[HN Gopher] Instagram can track anything you do on any website i... ___________________________________________________________________ Instagram can track anything you do on any website in their in-app browser Author : the_mitsuhiko Score : 779 points Date : 2022-08-10 17:18 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (krausefx.com) (TXT) w3m dump (krausefx.com) | jeffwask wrote: | Awful but not suprising. Their apps are effectively spyware at | this point. | pid_0 wrote: | joshstrange wrote: | I was super confused by this since to the best of my knowledge | SFSafariViewController blocks anything like this, you, as a | developer, cannot inject anything or peak into the view it | creates. Then I got to the bottom and realized I was correct, but | FB/Meta/IG/etc aren't using SFSafariViewController and instead | using the older ways to embed a web view. | | Honestly I thought all other methods had been deprecated and had | no idea apps could still make use of the less secure (for the | user) options. Trust me, as a developer I've wanted to reach | inside a SFSafariViewController many times to make my life easier | but in the end I've just grumbled and assumed it's not possible | and worked around it. | | I wish there was a privacy-safe way to get the best of both | worlds but due to bad actors I doubt that will be possible. I | need to look more into App-bound domains but I don't think even | that will give me what I really wish for (a way for the page | loaded in SFSafariViewController to tell my app something). | Something like postMessage support for SFSafariViewController | would be amazing and be safe privacy-wise I think since the | contained page would need to support sending/receiving messages | instead of just having code injected against their will. | YourGrace wrote: | Yes, developers are able to leverage WKWebview on iOS and a | Webview on Android. | | One thing about both webviews is that there are callbacks with | these implementations that developers can choose to open a link | in the embed webview or not. It might be useful for | privacy/security for Apple/Android to force developers to | allow-list a domain (like iOS's Associated Domains) or such | that an embedded webview can load (besides local html and | files). It might be something in addition to the developer's | callback. | | iOS WKWebview: | https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview | Android Webview: | https://developer.android.com/guide/webapps/webview Associated | Domains: | https://developer.apple.com/documentation/Xcode/supporting-a... | rdtwo wrote: | Can you use an in-app browser to host a light weight proxy | server? Thereby allowing a 3rd party to access anything behind | the firewall as local traffic or pretend to be the machine. | joshu wrote: | i don't understand why apple allows in-app browsers. | nkozyra wrote: | You mean custom ones, right? WebViews are incredibly useful, | but it definitely seems like implementing your own browser | gives people a false sense of security, like they've been | sandboxed when they haven't. | | What would be nice here is a permission requirement if you're | injecting code into a browser view. | replygirl wrote: | since years ago apple added the little back button to return | you to your previous app, even webview is dead weight. apple | should only allow one, in some special context, that's so | counterintuitive to implement that only frameworks e.g. react | native can justify the effort | dylan604 wrote: | And yet, we're normally seeing Apple === BAD because they | limit everything to just the one Apple thing. Am I actually | seeing requests for Apple to limit willingly? | bitwize wrote: | Most of Hackernews doesn't understand why Apple is the #1 | tech company in the world -- they're still in the "no | wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame" mindset. | replygirl wrote: | in 2015 i got an iphone for a job, then i made it my | daily driver because i liked the restrictions. now my | phones last four years instead of one | dylan604 wrote: | How is the walled garden allowing a phone to last for | four years? Where you getting new phones because you | polluted your non-walled garden device with so many bad | apps that you chose to get a new device? Not really | following your point, but maybe I am? | replygirl wrote: | i was getting new phones mostly because my devices were | getting bogged down by android updates and capabilities. | the os allowed developers to do more and more things, and | offered more and more customization, faster than the pace | of hardware improvements supported, to the point i'd have | to get a new phone if i wanted something both up-to-date | and fast. if i kept a phone longer much longer than a | year, i'd have to worry about software updates as well, | OR replace the OS and deal with instability. | | and i'm not talking about bad phones here -- htc one s, | nexus 4, nexus 5, nexus 5x. admittedly, degradation of | shitty NAND is still a factor in higher-end android | phones, so it's not _all_ about the android ecosystem | being a free-for-all | | an iphone xr will still run everything fine, including | the latest version of ios. hundreds of dollars saved and | a whole set of problems avoided over the life of