Apple neutered ad blockers in Safari, and users didn't say a thing

https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-neutered-ad-blockers-in-safari-but-unlike-chrome-users-didnt-say-a-thing/

by jmsflknr • 7 years ago

190 171 7 years ago

I noticed this overnight when uBlock Origin wasn't working. I've been slowly transitioning over to Firefox over the last few months, but still end up in Safari quite often.

This motivates me more to move over to Firefox permanently. Battery life might take a hit, but the philosophical and political motivation is too high not to use Firefox.

whalesalad4• 7 years ago

Safari is SO much more efficient than Firefox. I find it to be more performant while also using a lot less juice on my MBP.

panpanna• 7 years ago

But ads often slowdown browsing significantly and cause unwanted cpu work and network traffic.

Then there is tracking and sometimes even malware...

mfer2• 7 years ago

FYI, In the next Firefox release there's a change that should dramatically improve Firefox battery use.

dreamcompiler2• 7 years ago

I tried Safari for the first time in a while a few days ago and I agree with you. But the amount of ads, videos, popups, and sticky crap all over the screen makes reading web sites impossible. I didn't realize just how bad the web browsing experience had become without an ad blocker. I'm rebuilding my Pihole at the moment so this nonsense will go away soon. But it's really, really bad to be without it.

rudiv• 7 years ago

IIRC Mozilla said recently (last week or two) that they had managed to patch the bug responsible for the majority of battery issues on macOS.

kalleboo• 7 years ago

Tests showed this finally brought power usage inline with Chrome, but not down to Safari levels.

submeta2• 7 years ago

I can confirm: Been using Firefox for months on my Mac, and it is not draining my battery like it did a few years ago. It used to be very resource hungry, not anymore.

Angostura• 7 years ago

Why not just move to a content blocker?

dubya• 7 years ago

The other issue is that uBlock Origin development on Safari stopped sometime last year. I still prefer Safari, but Firefox is a close second so I'll just switch if I can't find a good enough adblocker for Safari.

And whatever adblock works on mobile Safari (I'm using Refine, but haven't looked at others) is already pretty good.

givinguflac2• 7 years ago

Adblock is stupid. Block hosts and be done with it. Pihole/pixelserv/diversion for the lan, gas mask for Mac, AdGuard vpn with custom lists for iOS. No ads, no stupid adblocker blockers bs.

bitcurious• 7 years ago

Does pihole block Facebook ads on Facebook.com, google ads on YouTube.com?

conchy• 7 years ago

nope

cameronbrown4• 7 years ago

And to be honest, that's probably not a bad thing. Majority here are worried about cross site tracking and not advertising itself.

reaperducer4• 7 years ago

AdGuard vpn with custom lists for iOS.

"I don't trust ads, so I'm going to run all my internet traffic though this rando VPN in the Middle East."

ameshkov4• 7 years ago

A local VPN running on your device which code you can examine on Github: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardForiOS

givinguflac2• 7 years ago

It’s an on-device vpn only, not an actual vpn. But please keep contributing insults to the conversation without any research. :)

vatueil10• 7 years ago

Why the "Middle East"?

AdGuard and similar apps such as Blokada function as local VPNs, as mentioned, so most traffic does not pass through any particular external server.

The AdGuard app does use AdGuard's DNS servers, so DNS traffic passes through their servers in Russia: https://community.spiceworks.com/tools/ip-lookup/results?hos...

AdGuard says they do not log DNS queries.

The company was founded in Moscow in 2009. In 2017, they changed their official headquarters to Cyprus: https://adguard.com/en/blog/the-chronicle-of-adguard/amp.htm...

mcsofake• 7 years ago

in the Middle East.

FTFY: in the EU.

Or to be more accurate: in whichever country you reside. Because the VPN is local.

izacus• 7 years ago

Well, it's Apple ain't it? It it would be Google or Microsoft, HN would have 16 upvoted posts.

Brand cheerleading is, and always have been, alive and well.

bluesign• 7 years ago

Because Apple doing this transition in a much better way. First they introduce some better system (for ex: content blockers), waiting for it to be successful from user perspective, then replacing old system with this new accepted one.

