Firefox for iOS includes an optional ad blocker that can help reduce unwanted advertising while you browse. It uses a filter list based on EasyList to block many ads before they load.
Ad blocking is turned off by default, so you can choose whether to enable it.
How does everyone feel about Firefox blocking ads by default? Historically, it's only the third party browser forks that ship with native adblock.
From a marketing/feature perspective, I think Firefox taking the privacy route is best for them. However, It does seem fairly opinionated. In the end, I don't have an issue. But it does impact a lot of creators who use ads as monetization.
Edit: I completely missed that it's off by default. Although, I'm still interested in others thoughts about it.
Even more historically, online ads were typically pop-up windows, and browsers started shipping features to block them by default. We don't question a web site being unable to open a big ad in your face and take over your screen, but it used to be typical. We should expect modern popovers and banners to be the same.
I find it annoying that browser vendors had a decades-long period of being hands-off on that front. Ads are often malware or spyware on a technological level, and are malware for your brain to begin with.
The more hostile users and browsers are to ads, the better. I fully welcome more of this. Even, and especially, as a default setting. I understand it will have some impacts but I think that's a necessary reckoning society and the internet need to have. I would still recommend the use of standalone ad-blocking extension or tools to avoid the "exceptions" built-in ones like to make for their own search engine results and whatnot. Choose a fully-functional one rather than one that has been purposely corrupted. That said, on iOS, Firefox doesn't support extensions (though it could if Mozilla wanted to, and alternatives on iOS do), so at least this is one way to get ad-blocking features in that browser
Really the reckoning should be about advertising as a whole (including things like billboards, TV ad breaks, etc) as a business model and how we've let this mind poison be a primary form of subsidizing (and a maliciously acting one) of entire industries along with being a massive source of visual pollution. But the internet is a more pressing medium given how ads in that medium are far more actively dangerous (malware, spyware, making the web nearly visually impossible to ingest) than a mostly-inert (by comparison) billboard.
I personally feel that advertising in most of its forms is a type of attention theft, manipulation, and imposing force that feels like a form of psychological attack. I'm not even saying I have all the answers, but I am willing to support a future in which society becomes as adversarial as possible towards most forms of advertising (I say most, because I can see types of exceptions to be carved out or lines to draw about what does and doesn't constitute advertising)
Interesting. On Android, I explicitly use Firefox because it supports extensions.
I'll just throw in: what you're saying is why I don't buy into the "adblock is piracy" narrative. It's not my fault they (anyone supported by ads) decided to make their income off of the cancer of the internet. Regardless, the implication is that I should feel bad for having an adblocker. I don't. I have the right to modify my system how I want, and I choose to exercise that right by not downloading ads.
It's also why I switched to Firefox. Chrome changing to Manifest v3 was so insulting, it's not even worth working around it.
Mildly related, but I'm still really hoping Ladybird works out. I've been following the dev logs every month, and it seems promising.
I feel that there’s more to this issue. I remember the main criticism towards Apple is their strict requirements for browsers:
Apple requires all developers to make use of their WebKit browser engine which is the same engine used by safari. Their argument is that this preserves the functionality and safety of their devices.
The issue is that they’re in complete control of the engine, eliminating any competition. Ask any public servant, on any side or country what this means, and they’ll have no idea why this is bad for the end user.
So, getting back on the topic of extensions, I’d argue that these requirements may be part of the reason for lack of support.
Agreed, we should always have full control of what is able to render or be received in our browser software/OS and modify our system to affect that in any way we choose. Sites / platforms / etc are free to modify their behavior in response to that, of course, and so be it, but we should always have that option and any effort to control that I view as hostile. I can and do make compromises and use restrictive platforms from time to time, but I do so knowingly and begrudgingly
Yeah, more than likely the original reason it didn't support extensions was probably born out of how restrictive Apple has been on alternative browsers on iOS or something like that (I can't remember so I'm just speculating, I don't know for sure), but some browsers have been able to successfully build their iOS apps with extension support regardless, so it is possible, but I don't know if there's some compromise in the process Firefox has been unwilling to make.
