At this point in time, I am not aware of any blocker that allows Whitelisting with the ability to control what does or doesn't get blocked on a Whitelisted site.I've been researching ad blockers and I understand the dilemma between ads being intrusive with privacy concerns and supporting content providers which are primarily funded by ads. I would like to support content providers by allowing a reasonable number of ethical ads to appear however I would like to filter out the really bad stuff. Do any of the existing content blockers meet this requirements?
First site I tried it on, it let some ads get through.What about Ad Block Multi - https://appsto.re/it/ven29.i ? It seems to have many features (malwares, spywares, scripts, social networks, region specific filters, EU cookies law notices) and it's just 0.99.
The reason for that is a technical limitation of the current content blocker API. Whitelisting as some of the extensions do it today is easy to implement using "ignore-previous-rules" actions. But, as the name implies, they cause Safari to ignore *all* previously encountered blocking rules. So it isn't easily possible to whitelist individual domains without also disabling other blocking rules.At this point in time, I am not aware of any blocker that allows Whitelisting with the ability to control what does or doesn't get blocked on a Whitelisted site.
Its not only Crystals issue on blocking ign's videos... same goes for Purify.... just tested it.
How do you know this isn't intentional on IGN's part? You block our ads therefore you can't see our videos.
They aren't blocking adblockers because I just tested their site on my MBP using adblock plus. It works.How do you know this isn't intentional on IGN's part? You block our ads therefore you can't see our videos.
What majority of sites may those be? Only one I know of that blocks adblockers is CBS.The majority of sites do this.
What majority of sites may those be? Only one I know of that blocks adblockers is CBS.
I've never seen MSNBC do this. Don't know about Fox sports or Sky.Fox Sports, MSNBC, Sky for example.
The ad networks suffer. A tad bit less than the content producers, but they're suffering. What do you suppose happens when the networks aren't producing enough clicks to generate sales? They lose money just as well... They also lose companies who won't waste money in producing content to market via these ad networks. Only whitelist free sites that you want to support, like MacRumorsTechnically, the ad networks don't suffer, because each impression that is denied by an ad-blocker is an impression that is not paid out as cash to the website.
So who we are really punishing with our actions are the publishers, who earn less in ad revenue. It hurts, I know, but I hope this will incentivise them to put us readers first and foremost when designing their websites. My iPhone 5s' browser should not have to freeze on the front page of TheVerge and leave me unable to scroll while a giant beer ad spins lazily in front of me.
I don't whitelist anyone. I block all ads on all sites.The ad networks suffer. A tad bit less than the content producers, but they're suffering. What do you suppose happens when the networks aren't producing enough clicks to generate sales? They lose money just as well... They also lose companies who won't waste money in producing content to market via these ad networks. Only whitelist free sites that you want to support, like MacRumors
I've been researching ad blockers and I understand the dilemma between ads being intrusive with privacy concerns and supporting content providers which are primarily funded by ads. I would like to support content providers by allowing a reasonable number of ethical ads to appear however I would like to filter out the really bad stuff. Do any of the existing content blockers meet this requirements?
Well that is great that you can afford to maintain your sites ad free. I hope to one day be on your level. I do not see the harm of supporting a handful of sites that provide me free content... However there are some exceptions to sites that are just cringe worthy and I do not want them making a penny. >:[I don't whitelist anyone. I block all ads on all sites.
I don't even have ads on any of the websites that I personally run.
Then we'll go elsewhere, they're not the only game in town.The majority of sites do this.
Agreed. I read an article on the Washington Post site a few days ago and AB+ blocked 22 ads on that one page. Ridiculous.Well that is great that you can afford to maintain your sites ad free. I hope to one day be on your level. I do not see the harm of supporting a handful of sites that provide me free content... However there are some exceptions to sites that are just cringe worthy and I do not want them making a penny. >:[
I've read the first and last (28) pages on this.
Could someone fill in a few questions I have? I use ABP on my desktop and love it, is there something similar for safari on iOS?
Do I need this running as a background app or is it an extension? Or do I just need to run it once?
I have a scorched earth policy with ads and data mining. If they hadn't been so aggressive and intrusive I wouldn't have minded Now unless you are paying me to view ads I won't view them, and my data is mine, if you want it, pay me for it.
I just tested purify and ign and the videos play fine with no adsIts not only Crystals issue on blocking ign's videos... same goes for Purify.... just tested it.
I've never seen MSNBC do this. Don't know about Fox sports or Sky.
Just tested MSNBC again and videos play fine with Adblock Plus. Tested Fox Sports and I was able to play a video as well.
unistall ABP. it is sh*t.
install uBlock Origin in your PC/MAC.
install Purify in iOS.
No you don't need to run it in background. iOS does all the work.