the | phone. i only replace my phones when they're smashed to | bits now | | anecdote: someone in my family just had to replace their | android phone because a software update caused the radio | to stop working for calls. so the ecosystem issue is not | just a userland thing | dylan604 wrote: | I'm on an iPhone 6s+, so yeah, I'm a fan of the not | needing a new phone all the time. I am pleasantly | surprised with each new iOS that my phone is still not | deprecated. At that point, I will have to look at | updating. | joshu wrote: | webviews for clicking arbitrary links in apps like instagram | or gmail are absurdly restrictive. i lose my context, | cookies, and regular tools (bookmarks are gone, sharing often | overridden, etc) | jhgg wrote: | This is why https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safar | iservices/sfs... exists and why the blog post advocates for | using it. | wonderbore wrote: | That was a great update, but still not a true browser. No | tabs, no bookmarks. Why should the website be restricted | to one tab? Just open Safari and be done with it. | joshu wrote: | exactly | fleddr wrote: | They're supposed to be restrictive as to not confuse the | user. An in-app browser isn't there to give you a full | browsing experience, it's there to do a quick web-only task | that somehow cannot be done in the native app itself. | navanchauhan wrote: | Do you want to cripple the entire app industry? Apps built | using React Nativ / Flutter e.t.c use the WebView to render | themselves. So they're basically already running "in-app | browsers" | | But then how do you differentiate when the app is rendering its | own view rather than another website? You could apply some | restrictions like <iFrame> has nowadays where you need extra | security privileges (I think) to render pages / execute scripts | not on the same domain | | Otherwise you can always open safari from all of these in-app | browser views and they could implement a toggle which forces | all of them to be opened in Safari automatically | rullelito wrote: | It's a big difference between browsing your own pages in-app, | and opening any link in an in-app browser and tracking it. | joshstrange wrote: | I think the clear answer is to only allow local/whitelisted | domains that you can prove you own. I work on | Capacitor/Cordova apps regularly and only allowing local code | would allow for them to continue to work and close this | loophole. Anytime I open an external page I do it in | SFSafariViewController which doesn't have the ability to | inject code or snoop. | joshu wrote: | it's a bad experience for opening external links. i don't | care that it's not easy to get to. | | and no, not all apps do this. tiktok does not offer an | escape, and instagram hides it behind two clicks. | supermatt wrote: | Thats not how react native or flutter work at all. They use | native views, not a browser. You are likely thinking of | cordova (phonegap) et al. | atwood22 wrote: | At the very least webviews should treat contents as a subframe | and respect the frame option headers. | oconnor663 wrote: | Last I heard (years ago), iOS forced everyone to use Safari for | webviews, which lots of people also complained about. Did that | change? Or is the Safari webview the subject of this story? | jclardy wrote: | Every webview on iOS is Safari internally. The issue is if an | app presents a webview, they can inject whatever javascript | they want. This is what allows frameworks like Ionic to work | in the first place, the webview runs the "app" and any | interface back to the OS is communicated through a bridge to | the native world. | darknoon wrote: | Safari webview (WebKit) is what it's describing | pantulis wrote: | The key aspect here is that Instagram's app is using a | Safari Webview but somehow it is injecting its own tracking | pixel on the HTML body wether the target website had it or | not. | | Which honestly does not surprise me, what surprises me is | that Apple allows this. I think there was a time where | certain Javascript capabilities were present in Safari but | not in Safari Webview and there was certain outrage. | | Perhaps a solution would be to run the webview through | Safaris content blocker engine? | saagarjha wrote: | To what? Disable the ability to inject JavaScript into | the web view? | pantulis wrote: | Yes. Is there a legitimate use case for injecting | arbitrary Javascript by the native app? (Honest question) | rawling wrote: | Apps that use html for their UI and JS hooks to trigger | touch ID, access the keychain etc. | sitzkrieg wrote: | its the same. any browser (or app otherwise) on entire system | has to use it for web rendering | mikewhy wrote: | If an app uses the non-OS supplied web view I just assume they're | doing nefarious things. | | Coincidentally the only apps I have that don't use the OS | supplied web view are from Meta. | hnburnsy wrote: | I'm confused I thought Apple only allowed web browsing via | Safari... | | "2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit | framework and WebKit Javascript." | | If apps can use their own in app browser, why can't say Brave for | example, create an app that does very little, except it browses | the web with its own in app browser? | superjan wrote: | This just forbids developers to write their own browser engine. | It is OK to use the iOs provided webbrowser as a control in | your app. | EGreg wrote: | I once wrote an email to Steve Jobs, saying that operating | systems like MacOS and iOS should have a secret phrase or icon | that they show to you whenever they show a system-level security | dialog. (And of course implement the same restrictions on | screenshots of that dialog as they do for movies.) | | Because otherwise, an app can totally fake the interface of a | security dialog. The only way you know, these days, is that | password managers and cookie jars work with the "approved" sites, | but they can simply show you a site that doesn't require those, | and then fool you into entering your passwords! | | Steve never replied to me. And Apple never implemented it. | Mordisquitos wrote: | Fun fact, the Spanish word for password, _" contrasena"_, | originally implied this behaviour as _" sena"_ --> _" | contrasena"_ ("sign" --> "countersign"). | BonoboIO wrote: | The sheer number of traffic and data ... if one company knows if | we are heading into a recession it's Facebook! | grishka wrote: | Ah so _that 's_ why they insist so much on opening every single | link in their crappy in-app browser. I decompiled and patched | Instagram for Android, and I did try, among other things, to | bypass that browser (and gave up because my approach somehow | mysteriously broke navigation in the app), but the thought that | they're using it to track you has never once crossed my mind. | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | There is no reason for in-app browsers to exist besides tracking | really, so this isn't all that surprising. The only effect of | removing them entirely would be that stuff just worked better in | general. | cloudyporpoise wrote: | The battle for control continues. I started noticing this | personally when using social media and took note of the fact that | the browsing was still being done within the app when clicking on | an external link. | | The war on control of data continues on. | asadlionpk wrote: | I hope Apple doesn't disable JS injection in WKWebViews in | response to this. JS injection is the (only?) way to call native | Swift methods from JS ie. bridging. | | I am not sure what the solution here is. Maybe only allow | injection to sites you control (via apple association file). | nofunsir wrote: | I hope they do. | AtNightWeCode wrote: | Should only be allowed on domains one owns. Could be solved by | DNS records or certificates. | asadlionpk wrote: | Yup, apple association file is Apple's method of proving | ownership to a domain. | throwaway290 wrote: | Wait, websites can call native Swift methods from JS? | Linkd wrote: | Certainly. See https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webk | it/wkscriptmes... | _rend wrote: | Only intentionally, via setup from a hosting app. If an app | uses a WKWebView to display web content, it can use | WKUserContentController[1] to inject scripts and additional | content into the page dynamically, and can inject functions | into JS[2] which will trigger native callback handlers when | called. | | If your app uses the JavaScriptCore[3] framework to run JS in | a VM in-process directly, you have even more options for | interfacing between JS and native code. | | Note that this has to be explicitly hooked up by the app | (i.e., none of this applies within, say, Safari). | | [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkuserc | onte... | | [2]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkuserc | onte... | | [3]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/javascriptcore | Spivak wrote: | Short answer: yes | | With the appropriate libraries you can use JS to call Swift | and Obj C code. | | Long answer: no | | All it really means is that the JS and Swift/Obj C can pass | data between each other and the library is set up to parse | that data and call the appropriate code. It's just an | automatic RPC. | jedberg wrote: | Apple can just disallow in app browsers in the store policy. | Require apps to call out to the default external browser. | asadlionpk wrote: | The line is a bit blurry there. from a webview-based apps to | just in-app browsers that opens when you tap a link in an | app. | jedberg wrote: | Sure but since the App Store is human review, they can tell | the difference between a web view and an external website. | Or just require the app to only call web views on their own | domain or a whitelist of domains they submit with the app. | greenie_beans wrote: | i always just assumed this and used the app accordingly. but glad | there is some proof. | smm11 wrote: | I already fixed it, by not using Instagram. | captaincrunch wrote: | I generally assume that if I am using a browser IN ANOTHER APP, | its tracking it - or could. Not hard to do | andix wrote: | It would be interesting if this violates rights of the website | owner the user is visiting. I known that embedding content of | other websites into your own via an iframe can be a copyright | violation. And what Meta does here is more or less like an | iframe. | AtNightWeCode wrote: | I believe so. Copyright and TOS of the sites. Copyright also in | the sense that content have