use is the most ad intensive experience we have.
Can't wait

 

[cmChimera]

I can't wait to use this.

 

[Dephibio]

uBlock creator also released a video. Extension is called Purity, still in early development.

Would you mind sharing the link?

 

[0000757]

One current Safari extension I've seen is called Ghostery, which allows you to turn off content trackers (like widgets, share buttons, advertising trackers, etc). I leave a few on, like some social media ones, but I've noticed even by turning those off I see a sometimes noticeable/sometimes subtle performance boost.

I'd love "content blockers" to span more than just ads and also the trackers Ghostery can kill.

 

[KALLT]

One current Safari extension I've seen is called Ghostery, which allows you to turn off content trackers (like widgets, share buttons, advertising trackers, etc). I leave a few on, like some social media ones, but I've noticed even by turning those off I see a sometimes noticeable/sometimes subtle performance boost.

I'd love "content blockers" to span more than just ads and also the trackers Ghostery can kill.

It does. Safari content blockers can block entire URLs and scripts from loading within other websites, which is what Ghostery does.

It is long way till iOS 9 public release. Apple may remove this feature because of advertisers and websites admins moans. I'm not against ads but there are a lot of annoying ads which prompts up constantly...

I'm sure Apple will happily tell them to create their own app (with iAds and/or in-app purchases) or submit their content feeds to the News app (also with iAds).

 

[The Doctor11]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

 

[Abazigal]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

Or maybe you should write an email to the websites and advise them to get their act together and make their ads less obtrusive and resource-sucking and optimize them better for a mobile user interface. Then maybe we will consider being willing to look at them.

 

[g-7]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

Using your own words: I don't give a **** for any website owner who puts OBTRUSIVE and ANIMATED ads on their sites. IMO putting such awful, moving, distracting and difficult to close ads should be illegal. It IS stealing: the website owner steals my attention and even compromises my mental health by forcing me to look at those moving and blinking images.

 

[Mercifull]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

If I was being pedantic... which I am... I'd argue that you aren't actually stealing from the requested website. These are 3rd party scripts and includes, iframes etc. If the advertising banner were hosted locally then perhaps a different matter. There is no contract between user and website saying you agree not to hide 3rd party advertisements.


I'm always in two minds when it comes to ad-blockers. I reluctantly use them because I'm fully aware of the needs for content creators to pay for hosting fees, maintenance and people time etc but I'm not adverse to using them in situations when the advertising has become so unbearable that I feel forced to use them. Take the example of my local newspaper. I'm a subscriber to the paper and get it delivered to my door but they also put the stories up online and sometimes put bonus stories on there in between each weekly issue. When I visit on desktop I'm bombarded by interstitials, auto playing video which covers up the text, banners which follow you around the screen and keywords within the body of the text which are turned into links to products. On mobile it's even worse as its difficult to find the X button on popups and because of attempts to redirect to app stores.

I don't have a problem with good advertisers and most of those in Googles ad network comply well with the rules. However there are a great deal of other advertising programmes of varying quality and respect for the user. Unscrupulous advertisers and ad networks have been the straw that broke the camels back and now people have had enough. They've ruined it for themselves, they've slain the goose that lay the golden eggs. Content blockers are here to stay and will soon reach mainstream among the great unwashed. When it does it will be a perfect storm for the advertising industry to come up with new, engaging and relevant methods of promotion which don't disrupt content.

 

[2984839]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

It should be illegal to control what code runs on your own device?

 

[frozentoast]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

Reputable advertisers such as The Deck are met with great positivity. It’s fullscreen takeovers including auto–play videos and scrolljacking is what drives honest, reasonable users to block everything.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Well after seeing how many people in this thread actually are going to use this without giving a **** about the website owners I think I'm gonna have to go write an email to Tim asking for content blockers to be removed. IMO ad blockers should be illegal. It IS stealing access to a site. It's absolute ******** people can block ads and not get charged for it.

There is nothing remotely illegal about blocking unwanted ads nor should there be, in my opinion. And most of all, it is not stealing access to a site. If you are going to use terms like illegal and stealing, it would be wise to use said words in their proper context and meaning, not arbitrarily tossed and put through a word grinder, so that they can bend to your proposed meaning.

Maybe you should worry about what you do, instead of trying to thrust your authoritarian internet views on others.

 

[baller1308]

Would you mind sharing the link?

Reddit uBlock/Purity Link

 

[Dephibio]

Reddit uBlock/Purity Link

Thank you, Sir.

 

[The Doctor11]

I'm always in two minds when it comes to ad-blockers. I reluctantly use them because I'm fully aware of the needs for content creators to pay for hosting fees, maintenance and people time etc but I'm not adverse to using them in situations when the advertising has become so unbearable that I feel forced to use them. Take the example of my local newspaper. I'm a subscriber to the paper and get it delivered to my door but they also put the stories up online and sometimes put bonus stories on there in between each weekly issue. When I visit on desktop I'm bombarded by interstitials, auto playing video which covers up the text, banners which follow you around the screen and keywords within the body of the text which are turned into links to products. On mobile it's even worse as its difficult to find the X button on popups and because of attempts to redirect to app stores.

If I was a subscribed to something And the website showed me adds, I would simply write the website asking for the ads to be removed for paid users. If they did not remove the ads would unsubscribe. In your case of the local news paper you might even be able to take it the step further and put pressure on them to remove the ads by calling your local news stations tip line.

It should be illegal to control what code runs on your own device?

It should be illegal to steal access to something people put work into and in many cases live off the money that work makes.

There is nothing remotely illegal about blocking unwanted ads nor should there be, in my opinion. And most of all, it is not stealing access to a site.

Could you please explain how it's not stealing access to websites?

 

[AndyK]

Forcing users into running scripts that have such a huge detriment to performance and bandwidth usage and justifying it with 'if you block this you're stealing content from us' is the most ridiculous argument to make. As soon as you put content on a publicly accessible url you make it free and have no control how your users chose to view it. Your advertising supports but is not requiring the user to make any sort of reimbursement in return for your content. You can't steal something that is being put out there for free.

If you want / need your content to be premium, put it behind a payment form.