Agreed about MV3. It was gross. I did permanently move to Firefox (and now, forks) and discontinued use of nearly all chromium-based browsers (except in rare circumstances) after the manifest v3 announcement and the slow rotting of that browser and company (and also my active choice to de-Google my life in a number of ways)
Separately, I won't go into it here, but I unfortunately don't support Ladybird personally because of the politics/behavior of some of the people behind it (this has been written about by Drew Devault among others if anyone wants to search and come to their own conclusions, it's not really something I want to spend energy to discuss on this forum). There are a number of browser and OS projects run by individuals fairly extremely at odds with my values and political stances (and unfortunately, some companies end up funding those individuals' efforts- some of which are companies that I otherwise think make good products, sadly). I also understand people draw their lines about these things differently, and we all make some level of compromise to some degree with our consumption of any products or services. But I'm probably more personally strict than others, mostly in places where the things I find iffy are easy to avoid / elective in the first place (and aren't a genuine need)
Beat me to it. I just posted a comment about this. It’s nefarious at best and that’s a compliment to their awful requirements.
I did hear of the ladybird project and, morals aside, I never got a good impression on the team; this is mainly related to them primarily focusing on Apple tools to build the product. Didn’t think I’d see someone mention Drew.
Somehow, browsers like Orion have found a way to allow extensions even on iOS, despite Apple's engine restrictions. I'm not sure what they've had to do to work around the restrictions (or if the WebKit requirement is even a "block" to having extensions), but it appears to be possible to do.
Safari itself has extensions on iOS. I have an ad blocker installed, and I years ago had one that killed Google's AMP links. (It's still installed, but I don't even know if AMP still exists.)
They have some limitations, and have to be installed via an app bundle, but they do exist as a first party feature.
It's not my fault they (anyone supported by ads) decided to make their income off of the cancer of the internet. Regardless, the implication is that I should feel bad for having an adblocker.
I think you are reading too much into “Adblock is piracy”. Website hosts are free to exchange their content with you using any sort of financial arrangement. Most just happen to exchange it for showing crappy ads. If you bypass that transaction, that is piracy. The Adblock is piracy statement doesn’t say anything about Adblock being wrong or that you should feel bad. But let’s acknowledge that it is, indeed, piracy.
Let’s say movie came out and, in order to see it, they required all moviegoers to cut off their left toe and send it to the studio. If you downloaded it and watched it without sending your left toe, that would be piracy. But pirating that movie wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. I would be downloading it just like you would be.
I run Adblock on all of my devices, and set them up for my family. I am a pirate, and I don’t feel bad. 🏴☠️
Potentially. And you're probably right. It just feels like an argument of semantics. Like, I understand the argument of why it's piracy and I don't disagree. But if that's all there is to it, then what's the point of even making the statement? I think a more interesting topic is the question: "is piracy wrong?". I'd need to look into its history more to really understand, but I have a hunch there's some nuance there!
I think the catalyst for this conversation though is that a lot of times when someone emphasizes the point that "it is piracy", it comes pre-loaded with a moral/ethical judgement (it's loaded with the assumption that piracy is bad or some kind of unethical activity) and that is often the reason someone makes that point in the first place. There's often an implication that specifically because it is piracy, people shouldn't do it. It often feels like the entire motive for most people that bother needing to define adblock as a form of piracy. Even if it's semantically correct it's erroneous to leap from that to an ethical imperative like some do
If there is no ethical component to the argument then I agree with the parent that then it's just essentially a meaningless discussion of semantics and a more meaningful discussion is about piracy itself and dismantling the assumptions about the ethics around it (and the irrelevance of whether something constitutes piracy or not ultimately doesn't matter to that conversation)
(That doesn't mean I am interested necessarily in having that meaningful conversation here as I am fully fine with adblock and the high seas also and such a discussion isn't useful to me, just making meta commentary on the discussion)
Despite being a user of adblocking myself (and would generally endorse it for others), I'm split on whether it should be on or off by default.
On the one hand, ads are predatory and excessive to an extent that, especially for those less internet-savvy, it makes sense to provide some layer of default protection.
Looking at it from a purely technological perspective however, a browser's job is to fetch web resources and present them to the user, not to make opinionated choices about how to do so. If we forget momentarily that these are ads, the idea that I would download a web browser, navigate to a page, and the browser would just not show certain parts of that page seems concerning.
Having the option is great, and even as a default is arguably more good than harm, but I get nervous whenever communication tools start taking too active a role in manipulating the content being shared.
