Filed under: Software, Internet Tools, Leopard
SafariBlock: More powerful ad blocking
Since its inception, Safari has been able to block pesky popup ads from clogging your display, but it's fallen short when it comes to blocking ads on a web page. Firefox, with its open plug-in architecture and enthusiastic community, has enjoyed an AdBlock add-on for some time which allows users to right-click an ad section and forever filter it from that page. But what's a programmer who prefers Safari to do? Why, write a plug-in that brings the same functionality to Apple's browser, of course! SafariBlock from FSB Software (click on SafariBlock in the sidebar; I can't link directly to it) aims to duplicate Firefox's AdBlock features by bringing the same right-click-to-filter functionality to remove ads from your browsing experience. A recent update even brought compatibility for Safari 3 beta users so everyone can give it a whirl.It should be noted, however, that SafariBlock functions as an InputManager. The specifics of what that means aren't really necessary to delve into right now, but as far as I know, the rumor is still that Mac OS X Leopard will remove support for plug-ins that run as InputManagers when it's released (hopefully) in October. What this means for the future of plug-ins like SafariBlock is still unsure, but it seemed worthy of mentioning.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
derek said 1:33PM on 7-14-2007
I know this is convenient for users, but most site's only revenue is from ads. So make sure to support the developers!
Reply
Anon said 1:56PM on 7-14-2007
Instead of finding a plugin for every browser just install Privoxy (http://www.privoxy.org). Install and run it then put the details into your system-wide proxy settings and every app that obeys the proxy settings will benefit, not just browsers.
It's free, open-source, and far more powerful than these adblock style plugins.
Reply
Klaus said 2:00PM on 7-14-2007
Yes, please remember that for some/many sites, their only chance of income is trough banners. So use plugin this wisely :)
Reply
Darren said 2:18PM on 7-14-2007
Unfortunately, Privoxy has no UI, which makes it a pain in the ass to configure exceptions for specific sites on the fly.
Someone should really write a Privoxy UI plugin for Safari.
Reply
Jacqui said 2:35PM on 7-14-2007
I'm very surprised that you guys would advocate ad blocking here, considering that that's how your site makes money and you guys get paid.
Reply
leaded said 2:39PM on 7-14-2007
Is there any filter that will use the EasyList subcription that AdBlock uses? I would love to just import the same block list without having to re-format it. Is that what SafariBlock does?
Reply
Explorer said 2:51PM on 7-14-2007
What does an ad_blocking.css actually do?
Reply
Luigi193 said 3:20PM on 7-14-2007
Yeah really. Doesn't make sence from a buisness standpoint...but thanks, works awesome!
Reply
John Rieffel said 3:21PM on 7-14-2007
I use the ad-blocking userContent.css provided by mozilla - it works great with Safari - (easy to find -- google it) - i find it gets rid of the vast majority of unwanted banner ads, and improves page load times to boot.
Reply
Dave Barnes said 4:11PM on 7-14-2007
AdBlock Plus https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865 is much better than AdBlock.
AdBlock has not been updated in over a year and ABP was last updated in May 2007.
Reply
Jeremy said 4:37PM on 7-14-2007
Ad revenue is all well and good, and I don't mind ads on sites -- but when the ads are animated and/or Flash that make it difficult to actually read the page, that's where the line is drawn. Then they get blocked with extreme prejudice. This very page has a Flash ad on it. No way, no how am I going to put up with that; it dies.
Reply
Buckingham said 4:59PM on 7-14-2007
Looks like another spyware. Tcpdump is reporting access to some suspicious website. No surprise--the developer's other programs are for hacking.
Reply
Rubbinz said 5:21PM on 7-14-2007
Adblock Plus in Firefox is much more powerful than right-clicking on an ad. It brings you the ability to subscribe to a list of known ad-serving hosts based on location. While allowing to to ad custom URL's to your list. For Windows users, blocking ads is their first layer of defense and security on the web. It's the biggest open door to the system.
Reply
martin said 5:30PM on 7-14-2007
I prefer the usercontent.css trick: http://www.floppymoose.com/
It works pretty well, I rarely see any ads. It doesn't have the nice feature of being able to right-click and block something but I live without it.
Reply
Billy K said 5:48PM on 7-14-2007
Pith Helmet anyone? Works like a charm.
Reply
derekhardwick said 6:48PM on 7-14-2007
Bah. Everytime someone mentions AdBlock, someone else says "you're destroying the internet!"
I've never clicked on an ad intentionally. Never. I've clicked on a few unintentionally, and immidiately got pissed at myself (or the adcompany or website, if appropriate). Screw ads.
I sympathize with someone trying to make money, but what I let on my screen is my business. People who use ABP know exactly what they're doing. We don't defend someone who uses other annoyances (spyware, telemarketers, spam, etc) to make money!
Reply
Jacqui said 7:18PM on 7-14-2007
derekhardwick - Except that you actually (hopefully) enjoy the content here and at other sites that are ad-supported, unlike the content that comes through spam. Without the support of ads, these sites can't exist at all and you wouldn't be able to get your news, period.
And while ads are paid by click for little guys, ads for big sites like TUAW and other sites that you no doubt read are paid by view. A large contingency of ad blockers means that the site is paying high bandwidth and overhead costs (to writers) just to generate content that they are getting no compensation for. It's basically putting them in the hole to serve that supposedly valuable content to you. If you value it that much, then you should let them make the money per ad view that requires absolutely zero effort on your part to generate for them.
Reply
David Chartier said 9:06PM on 7-14-2007
Frankly, the number of users who go to all the trouble to block ads isn't that much to worry about. Further, they're typically the users who already aren't looking at or clicking on ads anyway, so we probably gain more in traffic and ad views by publishing stuff like this vs sweeping it under the rug.
Reply
derekhardwick said 12:58AM on 7-15-2007
Jacqui - But ads certainly can be (and often are) just as annoying to me as spam. Installing adblock (especially on windows pcs) could even be a security feature, as it prevents people from clicking through to a possibly unsafe website.
A site's business model is their business, not mine. A long history of irresponsible websites have led a large group of people to say "yep, not worth it for me to view these". If TUAW wants to switch to a pre-paid registration system, and can make good money at it and keep viewers, than great for them.
If I want to view the web with ads, without ads, without images, from lynx, or read aloud to me from text-to-speech, that's my business :) View the web you want!
Reply
Bob S. said 1:10AM on 7-15-2007
Hosts files, people! I use Privoxy, but every ad server and tracking site I've found is still in my hosts file, pointing to good old 127.0.0.1. And I add every new site I find; the string sudo pico /etc/hosts rolls right off my fingers. If you're OK with a swat at this fly, one method's sufficient, but two or more methods is really necessary if you're the least bit serious.
Reply