been changed. This should be on | pair with banner swap techs. | upupandup wrote: | It isn't. By that logic any browser is liable for violating ToS | of websites, which btw isn't the law and you are not obligated | to follow anyhow. | | This of course is a different case for corporations with a | dedicated legal team. | andix wrote: | First Instagram is not a browser. | | And second the browser manufacturer (usually) doesn't make | any money by tracking their users. They provide them with a | tool, a browser. | | There is the browser Brave, that replaces ads on websites | (and makes some profit with that), and there are some serious | legal issues coming with that. | upupandup wrote: | My god...you are like the 8th inactive HN user I saw that | suddenly springs into action to suggest Brave or post links | to Brave | | I think we can see whats really going on here. Any chance | to drop or mention Brave, after not being active for weeks | or months, suddenly congregate to push Brave browser | | Dang really needs to do something about this type of | astroturfing | andix wrote: | what are you suggesting? I didn't recommend Brave to | anyone, it's just a comparable example to this issue. You | can look up their legal issues and build your own opinion | based on that. | | And why are you suggesting i'm an "inactive user"? | avalys wrote: | Seems like Instagram _is_ a browser. | | The right you seem to be claiming is "you can't render my | website in your app if I don't like your app", and that's | not how it works. | andix wrote: | So why are iframes then not allowed by some legislations? | Because an iframe is also "just a browser". | bacan wrote: | In-App browsers have always been a security nightmare. Similar | issues exist with Electron apps as well. | | But developers continue to use them as HTML + CSS + JS is the | easiest way to develop a graphical dynamic UI, for a newbie. Many | schools & colleges even teach basic HTML, CSS & JS, so the | barrier to entry is very low. | | I am not sure what a good solution here would be, but maybe we | could start by limiting access. Or another way could be to have | some way to convert the rendered UI to compiled binary code | xfitm3 wrote: | Good call out on Electron apps, I try to avoid Electron as much | as possible. I use Slack's web interface for example. | | I never made the connection until you brought it up, but yes, | Electron apps are just like using Webkit on iOS. Abstracting | UI/UX to a browser engine which has identical security pitfalls | to a browser but with far less control and inspection | capability. | chadlavi wrote: | It's really concerning that everyone treats their children like | prisoners. Your kids are gonna find a way to look at what they | want anyway, why make it MORE appealing to them by making it | verboten? Are you protecting them or are you controlling them? | twodave wrote: | Some kids (and adults) literally aren't capable of impulse | control. It's actually nice to be able to hand that control | over to somebody else in some cases. And, as a parent if I know | my child struggles with this it would be negligent of me to let | them harm themselves knowing they can't stop themselves. I have | four children and if there is any generalization about raising | kids that I have learned it is that each child has different | needs. | notatoad wrote: | >I've disclosed this issue with Meta through their Bug Bounty | Program | | lol. and this is why companies can be hesitant to run bug bounty | programs. it's not a place to complain about things you don't | like. Meta/instagram has made a design decision here. just | because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's a vulnerability. | [deleted] | lrvick wrote: | Remember this is the same company that just gave police DMs | that aided in an abortion investigation. If those had been end | to end encrypted that risk would not have existed, but they | made a business decision to leave the application vulnerable to | spying for profit reasons. That is a vulnerability, in the same | way we call it a vulnerability when an entity man-in-the- | middles a browser to spy on people. | | Personal user browsing or communications leaking in plain text | to private companies without explicit and obvious user consent | puts users at risk, and is a vulnerability. It just so happens | to be one arising from malicious profit seeking behavior that | happens to be the status quo. | | Not having https was once the status quo, and a boon for | corporate spying, but we call that a vulnerability now because | the abuses became too big too ignore. | 202206241203 wrote: | Yes, but people love that, otherwise e.g. freemium and ad- | driven games would not exist. | | Consumers have a payment-avoiding behaviour as a status quo. | lrvick wrote: | This comes across as victim blaming. | | Users are given the choice to accept risks that are buried | on page 7 of privacy policies only a lawyer could | understand the tricks in. | | Services knowingly endangering unknowing users for money | should be like cigarettes and be forced to say on the | signup page in big bold text they can and will sell user | data to anyone, including law enforcement. | | Users largely think free services are like public libraries | and