Looks like this hasn't rolled out on the app store yet in the UK so I haven't been able to try it out.
I'm curious how the adblocking compares to the Orion browser's adblocking. Can anyone who has access to the latest version of Firefox on iOS compare them?
I just installed Firefox out of curiosity and I’m surprised by how nice the UX feels compared to Orion. If the ad blocker is comparable, I’m absolutely going to switch to Firefox.
Unfortunately I still haven't been able to get access to Firefox's adblock on iOS. However I did some research into the adblock offerings on other popular iOS browsers and, based on what's reported, I think that Firefox will have the weakest adblock offering.
On Safari you can use the full ublock origin lite extension by installing it separately via the app store. This gives you access to all of the default lists and the option to add other third party lists. When using Safari you have access to the ublock origin extension UI to control blocking on a site-by-site basis and tweak settings. Ad blocking on YouTube works. The ublock origin UI in Safari allows you to select and block elements on the screen. I've not seen anything like this on iOS before.
On Orion the offering is very similar to the ublock origin lite extension with built in lists and the option to add third party lists. That said, my experience blocking adverts on YouTube isn't as clean. Also the website controls are a simple on/off for content blockers. That said I've been using Orion for ages and I'm generally happy with the ad blocking.
I wouldn't be surprised if Firefox starts off with just the default adblock list but addd in better controls to match Orion down the line.
Unfortunately it appears as though the feature has not rolled out to my device yet but to see if I had it, I downloaded Firefox and I’m pretty impressed with how pleasant the experience is. I don’t recall the reason for just going back to Safari on my phone but I think I’ll stick with Firefox going forward. Native search engine customization means I can use Kagi without a weird extension. And upcoming built-in ad-block will let me get rid of another one.
I’m a big Firefox guy on all my computers. I really wish I remembered the reason I switched. Probably to try Orion and then ended up back on Safari.
How is the experience using Firefox (or any alternative browser) on iOS? I feel like there's some cookie sharing between the web views in apps and the main browser, which can be either good or bad depending on context. Also, it used to be that alternative browsers were forced to use the Safari rendering engine anyhow, so I didn't see much reason to switch -- is that still true? (I guess I could DDG it, but I figured I'd ask you since I'm more curious about the experience than the technical details).
So I only recently switched to iOS but Firefox has been working fine. It is just a reskin of the Safari browser more or less but I haven’t run into many issues (yet) in my limited testing.
I did just enable the adblocking and tested it out on mlb.com. It’s a night and day difference. I can’t believe how unusable that site is in safari, but then Firefox made it an actual usable and fluid website.
I have the AdGuard extension installed and opened the website in Safari and it is just fine. While I would probably trust Firefox's adblock more than AdGuard, you can still block ads in Safari. That said, Apple claims that their extension design does prevent the extension from knowing your browsing history.
Still not available for me, my last update was 6 days ago to 153.3 (75262) and I'm in North America.
I feel like a lot of people including the big advertising companies have forgotten the three main reasons we started this ad-blocking war:
Ads are a vector for malware/bloatware/scareware/scamware. This was as true in 1998 when they were already getting bad through to today. I keep seeing fairly disgusting ads in the YouTube app that try to convince me that my iOS settings or my storage are in need of service. It's 2026, clearly this tactic is still paying off if I'm seeing it.
Too many ad platforms allow ads to very disrespectfully block or interrupt the content until you engage with the advertising. I did not come to this news website to have my access to an article about a local emergency blocked by your ad for a fucking vacuum cleaner (this happened to me in 2003 and was when I went absolutely scorched earth on ads, which I had previously tolerated as "the cost of a free website")
And of course we can't oversell the surveillance state tracking that goes into these things. Yes my phone itself is a beacon in the network and tells Apple everything they could ever want to know about me, but Apple is a large corporation and a singular target we can fight with laws. Advertisers and databrokers are smaller targets that are more nebulous, and adblocking and privacy enhancing makes their jobs more difficult and frustrates them more, and that's a good thing.
If ads weren't sleazy, were respectful, and weren't a vector to selling all of my personal information I'd be okay with them. But they aren't so I'm not.
[OP] kfwyre | a day ago
kmcgurty1 | a day ago
How does everyone feel about Firefox blocking ads by default? Historically, it's only the third party browser forks that ship with native adblock.
