This is a question that for some is easy to answer and for others may not be as easy to answer. So all input could help other people find and make a more knowledgeable choice and one that helps them towards their privacy goals.

    • Vignesh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Extensions only work with Safari on iOS/iPadOS. To use a content blocker with Firefox, it’s better to use Firefox Focus. DDG browser is fine too. I do still say use Safari with a content blocker like Wipr/Adgurad/Ublock lite etc.

  • plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Some surveillance tools use DNS queries for tracking. Until this can block that, too, having a DNS-based blocker will be crucial for privacy protection.

  • Vignesh@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    For now ublock lite doesn’t have the feature parity with Adguard.

    Wipr 2’s developer is planning to use Apple’s introduction of URL filtering with their OS 26 releases, which will extend Wipr’s blocking to all apps on our device. It acts at the network level, but it can access none of our data. https://kaylees.site/wipr-filtr.html

    Pretty sure other content blocker developers will jump on it too.

  • int32@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    aren’t both bad? I don’t know adguard but already ublock origin didn’t have enough options to unbreak websites, it was either on or off, so lite… now I just use uMatrix and adjust the settings for each site.

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      What are you talking about? With uBlock Origin you can customize the block lists, change it per site, and easily select your own elements to block…

      • int32@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        with umatrix you have a table of each domain this site is using and can toggle, for each of them, javascript, xhr, media, images and other stuff. of course, uMatrix is not an ad blocker but tracking blocker, so you can’t block html elements.

  • wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Is anyone able to *configure* it? I was able to get it enabled in safari but otherwise I can’t seem to find any options or the ability to select blocklists or anything.

  • ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    I tested this out on my partners phone

    UBlock on iphone works well and is free but is limited to safari, does not appear to even work with safari used as an in-app browser (eg using a mobile lemmy app and clicking a link that opens but stays in the app, not switching to a safari and opening a new tab). In some cases it is more effective at blocking ads

    AdGuard is more intrusive. Instead of just an extension for safari it also installs a vpn profile. The advantage is that this allows it to act as a dns filter for the phone. This means it works in all apps to some degree, though several work around it. Costs $5/yr

    Depends on your use case I suppose

    • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      UBlock on iphone works well and is free but is limited to safari, does not appear to even work with safari used as an in-app browser

      This is the most annoying part about “content blockers” on iOS. Works fine in this one narrow context. Otherwise you need DNS filtering. I use PiHole, and I have it set up to VPN back home when I’m away to keep myself covered.

      • AtariDump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I use PiHole, and I have it set up to VPN back home when I’m away to keep myself covered.

        I don’t remember posting this, but it sounds like me.

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      On Chrome, UBO relies heavily a particular feature that is no longer available in the latest version. Google didn’t manage to get rid of UBO completely, because UBO lite was developed in response.

      Regardless, you can still run full UBO in a desktop Firefox. That didn’t change at all when Google started messing around with Manifest V3. Since UBOL exists now, the devs probably thought it might be light enough to run on iOS too.

        • chaos@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Safari on iOS has always had some pretty strict limits on what extensions can do. For example, content blockers don’t get to run code on the pages you browse, it’s more like they give the browser a list of what type of thing to block when you install and configure it, then when you’re browsing, the extension isn’t even doing anything, it’s just the browser using the list. Obviously that’s more limiting, there might be ads that are best dealt with by running a bit of code, so it makes sense that they’d consider it “lite”. (The benefit of those limits is that ad blocking extensions can’t run amok and kill your phone’s battery since the browser’s handling it by itself.)

        • porcupine@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          It’s not named a certain way just based on the browser it’s on, it’s named to reflect the features it has. The “lite” version isn’t as flexible because it was built to work on browsers that restrict the features of the full version. Given how restrictive mobile browsers are generally, on iOS in particular, I’m surprised the developer even got the lite version working.