do not default to expecting they are being exploited | for money. Element, Wikipedia, and duckduckgo exist for | free without selling user data so it is not a given that | exploitation is always present in free services. | noduerme wrote: | This isn't a consumer choice issue. People love morphine | too, it doesn't mean Amazon can sell it to them. If Apple | enforced its own rules in this case, Facebook would just | have to act like any other developer and find some revenue | streams that comply with established privacy norms. | wmeredith wrote: | > this is the same company that just gave police DMs that | aided in an abortion investigation | | They were served a warrant. I'm no friend of Facebook/Meta, | but any company served a warrant is going to turn over what | they have. | [deleted] | sharkjacobs wrote: | Keep reading, you might be missing the point, the paragraph | continues on after that sentence | woodruffw wrote: | I don't think the GP is saying that Meta should have | ignored a lawful order. I think they're saying that they | shouldn't have put themselves in the position of being | _able_ to render that information, and only have done so | because it 's profitable for them to do so. | wonderbore wrote: | It's really painful to see all of these encryption holes | in every product we use daily. Apple claims privacy, yet | your whole phone sits unencrypted on their server ready | to be served to anyone who asks (assuming you back up | your phone to iCloud) | woodruffw wrote: | My understanding is that iCloud backups are encrypted[1]. | | [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 | wonderbore wrote: | Encrypted but they have the keys so they can serve it to | anyone who asks. That's why "end-to-end" is subsequently | mentioned as an "additional" step for certain data. It | should all be end-to-end like iCloud Keychain is, at | least on demand. | zip1234 wrote: | Well, one can go ahead and enable End-to-End encryption in | Facebook Messenger now: | https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-app/786613221989782 | samstave wrote: | > _just because you don 't like it, doesn't mean it's a | vulnerability._ | | Technical Vuln or Business Vuln? | vade wrote: | It is a vulnerability. You the user are just vulnerable to | them... | [deleted] | sleepyhead wrote: | It should be reported as a vulnerability. To Apple. Yes they | made a decision for this as well but a decision can still be | reported as a vulnerability. | riazrizvi wrote: | Only Instagram? Every app maker who makes an in app browser can | see what you do, that's the point of embedding it. And why not? | You arrive there because of a link in the container app you | clicked on. They want to see what you do with the link they gave | you. Otherwise only Google/Apple can see what you do with it. | Someone can see what you do with the link no matter what. | altairprime wrote: | Not necessarily. If they're using a WKWebView, they can't see | what you're doing, which is why Safari Autofill remains enabled | in _some_ but not _all_ app-embedded web views. | senttoschool wrote: | No wonder. I recently opened a link on Instagram and the | website's responsive elements were completely broken. Then I | opened the link in Safari and it worked fine. | | Does this script injection break Apple's ToS? | | I thought Apple required Safari/Webkit for all in-app browsers? | | Zuckerberg has no shame. | | PS. I hate in-app browsers. They don't sync with my main browser | states such as authenticated sessions. | yieldcrv wrote: | > Does this break Apple's ToS? I thought Apple required | Safari/Webkit for all in-app browsers? | | Doesn't apply to special companies. | runevault wrote: | Apple has been fine doing things that hurt FB, see not giving | them special privileges' around the Ad tracking permission | changes that were added to iOS. | ffpip wrote: | > Does this break Apple's ToS? I thought Apple required | Safari/Webkit for all in-app browsers? | | They are still using Safari/Webkit, but just injecting a script | into every page. | pantulis wrote: | Is there a legitimate use case that could explain why Apple | is allowing this? | navanchauhan wrote: | It probably is still running Webkit underneath with some | additional JavaScript to track everything | noduerme wrote: | It would have to be. Apple's main bugbear seems to be anyone | embedding Chrome or Firefox on iOS. | kube-system wrote: | > PS. I hate in-app browsers. They don't sync with my main | browser states such as authenticated sessions. | | Seems like that's probably a good thing :) | mh- wrote: | _> They don 't sync with my main browser states such as | authenticated sessions._ | | And this is exactly why Apple gives them their own cookie jar. | The alternative would be [more of] a security nightmare. | samstave wrote: | > _They don 't sync with my main browser states such as | authenticated sessions. _ | | Under what circums do you want this? | anamexis wrote: | All the time. For example: open a link in Gmail, forget that | I am in the in-app browser, and log into a service. | senttoschool wrote: | > Under what circums do you want this? | | Click on "Sign In/Up with Google". Opens in app browser. Not | logged in even though I'm with Safari. Type email. Type | password. Get