From a marketing/feature perspective, I think Firefox taking the privacy route is best for them. However, It does seem fairly opinionated. In the end, I don't have an issue. But it does impact a lot of creators who use ads as monetization.
Edit: I completely missed that it's off by default. Although, I'm still interested in others thoughts about it.
Oxalis | 22 hours ago
It's worth noting that it only blocks ads that are not in search engine results since that's still part of Mozilla's profit engine.
At this point, I'd rather just continue to use ublock origin lite in iOS safari and have no secret whitelists powered by backroom agreements.
redwall_hp | 21 hours ago
Even more historically, online ads were typically pop-up windows, and browsers started shipping features to block them by default. We don't question a web site being unable to open a big ad in your face and take over your screen, but it used to be typical. We should expect modern popovers and banners to be the same.
I find it annoying that browser vendors had a decades-long period of being hands-off on that front. Ads are often malware or spyware on a technological level, and are malware for your brain to begin with.
0x29A | 21 hours ago
The more hostile users and browsers are to ads, the better. I fully welcome more of this. Even, and especially, as a default setting. I understand it will have some impacts but I think that's a necessary reckoning society and the internet need to have. I would still recommend the use of standalone ad-blocking extension or tools to avoid the "exceptions" built-in ones like to make for their own search engine results and whatnot. Choose a fully-functional one rather than one that has been purposely corrupted. That said, on iOS, Firefox doesn't support extensions (though it could if Mozilla wanted to, and alternatives on iOS do), so at least this is one way to get ad-blocking features in that browser
Really the reckoning should be about advertising as a whole (including things like billboards, TV ad breaks, etc) as a business model and how we've let this mind poison be a primary form of subsidizing (and a maliciously acting one) of entire industries along with being a massive source of visual pollution. But the internet is a more pressing medium given how ads in that medium are far more actively dangerous (malware, spyware, making the web nearly visually impossible to ingest) than a mostly-inert (by comparison) billboard.
I personally feel that advertising in most of its forms is a type of attention theft, manipulation, and imposing force that feels like a form of psychological attack. I'm not even saying I have all the answers, but I am willing to support a future in which society becomes as adversarial as possible towards most forms of advertising (I say most, because I can see types of exceptions to be carved out or lines to draw about what does and doesn't constitute advertising)
kmcgurty1 | 20 hours ago
Interesting. On Android, I explicitly use Firefox because it supports extensions.
I'll just throw in: what you're saying is why I don't buy into the "adblock is piracy" narrative. It's not my fault they (anyone supported by ads) decided to make their income off of the cancer of the internet. Regardless, the implication is that I should feel bad for having an adblocker. I don't. I have the right to modify my system how I want, and I choose to exercise that right by not downloading ads.
It's also why I switched to Firefox. Chrome changing to Manifest v3 was so insulting, it's not even worth working around it.
Mildly related, but I'm still really hoping Ladybird works out. I've been following the dev logs every month, and it seems promising.
sneakeyboard | 19 hours ago
I feel that there’s more to this issue. I remember the main criticism towards Apple is their strict requirements for browsers:
Apple requires all developers to make use of their WebKit browser engine which is the same engine used by safari. Their argument is that this preserves the functionality and safety of their devices.
The issue is that they’re in complete control of the engine, eliminating any competition. Ask any public servant, on any side or country what this means, and they’ll have no idea why this is bad for the end user.
So, getting back on the topic of extensions, I’d argue that these requirements may be part of the reason for lack of support.
0x29A | 20 hours ago
Agreed, we should always have full control of what is able to render or be received in our browser software/OS and modify our system to affect that in any way we choose. Sites / platforms / etc are free to modify their behavior in response to that, of course, and so be it, but we should always have that option and any effort to control that I view as hostile. I can and do make compromises and use restrictive platforms from time to time, but I do so knowingly and begrudgingly
Yeah, more than likely the original reason it didn't support extensions was probably born out of how restrictive Apple has been on alternative browsers on iOS or something like that (I can't remember so I'm just speculating, I don't know for sure), but some browsers have been able to successfully build their iOS apps with extension support regardless, so it is possible, but I don't know if there's some compromise in the process Firefox has been unwilling to make.