Nextgrid• 7 years ago

Content blockers are inferior to extensions such as uBlock Origin.

creato• 7 years ago

"The bottom line is that there's no way to install a classic Safari ad blocker starting this week, and that Apple is expected to remove or disable old Safari legacy extensions from users' browsers sometime in the future, for good."

How is that different from what chrome is doing? There's a deprecation plan, it doesn't appear to be significantly shorter in time scale than what apple did.

rdtwo• 7 years ago

I use brave it seems to work great

mthoms2• 7 years ago

Here here. Even though they use the same browser engine as Chrome, the Brave team have chosen not to include the blocker limitation introduced by Google[0].

[0]https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/

pythux2• 7 years ago

Chrome did not introduce any limitation yet and it’s gonna take a while before they do it (they only started showing part of Manifest v3 changes in canary versions). So nothing changes for forks of Chrome for now.

krtkush2• 7 years ago

The only two extensions I used - AdGuard and Feeder are not working anymore.

ameshkov4• 7 years ago

There's new AG for Safari: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari

krtkush2• 7 years ago

Thanks.

yodsanklai• 7 years ago

users didn't say a thing

Maybe most users are simply not aware of this? As a Safari user, I did notice that Adblock wasn't working so well lately. I didn't know it has to do with Apple, I just assumed that I had to wait for the next update.

thoughtsimple• 7 years ago

Just use 1Blocker. It works fine. Extensions are battery killers.

lightedman• 7 years ago

"Extensions are battery killers."

ANY processing is a battery killer. It's as if people forgot every single thing done on a computer system STILL REQUIRES ENERGY TO DO.

neurobashing• 7 years ago

Not just "just use 1Blocker", but isn't the mechanism 1Blocker uses functionally equivalent to the "old" mechanism? Whereas Chrome just turned it off without offering a different route to the same functionality?

danpalmer2• 7 years ago

To my knowledge, 1Blocker uses the iOS/macOS content blocking APIs, which essentially allow an app to provide lists of content to block to the system, which pre-computes a fast/efficient ruleset for use while browsing. This results in lower energy usage, faster browsing, and more privacy during browsing.

Chrome does not to my knowledge provide an API like this, and extensions are still roughly a JS bundle that defines blocking rules at runtime, slowly, using more energy, and potentially having access to your browser history while it does it.

vatueil10• 7 years ago

The posted article is all about how the changes Apple made to Safari mirror the proposed changes to Chrome. Safari content blockers such as 1Blocker are pretty much exactly how Chrome adblockers will work in the future.

Chrome has not changed how extensions work yet. That's all in the future. Currently, nothing has been turned off and the "old" mechanism still works. Eventually that will change, just as Safari has already done.

quotemstr2• 7 years ago

"Extensions are battery killers" is simplistic, and, well, wrong. Like any program, efficiency depends on what a program actually does. Some extensions use a lot of power. Others don't. The anti-extension animus on this thread is weird.

xodice6• 7 years ago

Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO. Of course there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and macOS work just fine for blocking ads.

I switched to Wipr on my devices and ads are still blocked, for basic ad blocking it gets the job done easily and quickly.

I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine.)

bilbo0s• 7 years ago

I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions

This is why content blockers are actually better, extensions are huge security holes.

Setting aside the whole issue of content v ad blocking, anything that locks down the capabilities of extensions on your system is only a plus for your security.

close042• 7 years ago

Why not have a content blocker with much higher limits? If security is the aim why the limit for 50000 filter rules in use at one time?

tomc1985• 7 years ago

Nobody cares about extensibility any more :(

"This is what's good for you, and you're going to like it!"

I hate computing nowadays.

javagram2• 7 years ago

That logic, taken to its rational conclusion, means you shouldn’t be able to run any executable on your computer unless it’s been pre-approved by your OS manufacturer.

And yes, that would be a plus for security - and a negative for user freedom.

kitsunesoba2• 7 years ago

Another happy Wipr user here. I have yet to notice a difference in adblocking capabilities and it’s nice knowing that Wipr is entirely incapable of ever doing anything shady.