password wrong. Type password again. Get | text/email with 2FA code. Every single time. | | Or Gmail app. Click link. Open in-app browser. Not logged in. | samstave wrote: | I am not a fan of the "Password Fabric" - if you are, you | are not my friend... | sneak wrote: | You shouldn't be typing passwords in 2022, get a password | manager. | senttoschool wrote: | Not paying a subscription for a password manager. And | don't want a single point of failure for all my accounts. | sneak wrote: | Self-host vaultwarden, it's free, and it syncs to all | your devices so you have a bunch of backups. | upbeat_general wrote: | I've had to log into google/fb/etc so many times through in- | app browsers when I'm already logged in in my main safari | browser. | [deleted] | dzikimarian wrote: | I'm surprised that so many people write "yeah, any in-app browser | can do that - nothing to see here". | | Anyone can potentially steal your wallet, so we shouldn't point | out when someone actually does? Especially when there's hard | evidence in article? | benbristow wrote: | One thing I've noticed is that content-blockers/adblock don't | seem to work within the Facebook/Instagram etc. in-app browsers | so I usually end up jumping out of them anyway. | vuln wrote: | Yup same. I jump out as soon as it attempts to load and I have | the ability. | saagarjha wrote: | Content blockers only work in Safari and | SFSafariViewController. | graham1776 wrote: | I've meant to write a blog post about this, but here goes: In-app | browsers allow users to view inappropriate content, often against | the wishes of sensitive individuals. People especially at risk | for this include addicts and children. | | Nearly every app, even "safe apps" including children-rated apps, | allow access to an in app browser. Even when iOs has locked down | all access to Safari, a parent has removed access to all the | "apparent" unsafe sites, there are still ways to access the | unfiltered internet inside of these safe apps. | | How? Usually buried in App Settings. Almost all apps use some | instance of an in-app browser to (lazily) reference thier privacy | policies, EULAs, or TOCs. A buried link leads to a homepage, | leads to an instagram link, leads to an unfiltered internet. Yes | they are long, inefficient paths to reach the internet, but | curious (or motivated) individuals or children will use almost | any app to reach the internet. Even boring apps like MS Teams or | adding a Gmail account to iOS mail uses a secret in-app browser. | | This obviously presents a problem: should developers restrict any | and all app access to in-app browsers, or leave policing to | individuals/parents? An easy approach is to disable the in-app | browser functionality in iOs, but obviously with grave cost to | developers. At the same time, at what cost is in-app browser | functionality being implemented. | davet91 wrote: | The in-app browsers could use a domain whitelist if parental | controls are turned on. | adaktix wrote: | It shouldn't be a parental controls thing for IG, it just | needs to be made so when you're using an in-app browser, | you're using it for one reason, whatever site you clicked on. | Leaving the domain ends the process or opens in another | browser. | graham1776 wrote: | That could be an "easy" fix where you could disable use of | in-app browsers through Screen Time options. | yowzadave wrote: | Shouldn't an in-app browser whose sole purpose is to read an | app EULA/TOC/etc. always employ a domain whitelist, | regardless of parental controls? | polote wrote: | A feature doesn't become a problem because 1% have an issue | with it (people who use parental control). | | The internet is the internet if you want to restrict what | people can see on the internet the only solution is to not have | access to it at all | bigfudge wrote: | Do you have kids? It's really not easy to withdraw all | internet access without substantially disadvantaging them. | But I don't want them reading 4chan either. Anything which | makes that less likely without fundamentally breaking things | is welcome to me. | chadlavi wrote: | As a child of the 2000s: just let them look at the | horrifying underbelly of the internet. One trip down | grossout lane isn't going to undo all your parenting and | make them some kind of perverted monster. | | Children aren't prisoners. | mschuster91 wrote: | Back in the early 2000s we didn't have people actively | recruiting young frustrated men into incel and far-right | terrorist groups though. We didn't have people thinking | it was cool and edgy to make jokes about gassing Jews. | Hell even the pedo/grooming problem wasn't much of a | thing. Yes there was porn and vile gore floating around | and you had to take care to not fall victim to dialers | changing your dial-up information to bleed your phone | bill... but that was all in all harmless. | | These days, the amount of utter idiocy is just | unimaginable, "eternal september" style. You join some | random online game discord and whoops half the talk is | about rape fantasies, n-bombs and other kind of sickening | behavior. Let it slip you're a girl and you'll get | _flooded_ with wiener pics, "cum tributes", disgusting | fantasies, doxxing attempts, or flat out hate for | standing