Might worth getting recommended instead of AdGuard in the future?
5 Likes
worth recommending of course, Let me know when that comes out, the page will soon be just uBlock Origin and Origin Lite heh
Added waiting tag since itās currently in beta. Once in stable I see no reason why the existing uBlock Origin Lite recommendation shouldnāt extend to all supported browsers.
Whether the existing AdGuard recommendation should be removed is arguably the bigger question here.
2 Likes
Nice to see Safari getting a good content blocker
is this on desktop? mobile prob just has this
On mobile. Adguard is PGās current recommendation for iOS, and HyperWeb comparitively seems to have a less established track record.
Adguard Pro has been really solid for me on iOS.
Iād prefer uBlock Origin if it were possible, but since it isnāt possible, Iām happy enough with Adguard. I wonder how uBO Lite will compare. I have only very limited experience with Lite, so Iām not fully aware of its limitations, nor how iOSes own limitations might impact it (or not).
If/when it is released, Iāll be excited to try it out.
1 Like
Hyperweb does not seem to be available for all countries
1 Like
Thats very exiting! Iād love ublock for iOS. I always try to use firefox + ublock origin but on iPhone I am stuck with safari (no real third party browser with a different engine available despite the eu rules) where I sadly canāt use ublock origin. I used adguard in the past but the russia topic kind of made me lose trust. Since then I use Firefox focus, which is not as good but still better than nothing.
Small but meaningful (pedantic) clarification: āuBlockā =/= āuBlock Originā (uBO) =/= āuBlock Origin Liteā (uBOL)
The latter two come from the same developer/project, and the former is unaffiliated.
uBlock Origin Lite (uBOL) is a more feature and capability limited version of uBO that was made to work within Googleās new MV3 limitations for Chrome. What is being worked on currently is being called a āminimally working uBOLā for iOS so donāt expect the full uBO experience or featureset.
Still itās positive news, some uBO(L) for iOS is better than no uBO for iOS 
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification, did not know that! I am curious how this āminimally working uBOLā compares to firefox focus
TIme will tell I guess. I think uBOL is probably more capable than Firefox Focusās content blocking on its own, but I donāt know what Gorhill (uBO/L developer) means by āminimally workingā and I donāt know what iOS specific limitations might further limit uBOL beyond its existing limitations.
There is already a signed MacOS version! Safari issues to resolve for a minimally working uBOL Ā· Issue #327 Ā· uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home Ā· GitHub
Iām wondering whether the AdGuard extension is more performant since it uses Safariās content blocker API. It also doesnāt need the developer to update their extension just to update filterlists.
1 Like
Why not just use Brave ?
Not sure if this question is meant for @securitybrahh or me (Since you quoted them, but replied to my comment) but my answer would be:
Because I couldnāt find a good answer to the inverse question: āWhy not just use Safari?ā
I did initially try Brave, and do have it installed, but I couldnāt find any comparative advantages to Brave iOS over Safrai. I thought it might have more sophisticated adblocking but its not meaningfully better, I thought it might have better blocking for PWAs but it doesnāt, that is an iOS limitation. Basically I didnāt find anything especially wrong with Brave on iOS, but I also couldnāt find any reason to prefer it to Safari + Adguard.
The answer was for @securitybrahh because I didnāt see the need for this custom browser that may not be trustworthy.
But there are still concerns about Safari data collection
1 Like
In that case I agree with you, Brave (or Safari + Adguard) makes more sense than a rather unknown browser with an adblocker.
But there are still concerns about Safari
data collectionwanting thecoarse locationpermission Surfshark Blogpost
The only reference I see to Safari in that article mentions that it asks for the coarse location permission on iOS which is just an app permission, and isnāt totally unreasonable for a browser, it doesnāt indicate ādata collectionā though it could be used for that purpose.
Still, Iād agree itās a permission to be aware of, and possibly disable. And because itās just an app permission, itās in your control whether you want that permission enabled or not.
But realistically, if you are using an iPhone you are already choosing to trust Apple to responsibly handle location data on your device, regardless of your browser choice or whether that browser is granted access to location information. Because irrespective of the browser you choose or the permissions you give it, you must trust the OS and hardware which is in a much more privileged position wrt location data than the browser is. If Apple intended to do nefarious things with your location data, they wouldnāt need to use the browser to do so.
Why a browser would want access to location info?
I personally prefer my browser to not be location aware unless I explicitly allow it (beyond what can be inferred from IP). but I can understand why mainstream browser makers catering to mainstream users (whose search queries often look like: āweatherā or āmovie timesā or āCafe near meā) ask for the location permission. Even for us in the privacy space, there are valid reasons we might want to allow the browser location access to location info (e.g. if you use Google Maps in the browser or Uberās webapp instead of the mobile app as harm reduction strategies). With that said I still feel it would be better if it was opt-in and an explicit choice (maybe it was, I donāt actually recall).
1 Like
/+ Safari is native to IOS.
1 Like
It is now notarised and available, but not yet full stable release Release uBOLite_2025.5.7.895-beta Ā· uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home Ā· GitHub
BTW: uBlock origin Lite is back on Firefox for real this time
1 Like