It’s also nice that content blocker extensions work with mobile Safari, removing the need to install a third party browser and dramatically reducing cell data consumption when browsing. It’s frustrating how Chrome for Android has no blocking capabilities whatsoever.

adimitrov• 7 years ago

Wich is why I use Firefox for Android. With extensions.

on_and_off2• 7 years ago

I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine

I am curious, why is that ?

fwn• 7 years ago

I'm not the parent you replied to, but I do trust uBlock Origin as well.

While I occasionally switch my browser I never ever browse without uBlock Origin. As far as I am able to evaluate, its author and sole administrator (goes by "gorhill") is very transparent and continuously demonstrates an aligned interest with myself as a normal web user.

...which is a quality I not always see with Mozilla and never ever assumed with Google Chrome product management.

tyingq• 7 years ago

"I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine."

Interesting, as the uBlock Origin author is pretty clear that uBlock Origin for chrome will cease to exist if/when Chrome implements the manifest v3 changes that make it "Safari like".

bad_user5• 7 years ago

Safari's content blockers are super easy to circumvent by anti-ad-blocking tech.

That many publishers don't do that already is a mystery, probably because visitors with ad-blocking are still a minority and publishers don't want to piss them off.

As a disclaimer I was in a team working on such technology. The hardest to beat is uBlock Origin, being the most capable from a technical perspective. And we left it completely alone, a good strategy for angry users having a last resort solution to migrate to instead of investigating why AdBlock Plus isn't working.

And also by not having a company behind it, a partnership with uBlock Origin for "acceptable ads" isn't possible. Which is why the whole industry, Google included, is scared of it and it's no wonder that they've taken steps to kill it in Chrome for desktop ;-)

sansnomme• 7 years ago

Do your colleagues curse the name of Gorhill and have a dartboard with his face and μblock Origin's logo on it?

julienfr112• 7 years ago

Can you elaborate on what special tech make uBlock hard to beat ?

pilsetnieks3• 7 years ago

I'm not sure about how reliable the source is but there could be 47% of visitors that use some kind of ad blocker (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2019/03/19/47-percent-o...). Technically a minority but not something to gloss over.

mthoms2• 7 years ago

Honest question - What are your personal feelings about working on tech that many (perhaps most), HN users consider harmful from a security and privacy standpoint?

danShumway3• 7 years ago

And also by not having a company behind it, a partnership with uBlock Origin for "acceptable ads" isn't possible.

I'm really glad you brought that up, because it's an interesting dynamic. Industries generally know how to deal with companies and senators. People like Gorhill though are hard to control using conventional strategies, because they're not getting any money out of it, they don't have supply chains or a duty to investors that you can exploit. They're just people doing stuff.

This can obviously be both a positive and a negative. But when people talk about competitive and regulatory forces, it's important to remember that some forces also come from outside of the system.

Adblocking is legal, but another good (less legal) example is Sci-hub. Sci-hub is just as large of an actor in the debate about academic publishing as any other official institution, but it refuses to be subject to the same rules as those institutions. If you're a traditional publisher, you can't reason with Sci-hub. None of the conventional strategies you would use on a competitor work for Sci-hub.

In general, if you're a business, you would prefer to only deal with other businesses and (to an extent) the government. Purely ideological actors, or people who don't pay attention to the conventional rules of engagement are much more annoying. You have to find some kind of leverage over those people so they can't cause as much trouble.

I don't doubt that part of the reason Google is locking down extensions is for security. I'm also sure that there are executives at Google who look at locked-down extension APIs and the inability to side-load extensions as a way of locking out people like Gorhill, and making sure the debate over acceptable ads is primarily restricted to industry players. For them, the fact that these policies improve some aspects of security is just a bonus.

scarface744• 7 years ago

And random ad blocking programs that use the traditional ad blocking frameworks can easily record, intercept, and track everything you do.

Any site that goes through trouble of blocking ad blockers I just avoid.

S_A_P• 7 years ago

Are you in the anti anti ad block business for research or for the cash? I wish that folks would instead focus on building better business models vs circumventing privacy/malware protection.

ptx• 7 years ago

Is "acceptable ads" really such a bad idea, assuming some reasonable criteria (not "pay us") for acceptableness?