Agreed about MV3. It was gross. I did permanently move to Firefox (and now, forks) and discontinued use of nearly all chromium-based browsers (except in rare circumstances) after the manifest v3 announcement and the slow rotting of that browser and company (and also my active choice to de-Google my life in a number of ways)
Separately, I won't go into it here, but I unfortunately don't support Ladybird personally because of the politics/behavior of some of the people behind it (this has been written about by Drew Devault among others if anyone wants to search and come to their own conclusions, it's not really something I want to spend energy to discuss on this forum). There are a number of browser and OS projects run by individuals fairly extremely at odds with my values and political stances (and unfortunately, some companies end up funding those individuals' efforts- some of which are companies that I otherwise think make good products, sadly). I also understand people draw their lines about these things differently, and we all make some level of compromise to some degree with our consumption of any products or services. But I'm probably more personally strict than others, mostly in places where the things I find iffy are easy to avoid / elective in the first place (and aren't a genuine need)
sneakeyboard | 19 hours ago
Beat me to it. I just posted a comment about this. It’s nefarious at best and that’s a compliment to their awful requirements.
I did hear of the ladybird project and, morals aside, I never got a good impression on the team; this is mainly related to them primarily focusing on Apple tools to build the product. Didn’t think I’d see someone mention Drew.
Akir | 20 hours ago
In iOS every browser is forced to use WebKit as its rendering engine, which makes them all essentially wrappers around Safari.
Except in the EU, where lawmakers actually care about people and the concepts of freedom.
I’m not sure if Mozilla has an EU Gecko Firefox, but it would be nice if they did and it had feature parity with the Android version.
Edit: I looked it up and it looks like people are working on it but there’s no release date.
0x29A | 19 hours ago
Somehow, browsers like Orion have found a way to allow extensions even on iOS, despite Apple's engine restrictions. I'm not sure what they've had to do to work around the restrictions (or if the WebKit requirement is even a "block" to having extensions), but it appears to be possible to do.
redwall_hp | 32 minutes ago
Safari itself has extensions on iOS. I have an ad blocker installed, and I years ago had one that killed Google's AMP links. (It's still installed, but I don't even know if AMP still exists.)
They have some limitations, and have to be installed via an app bundle, but they do exist as a first party feature.
Weldawadyathink | 2 hours ago
I think you are reading too much into “Adblock is piracy”. Website hosts are free to exchange their content with you using any sort of financial arrangement. Most just happen to exchange it for showing crappy ads. If you bypass that transaction, that is piracy. The Adblock is piracy statement doesn’t say anything about Adblock being wrong or that you should feel bad. But let’s acknowledge that it is, indeed, piracy.
Let’s say movie came out and, in order to see it, they required all moviegoers to cut off their left toe and send it to the studio. If you downloaded it and watched it without sending your left toe, that would be piracy. But pirating that movie wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. I would be downloading it just like you would be.
I run Adblock on all of my devices, and set them up for my family. I am a pirate, and I don’t feel bad. 🏴☠️
kmcgurty1 | 2 hours ago
Potentially. And you're probably right. It just feels like an argument of semantics. Like, I understand the argument of why it's piracy and I don't disagree. But if that's all there is to it, then what's the point of even making the statement? I think a more interesting topic is the question: "is piracy wrong?". I'd need to look into its history more to really understand, but I have a hunch there's some nuance there!
0x29A | an hour ago
I think the catalyst for this conversation though is that a lot of times when someone emphasizes the point that "it is piracy", it comes pre-loaded with a moral/ethical judgement (it's loaded with the assumption that piracy is bad or some kind of unethical activity) and that is often the reason someone makes that point in the first place. There's often an implication that specifically because it is piracy, people shouldn't do it. It often feels like the entire motive for most people that bother needing to define adblock as a form of piracy. Even if it's semantically correct it's erroneous to leap from that to an ethical imperative like some do
If there is no ethical component to the argument then I agree with the parent that then it's just essentially a meaningless discussion of semantics and a more meaningful discussion is about piracy itself and dismantling the assumptions about the ethics around it (and the irrelevance of whether something constitutes piracy or not ultimately doesn't matter to that conversation)
(That doesn't mean I am interested necessarily in having that meaningful conversation here as I am fully fine with adblock and the high seas also and such a discussion isn't useful to me, just making meta commentary on the discussion)
scarecrw | 41 minutes ago
Despite being a user of adblocking myself (and would generally endorse it for others), I'm split on whether it should be on or off by default.
