Ad Block Multi is blocking sponsored Yahoo ads on both devices here. (6+, Air 2)
Thanks!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The iOS 9 Content Blocker thread
- Thread starter thatJohann
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Ad Block Multi is blocking sponsored Yahoo ads on both devices here. (6+, Air 2)
Thanks!
I think that's exactly the outcome Eyeo wanted. Given that Eyeo takes money from advertisers to whitelist their ads, I wouldn't trust Eyeo for the time of day. I definitely wouldn't trust them to be truthful about that $250,000 figure - it was just another move to make Purify look bad.
Modern journalism has long since forgotten the definition of the word "fact".
I'll trust a developer who refused to sell out, not a company that already has.
Last edited:
The entire article, other than the disputed offer, actually gave Chris a platform to question Eyeo's practices. I don't believe the article is complimentary of Eyeo and because the author posted a correction of the disputed amount, it doesn't discount the article itself. He's actually apologizing for the error, not the article. Chris's comments about Eyeo were pretty tough and still very much part of the article.
One was claiming a $250,000 offer. The other was claiming a 1,000,000+ and a Gmail rendering issue causing the disputed issue. Those are two vastly different numbers. I have a hard time thinking a Gmail rendering issue could change those two different sums that much.
Do I believe it possible Chris could have embellished the amount? I do and have my suspicions. Having said that, Chris explained himself here and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt this time.
I seriously doubt this was some kind of Eyeo conspiracy to bring down Purify. Too far fetched in my book.
You've never seen a company spread misinformation in an attempt to discredit another? I have.
Last edited:
I have. But reading everything in it's totality, including Chris's blog post (now removed), I just don't see the evil Eyeo is out to destroy Purify argument. I just don't. To me, Eyeo could have gone after other things in the article. It's more likely Chris made an error here and he thought a larger offer would give the story more flare. Does that discount the article? No. To me, it simply called into question being honest. Being honest cuts both ways, regardless of the party's involved.
I could be wrong, but that's my take on it. I do respect the views of the other side on this issue.
It's a dead issue to me at this point. I'm willing to overlook it and to be truthful, Chris said in the article he wouldn't work with Eyeo and he also discussed why he wouldn't. That's good enough for me and why I think the article is a compelling argument against this type of ad blocker advertising scheme.
I am still curious to know about this ad blocking vs. hiding. Has the developer replied back clarifying the situation? Seems like somehow that just went unanswered.
That was a real good question.
Like you, I would like to see other devs comment and answer that question.
He has not replied. I don't think a reply will come until that ad blocker is updated to block ads instead of hiding them - but this is just my suspicion. Then he can truthfully say the ad blocker actually blocks ads. The telltale sign will be if the bild website begins blocking users of that ad blocker (after it is updated) instead of allowing them to the site while hiding the ads.
Here is what that website looks like with that ad blocker active (ads hidden per Chris's explanation of their reverse engineered JavaScript):
Here is what I think it will look like after it is updated (ads blocked, and the site detects the ad blocker):
Of course, this is all just suspicion and time will tell.
Last edited:
One way would be to check it ourselves - resetting the data usage, then loading the page and checking the data again. Crude method but still worth giving a try. I don't have the other content blocker and probably will wait for an explanation before spending on it.
Chris already gave a good reply on what might be happening while loading that page and possible workarounds.
Chris already gave a good reply on what might be happening while loading that page and possible workarounds.
That seems far-fetched to me. According to the article it was the developer who first disclosed this alleged deal. How should Eyeo have known that in advance to come up with this complicated conspiracy? I'm sure they would have preferred not to see this publicized. They just responded after it was.
As mentioned before, I'd recommend not to jump to conclusions. The bild.de "anti-adblocker" can be easily circumvented by disabling Javascript for the domain bildstatic.de ...
Your opinion is noted.. again. Who are you that I must heed your recommendations?
Last edited:
I tried this with Ad Block Multi and Purify, using 4 websites. Yahoo, The Verge, Ebaums World and The NY Times.
Deleted history, reset the cellular stats and loaded the 4 pages with each blocker.
Purify data downloaded: 5.3 MB
Ad Block Multi: 5.8 MB
Not sure if this proves anything about blocking ads before they load, other than Purify does a 1/2 MB better blocking ads over these 4 pages.
No need to get touchy. Just pointing out that there are other possible explanations ...
Thanks for running the test. Could you try bild.de? Since all this started with that site. See if it uses any data while blocking/hiding.
So out of curiosity without the ad blocker what would the download sizes be for these same websites.
Just tested. Without any blocker: 8.2 MB
Here's a few other blockers I tested for the same websites:
Silentium 5.6 MB
AdMop 5.6 MB
Crystal 5.7 MB
Blockr 6.0 MB
Here's my result:
bild.de without adblocker: 4.7MB
bild.de with Ad Block Multi: 3.0MB
I cleared the browser history and reset cellular usage between tests. I had the following filters activated in the blocker: Essentials, EU cookie law notices, Enhanced Privacy, Anti-Facebook, Regional DE. A comparison with my other blockers (Blockr and Purify) is not possible because the site detects them.
I'm curious to see what happens when you try Ad Block Multi after disabling JavaScript on bildstatic.de
That's not possible because the blocker doesn't allow the user to add arbitrary rules (I know of only one that does, 1Blocker).
I tried it with Refine (previously Safari Blocker) and was presented with a blank page - except for a fancy background.
I don't have that one. An easy way to test is using a desktop browser with Noscript.
Thanks for all running tests this is interesting.
Does anyone have experience with 1blocker? I didn't know about it until I see Steve Gibson at grc recommends. It's free for basic ad block and I think $2 for extra features
Does anyone have experience with 1blocker? I didn't know about it until I see Steve Gibson at grc recommends. It's free for basic ad block and I think $2 for extra features
Last edited:
Various mentions of it in this thread, like at https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-ios-9-content-blocker-thread.1916783/page-86#post-22079726 as well as the review thread at https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ers-mini-reviews.1918483/page-3#post-21908327