If you think back to the early days, ads were often just static images. If we could go back to that, I don't see much of a problem with them, other than being ugly. Ads would be acceptable to me if they just got rid of

1) scripts,

2) user profiling,

3) sound,

4) animation.

Kind of like newspaper ads. They don't have to assault you and find out where you live to be effective.

simion314• 7 years ago

I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine.)

Do you know if/what are the differences between what Google done in Chrome and what Apple done it Safari? Are this changes affecting only ad blockers or other useful extensions?

jacobkg• 7 years ago

How does Wipr compare to AdGuard?

reaperducer4• 7 years ago

Of course there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and macOS work just fine for blocking ads.

I never understand why the sorts of people who engage in geek posturing even bother with iOS. Apple's whole theme since 1984 has been ease and simplicity of use.

A lot of it is people who read something anti-iOS that sounds vaguely technical on another web site, then parrot it all around to make themselves sound like power users.

But if they really were as technical as they portray themselves, they'd be rolling their own Android distribution with all the features they claim they need, instead of moaning that iOS doesn't work the way they want it to.

fauigerzigerk• 7 years ago

I never understand why the sorts of people who engage in geek posturing even bother with iOS.

I think selective geekery has become a thing as technology now pervades all aspects of our lives. There's just not enough time to tinker with everything all the time.

inimino• 7 years ago

Just because I know how to mess with all that shit doesn't mean I want to.

hombre_fatal4• 7 years ago

Just because I'm tech savvy doesn't mean I want to waste my time.

SomeOldThrow• 7 years ago

Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO.

This seems like putting the cart before the horse, no? Apple is in a good position to change this and chose not to. Personally it changed the internet for me when I could right click → block content forever. Meanwhile I haven’t found any content blocker on ios or safari that successfully blocks all ads. Even firefox focus lets some through.

There’s a reason they’re focusing on “privacy” and not “ad blocking”.

caymanjim• 7 years ago

How many Safari users even know what an ad blocker is? It's not exactly a power feature, but people using the stock browser shipped with their OS probably aren't aware that it's even an option.

maccard• 7 years ago

Many people using Mac will use safari because it's power usage is incredibly low compared to the others. Im a Firefox user, but on a MacBook, safari is the only option.

saagarjha3• 7 years ago

I think many people using a Mac use Safari because it’s the default.

chrischen• 7 years ago

To further add to that EVERY person using an iPhone is using Safari. If they search the app store for adblock or some other name brand blocker, they’ll be instructed to turn on content blockers.

toyg2• 7 years ago

Firefox is supposed to have fixed that in nightly builds. Can’t land in the main channel soon enough.

tiborsaas• 7 years ago

My MacBook is plugged in 90% of the time. While travelling for example on a plane and I forget to charge it, then yeah, Safari is helpful to have.

chongli• 7 years ago

In addition to the power usage, Safari is the only browser that syncs tabs and passwords with the browser on my iPhone. I tried to use Firefox (in response to this change) but I couldn't log in to any websites because all of my passwords are randomly-generated strong passwords stored in Keychain and Firefox refuses to use the Keychain.

pilsetnieks3• 7 years ago

I have some 5 or 6 browsers on my Mac, mostly for development purposes but for everyday web browsing, unless there's some special requirements, I still use Safari. It's the most convenient and efficient of Mac browsers, and the rest just feel a bit crufty and un-Mac-like.

bobbylarrybobby2• 7 years ago

Some people actually choose to use Safari from the plethora of available browsers. Low battery use, smooth scrolling, and utmost respect of system settings (e.g., Firefox will still use a blue accent color even if you set your system accent color to something else) are all reasons to consciously choose Safari over another browser.

sys_64738• 7 years ago

That is naughty. I haven't used Safari for a few years as I have Vivaldi always running. But this change is just not right.

Andrew_nenakhov• 7 years ago

I just stopped using both Safari and Chrome, ditched them for Firefox on all my devices. Also, I'm almost exclusively use Duckduckgo now for search.