in the way of someone. Go on Youtube, watch a | couple of videos and your suggestions have antivaxx | bullshit or "shocker videos". Games for children are | _filled_ with barely disguised pedos and "moderation" | doesn't do shit. Not exactly an environment many people | want to expose their children to. | LordDragonfang wrote: | Maybe not in the "early 2000s", but you'd have to be a | child of the _90s_ , not the "2000s", to have missed it, | because all of that was around by the second half of the | decade (with perhaps the exception of the far-right | recruitment, which didn't fully hit its stride until the | early 2010s). | | It's been out there since the beginning; the problem is | not the access to it, it's relationship with the | internet. Back in the day, you were told to never give | your real name online, now you're expected to type it | into forms three times a week, while you have a public | profile of all of your picture that anyone can look up | while an algorithm serves it to the whole world. And yes, | some of it is because kids are getting access to this | world as toddlers when we weren't able to get there until | early teens or the end of grade school at least. Kids | need to be taught digital safety more than we need to | continue the losing fight about securing access. Kids are | smarter and more motivated than you are, they'll find a | way around it. | Zababa wrote: | > But I don't want them reading 4chan either. | | I don't think access to 4chan is going to fundamentally | change who your kids are. | FabHK wrote: | I think you accidentally a word. | Zababa wrote: | I did, thanks. For the record, my post was missing | "change" before. | franga2000 wrote: | What do you think is more likely? That your child will | stumble upon, correctly identify and successfully exploit | an in-app webview, or that they will simply type "4chan" | into Google on a school/library/friend's computer/phone? | | Unless they are under constant supervision, they will find | a way to access what you're hiding from them. And if they | are, well then you don't need technical blocks in the first | place, do you? | rahkiin wrote: | It is interesting how this would apply for custom browser | engines in the future of iOS. | CharlesW wrote: | This class of security problem is also a great reason to | never allow custom browser engines. | postalrat wrote: | How about services like luna, stadia, etc which can render | any sort of interactive content (typically games)? | smoldesu wrote: | ...why wouldn't it be possible? iOS has application | sandboxing, just drop all DNS requests for the webview | that's outside a developer-defined namespace. I'm sure | someone at Apple could find a better way to implement it, | but we shouldn't accept lame excuses like this. Apple has | 200 billion dollars in cash, this is not an advanced | problem space. | happyopossum wrote: | Then the app can use DOH, or tunnel DNS requests over | something else - a non-safari browser engine wouldn't | have to use system DNS by any means... | jamespo wrote: | I thought non-safari browser engines were banned | als0 wrote: | They are. This is a hypothetical discussion. | xfitm3 wrote: | Doesn't the harm of surveillance outweigh the harm of viewing | "inappropriate content"? | | Think of the addict is a new one, but I am automatically | suspicious any time someone cites child protection. | j2bax wrote: | Why don't you just make sure there are no unsavory links on | whatever page you are using the in-app browser for and | disable/hide the address bar so they can't just jump onto the | open web? Seems like you can have your cake and eat it! | CodeSgt wrote: | I'm glad to see someone mention addicts. I feel as if internet | addiction, and especially subsets of it such as porn addiction, | aren't given enough weight by either the addiction treatment | community or the technical community. | | Before someone accuses me of being a conservative religious | zealot as tends to happen when anyone denounces porn, I'll say | that I'm far from a puritan and am extremely liberal in my | social views. That said, I firmly believe that easy access porn | is one of the worst things happening to the young men and women | today. I (23) know many men around my age who suffer from | chronic porn addictions to the point that it severely impacts | their ability for form real relationships and median age of | first exposure is getting lower and lower. | | It's an absolutely crucial issue that no one seems to be | talking about or taking seriously. | Zababa wrote: | > It's an absolutely crucial issue that no one seems to be | talking about or taking seriously. | | Most men communities talk about it in one form or the other. | However, most men communities on the internet are usually | close in one form or another to the right politically. | CodeSgt wrote: | I suppose I should have said it's not being talked about by | any mainstream authorities or outlets in the same way a lot | of women's or equity issues are (not to say porn isn't also | a women's issue, it very much is, but seems to | disproportionately impact men). | | It is a shame that any group which advocates men's issues | tends to get labeled as right-wing or incelish, which then | attracts those types and