On the one hand, ads are predatory and excessive to an extent that, especially for those less internet-savvy, it makes sense to provide some layer of default protection.
Looking at it from a purely technological perspective however, a browser's job is to fetch web resources and present them to the user, not to make opinionated choices about how to do so. If we forget momentarily that these are ads, the idea that I would download a web browser, navigate to a page, and the browser would just not show certain parts of that page seems concerning.
Having the option is great, and even as a default is arguably more good than harm, but I get nervous whenever communication tools start taking too active a role in manipulating the content being shared.
Venko | a day ago
Looks like this hasn't rolled out on the app store yet in the UK so I haven't been able to try it out.
I'm curious how the adblocking compares to the Orion browser's adblocking. Can anyone who has access to the latest version of Firefox on iOS compare them?
ogre | 22 hours ago
I just installed Firefox out of curiosity and I’m surprised by how nice the UX feels compared to Orion. If the ad blocker is comparable, I’m absolutely going to switch to Firefox.
Venko | 5 hours ago
Unfortunately I still haven't been able to get access to Firefox's adblock on iOS. However I did some research into the adblock offerings on other popular iOS browsers and, based on what's reported, I think that Firefox will have the weakest adblock offering.
On Safari you can use the full ublock origin lite extension by installing it separately via the app store. This gives you access to all of the default lists and the option to add other third party lists. When using Safari you have access to the ublock origin extension UI to control blocking on a site-by-site basis and tweak settings. Ad blocking on YouTube works. The ublock origin UI in Safari allows you to select and block elements on the screen. I've not seen anything like this on iOS before.
On Orion the offering is very similar to the ublock origin lite extension with built in lists and the option to add third party lists. That said, my experience blocking adverts on YouTube isn't as clean. Also the website controls are a simple on/off for content blockers. That said I've been using Orion for ages and I'm generally happy with the ad blocking.
I wouldn't be surprised if Firefox starts off with just the default adblock list but addd in better controls to match Orion down the line.
jonah | 21 hours ago
Unfortunately it appears as though the feature has not rolled out to my device yet but to see if I had it, I downloaded Firefox and I’m pretty impressed with how pleasant the experience is. I don’t recall the reason for just going back to Safari on my phone but I think I’ll stick with Firefox going forward. Native search engine customization means I can use Kagi without a weird extension. And upcoming built-in ad-block will let me get rid of another one.
I’m a big Firefox guy on all my computers. I really wish I remembered the reason I switched. Probably to try Orion and then ended up back on Safari.
Thanks for the reminder to try Firefox again!
NomadicCoder | 21 hours ago
How is the experience using Firefox (or any alternative browser) on iOS? I feel like there's some cookie sharing between the web views in apps and the main browser, which can be either good or bad depending on context. Also, it used to be that alternative browsers were forced to use the Safari rendering engine anyhow, so I didn't see much reason to switch -- is that still true? (I guess I could DDG it, but I figured I'd ask you since I'm more curious about the experience than the technical details).
dhcrazy333 | 19 hours ago
So I only recently switched to iOS but Firefox has been working fine. It is just a reskin of the Safari browser more or less but I haven’t run into many issues (yet) in my limited testing.
I did just enable the adblocking and tested it out on mlb.com. It’s a night and day difference. I can’t believe how unusable that site is in safari, but then Firefox made it an actual usable and fluid website.
NomadicCoder | 18 hours ago
I have the AdGuard extension installed and opened the website in Safari and it is just fine. While I would probably trust Firefox's adblock more than AdGuard, you can still block ads in Safari. That said, Apple claims that their extension design does prevent the extension from knowing your browsing history.
Weldawadyathink | 2 hours ago
All iOS browsers use WebKit, except in the EU. But there are no released alternative engine browsers for the EU yet.
Narry | 53 minutes ago
Still not available for me, my last update was 6 days ago to 153.3 (75262) and I'm in North America.
I feel like a lot of people including the big advertising companies have forgotten the three main reasons we started this ad-blocking war:
If ads weren't sleazy, were respectful, and weren't a vector to selling all of my personal information I'd be okay with them. But they aren't so I'm not.