Yes, Firefox does drain MBP battery, that's sad, but they promise to fix it.

fourthark• 7 years ago

I thought, "This article is based on a Hacker News comment." And it was.

chaostheory• 7 years ago

I use other browsers for general browsing. I only use safari for specific tasks like shopping at sites I’m already familiar with

st3fan• 7 years ago

Isn't this article incorrect? Apple changed the _distribution_ mechanism for Safari extensions, something they have been communicating for a year to developers. And many developers, like 1Blocker, have already moved on to the new extension packaging format and work just fine like they did.

What they have not done is cripple Safari's web extension capabilities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am sure developers can still use the exact same blocklists that they used before.

Same as documented on https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/cre...

Comparing this to what Chrome pulled is not fair - I think Chrome actually crippled ad blocker capabilities, while Apple only changed the format of a packaged extension.

Right?

danpalmer2• 7 years ago

Not quite. Safari extensions were, like other browsers, a package of JS that could mostly run as it liked in your tab. The new app extensions system is more generally applicable across the system, but more precise in what it allows. For example, it allows an app to provide a sharing target – so that other apps can share content to it.

The relevant thing that's provided here is a content blocking extension point. Unlike ad blockers providing a bundle of JS that may or may not block ads, record your browser history, etc, the content blocking extension point is a pull-based system. Safari asks the app for its list of content to block, then computes that into a fast lookup table of some sort, and never talks to the app during browsing. This means ad blocker app built with the app extensions API is more secure, more private, and in all likelihood, faster. Potential complexity is reduced, but that may be worth it.

Shank• 7 years ago

I've tried to switch to Safari about 10 different times, and each time some random different missing feature stopped me from being able to do it. It's got low market share relative to the other browsers and the most picky users are going to be those who weren't satisfied with it in the first place (like me).

Safari content blockers are okay, but not great, and 1Blocker didn't block nearly the amount of ads that were blocked by uBlock Origin on Firefox/Chrome, so I just decided to stay with Chrome/FF.

junkblocker2• 7 years ago

Maybe there aren't that many Safari users at all and the remaining just moved to Firefox/Chrome.

junkblocker2• 7 years ago

Really? That was downvote worthy?

mfer2• 7 years ago

Honest question....

Is the problem of content blockers using rule lists? Or, is the issue that Chrome proposes to limit the number of rules. Quickly looking at Safari there isn't this limit to the number of rules.

I understand change being a problem and maybe uBlock Origin can't work in the new Safari model. But, could a new project do just a well based on similar blocking ideas?

joeblau• 7 years ago

IIRC, the limit is 50k a list, but you can have unlimited lists. That is the difference between 1Blocker and 1Blocker X.

TingPing• 7 years ago

This is correct: https://trac.webkit.org/browser/webkit/trunk/Source/WebCore/...

hrunt2• 7 years ago

The article states that Safari does have a limit of 50,000 rules, and that this is less than Google's updated proposed limit of 120,000 rules that ad blockers have stated is too low.

I believe ad blockers like uBlock Origin also do some dynamic detection of behavior so that certain types of ad-serving that come from hosts you do not want to block. CBS Sports, for example, requires special handling -- in Google Chrome, accomplished by a separate extension for uBlock Origin -- to properly block ads on their site without destroying login and video functionality. This kind of blocking cannot be performed with host lists.

mackey• 7 years ago

Safari allows 50,000 rules per list and an extension can have unlimited lists. Google is doing "a global maximum of 150k rules" per extension.

https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ...

vatueil10• 7 years ago

According to the posted article, Apple limits the number of rules in Safari as well. Safari's limit is 50k.

Similarly, Chrome's initial proposal suggested a limit of 30k, which has since been revised upwards to 90k to 120k based on feedback.

scarface744• 7 years ago

The article is wrong. There is a 50K limit per list but you can have unlimited list. 1Blocker X does this.

cde-v• 7 years ago

Because Safari has no users.

xodice6• 7 years ago

Safari has tons of users, the majority being on mobile.

Safari has functioning content blocking.

