Having the blocking engine in the browser with access exposed via declarative rules system means (a) it’s simpler for alternative blockers to exist and provide the same functionality, and (b) you don’t have to audit or trust that the blocker is being sane/safe with your browsing history, because it never has it.
The bizarre history of the various things referred to as “ublock” is a pretty clear indication that people can’t and shouldn’t trust that extension makers are currently or will in the future do what’s right.
(a) it’s simpler for alternative blockers to exist and provide the same functionality
I don’t consider this an upside, webRequest allows significantly more flexible code (and by extensions more techniques to defeat anti-adblock) than the rulesets made for specifically content blocking extensions do. The only thing this does is ossify content block capability.
(b) you don’t have to audit or trust that the blocker is being sane/safe with your browsing history, because it never has it.
This is moot because I don’t think any mortal user is informed adequately enough to give consent for extension permissions. If you give any permission, you’re extending trust to the extension author to not abuse it. Authors don’t even have to give you inline justification for why any specific permission is required.
Mozilla realized this problem and reviews extensions that go through the extension store before signing it, I have my gripes with the system but it’s what we’re left with.
The bizarre history of the various things referred to as “ublock” is a pretty clear indication that people can’t and shouldn’t trust that extension makers are currently or will in the future do what’s right.
Whatever transgressions done, the current status quo is significantly better than whatever ABP and friends are doing with “”“acceptable ads”“”.
It’s also going to be significantly better than trusting yet another Chromium fork to patch in an engine per patchfiles, which is my argument :/
Safari has had declarative content blocking for over a decade. There are dozens of competing options that make use of this feature - and you don’t have to trust what the author of the extension says at all. It won’t have access to your browsing history, ever, UNLESS they also provide an extra “regular” javascript extension (which IME is required for YouTube, the odd “Linux ISO” download site, and literally nowhere else).
On the other side of the fence we apparently have a monoculture of Ublock (which is also a bit over a decade old), another half a dozen different incantations of extensions with similar enough names to it that I’d wager I could gaslight most people other than the extension author themselves into believing any of them is the “proper good one” in about 15 minutes, and… who knows what other scammy shit.
This is moot because I don’t think any mortal user can give adequate consent for extensions.
If you give any permission, you’re extending trust to the extension author to not abuse it.
Which is exactly why a declarative model works really fucking well. In Safari literally the only “permission” with a content blocker plugin is “Allow in Private Browsing”. That’s fucking it. If the plugin author also ships a separate, regular JS extension for specific sites (I’m side-eying you here Youtube), that’s a separate extension, with separate permissions, and AFAICT they always default to no permissions until you agree.
Whatever transgressions done, the current status quo is significantly better than whatever ABP and friends are doing with “”“acceptable ads”“”.
So you’re saying I can go to https://ublock.org/ and not worry about sneaky practices?
It’s also going to be significantly better than trusting yet another Chromium fork to patch in an engine per patchfiles, which is my argument :/
I mean… the whole concept is laughable. You’re choosing to use a browser/engine developed by a company whose revenue model is essentially entirely ad-based, and then worrying about how best to block those ads.
This would be like finding the best way to crush up diabetes medication so it isn’t noticeable in your McFlurry.
Having the blocking engine in the browser with access exposed via declarative rules system means (a) it’s simpler for alternative blockers to exist and provide the same functionality, and (b) you don’t have to audit or trust that the blocker is being sane/safe with your browsing history, because it never has it.
The bizarre history of the various things referred to as “ublock” is a pretty clear indication that people can’t and shouldn’t trust that extension makers are currently or will in the future do what’s right.
score 1 · canonical
I don’t consider this an upside,
webRequestallows significantly more flexible code (and by extensions more techniques to defeat anti-adblock) than the rulesets made for specifically content blocking extensions do. The only thing this does is ossify content block capability.This is moot because I don’t think any mortal user is informed adequately enough to give consent for extension permissions. If you give any permission, you’re extending trust to the extension author to not abuse it. Authors don’t even have to give you inline justification for why any specific permission is required.
Mozilla realized this problem and reviews extensions that go through the extension store before signing it, I have my gripes with the system but it’s what we’re left with.
Whatever transgressions done, the current status quo is significantly better than whatever ABP and friends are doing with “”“acceptable ads”“”.
It’s also going to be significantly better than trusting yet another Chromium fork to patch in an engine per patchfiles, which is my argument :/
score 1 · canonical
Safari has had declarative content blocking for over a decade. There are dozens of competing options that make use of this feature - and you don’t have to trust what the author of the extension says at all. It won’t have access to your browsing history, ever, UNLESS they also provide an extra “regular” javascript extension (which IME is required for YouTube, the odd “Linux ISO” download site, and literally nowhere else).
On the other side of the fence we apparently have a monoculture of Ublock (which is also a bit over a decade old), another half a dozen different incantations of extensions with similar enough names to it that I’d wager I could gaslight most people other than the extension author themselves into believing any of them is the “proper good one” in about 15 minutes, and… who knows what other scammy shit.
Which is exactly why a declarative model works really fucking well. In Safari literally the only “permission” with a content blocker plugin is “Allow in Private Browsing”. That’s fucking it. If the plugin author also ships a separate, regular JS extension for specific sites (I’m side-eying you here Youtube), that’s a separate extension, with separate permissions, and AFAICT they always default to no permissions until you agree.
So you’re saying I can go to https://ublock.org/ and not worry about sneaky practices?
I mean… the whole concept is laughable. You’re choosing to use a browser/engine developed by a company whose revenue model is essentially entirely ad-based, and then worrying about how best to block those ads.
This would be like finding the best way to crush up diabetes medication so it isn’t noticeable in your McFlurry.
score 1 · canonical