What is the point of your comment?

submeta2• 7 years ago

I was using Safari every now and then, replaced it with Firefox not long ago. Now I won‘t use Safari at all.

sambe• 7 years ago

Where does "users didn't say a thing" come from? The version that really makes the difference was only released a few days ago... and there has been lots of news/criticism in tech circles about it.

toyg2• 7 years ago

This. I started Safari today for the first time in weeks, and I was greeted by a popup saying they’ve broken most of the extensions I have, including Bitwarden (!).

Well then, even less of an incentive to ever use Safari again. Already I started it only when I actually wanted to be tracked (with referral-generating sites like quidco and so on), now I’ll just never use it. And to think I even went to the trouble of building an extension for it, so many years ago....

Apple really, really hates the desktop these days.

satysin• 7 years ago

FYI there is a beta for a new Safari extension for Bitwarden you can use https://github.com/bitwarden/browser/issues/664

I have been using it for a week or so now and other than the known issues mentioned it works the same as before.

jen202• 7 years ago

I noticed this for the first time this morning - I hadn't heard about any changes ahead of time.

I accidentally used the web for about three minutes a few weeks ago without Ghostery installed, and the experience was quite miserable. It actually led me to finally buy a Raspberry Pi and put PiHole on my home network.

If Safari doesn't continue to support ad blocking for when I'm outside my home network ("Ghostery Lite" is in the App Store, but I haven't fully evaluated it yet), I will switch away from Safari as a primary browser - probably to Firefox.

I'm not sure I view this in the same light as a Google, however. There is a content-blocking API which seems to work OK, and Apple do not rely on privacy invasion for a substantial portion of their income.

bobbylarrybobby2• 7 years ago

Safari supports the same sort of ad blocking as a pi hole -- specifying a list of domains to block. This is available in so-called content blocking extensions.

jen202• 7 years ago

So far I haven't spotted a problem with Safari's new content blocking mechanism (using Ghostery Lite). I still prefer the PiHole because it applies to all devices without additional configuration.

Grustaf• 7 years ago

I don’t get it, is this separate from the native content blockers they introduced to big fanfare a few years back? If so, what’s the problem, why would we need two systems for blocking ads?

Bootwizard• 7 years ago

Who the hell uses Safari? And why? Google Chrome works perfectly on my Macbook. I don't see a reason to use anything else.

hombre_fatal4• 7 years ago

Here's a thread in this very comments section with some answers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21035826

pascoej• 7 years ago

The power efficiency of Safari is much better.

auslander• 7 years ago

Google is Skynet.

jorisw• 7 years ago

I use Safari because it is lightweight, fast, and imho, better looking (compact, minimalist) than Chrome.

It uses WebKit, like Chrome, so it renders pages the same, but I simply find the app much simpler, faster, and comfortable to use.

Give it a try some time.

villgax• 7 years ago

POWER EFFICIENCY is the only thing, also sync across devices is bonus.

runjake• 7 years ago

Because we saw it coming. Apple made no secret of it.

And when running uBlock Origin on Safari became untenable, I switched to Firefox full-time and its been great.

techslave• 7 years ago

because of the difficulty in policing extensions, this is decidedly a good thing.

that ad blocking and privacy tracking precision suffers is not great, but with safari’s cookie policy it makes up for it.

such a content blocker method doesn’t work for chrome because ghostery and the like won’t work. with safari it doesn’t matter as much (if at all) because the core browser handles this much better.

StreamBright• 7 years ago

One more reason to block everything at the DNS level.

untitled872• 7 years ago

Firefox or tor are the only good browsers left, that you can trust. Bromite for Android is amazing too, honestly the browsing experience because of the free high quality adblockers is so much better on Android compared to IOS. Nothing comes close t0 ublock origin. Safari on osx is like Windows Microsoft Edge or Android Chrome, they're both quite useful for downloading Firefox.

untitled872• 7 years ago

While "Power Users" make up a small amount of total users. (Something like only 20% of people use an adblocker). These power users have tremendous sway on the masses, they're the IT/tech savvy people setting things up for other people and people listen to them. I trust Gorhill and ublock origin a lot more than I trust Apple and whatever closed source shitty adblocker the put in Safari. At this point Chrome (run by an ad company, but chromium is open source)is looking better then Safari.

Apple neutered ad blockers in Safari, and users didn't say a thing

Related Stories