makes those labels a reality. And | of course many were admitedly that way from the start. | | Edit: And to add to this, being right _or_ left leaning isn | 't inherently bad. And maybe this is my personal bias | coming into play here, but I find that people are much | quicker to associate right-leaning movements/communities as | "bad" than they are left-leaning ones. Again I accept that | could be personal bias and it isn't a hill I'd die on. | Zababa wrote: | I share the same view of the situation as you. A | consequence of the increase in demands for justice, | political correctness, and stuff like that seems to be | that every community has to be focused on a oppressed | group or it will be considered right-wing and thus | attract people like you said. | | The incel label is a good example of how bad men are | treated sometimes. If you treated poor people like this | by saying they're involuntarly not rich and then | proceeded to say that it's mostly their fault because | they don't work enough, think they can just show up to | work, do their job and become rich, shouldn't expect | money to be given to them, most people would react by | saying that you're wrong. And when some parts of the | population have trouble having sex/companionship like | some trans people, it's called discrimination. But the | same rules don't apply to incels it semms. | majormajor wrote: | My recollection of the term incel is that it was a self- | applied label, not one created from outside the group | like your "involuntarily not rich" hypothetical. (Even in | that example, though... who's going to tell you you're | wrong if your theory is "nobody should simply expect to | get rich for showing up and not putting in the work", | exactly?) | | As to whether or not that group is popular... this is an | interesting one since the bonding factor is a lack of | relationship success (which is closely related to, but | not the same as, popularity) in the first place. But if | you look at a lot of how the group that has gathered | under that label interacts with the rest of the | population... it's hard to say it's just something like | mocking them for not being able to get laid. There are a | lot of frankly offensive and violent theories pushed by | people out there. | | It's deeply ironic actually - "I'm not having sexual | success, I'm going to start listening more to other men | who also have the same problem, _they 're_ the ones who | will be able to tell me about women." Back when it was a | more ironic, non-violent "foreveralone" meme I was in the | club... it wasn't increasing my exposure to _men_ that | eventually got me out of it. | d110af5ccf wrote: | You claim to be extremely liberal in your social views but | then in the next breath make the assumptions that difficulty | forming relationships today is significantly greater than in | the past and further that this fact is due to effects that | are caused (ultimately) by viewing porn. Those are both very | socially conservative viewpoints and I have yet to find | scientific data (or anything else I'd consider even remotely | reliable) that back either of them up, particularly the | second one. | | If I were to accept (purely hypothetically) that it is | significantly more difficult for many people to form | relationships today then how do you suppose to show that this | change is due to porn instead of, say, the prevalence of | dating apps such as Tinder? Or any number of other factors | including things like job stability, housing prices (and thus | perceived security of living situation), and where people | choose to spend their free time (for example going out on the | town in the past versus perhaps doomscrolling twitter and | watching netflix). | freedomben wrote: | I'm not GP, but you first say: | | > _Those are both very socially conservative viewpoints and | I have yet to find scientific data (or anything else I 'd | consider even remotely reliable) that back either of them | up, particularly the second one._ | | but then go on to yourself list many probably reasons why | that's the case: | | > _how do you suppose to show that this change is due to | porn instead of, say, the prevalence of dating apps such as | Tinder? Or any number of other factors including things | like job stability, housing prices (and thus perceived | security of living situation), and where people choose to | spend their free time (for example going out on the town in | the past versus perhaps doomscrolling twitter and watching | netflix)._ | | Completing a study to prove GP's claims is a herculean | effort that may not even be possible due to ethical | concerns. (i.e. you'll have to take a person who has never | been exposed to porn and then get them addicted, so you can | see if it ruins their life). | | Any claim without data should definitely be looked at | skeptically (including in this case), but it's also | important to remember that absence of evidence is not | evidence of absence. | | Also there's a lot of life experience out there of people | who will tell you that they have a porn addiction that is | causing them problems with relationships. One of my friends | just got divorced from his wife of 20 years because he has | developed a porn addiction and won't give it up or get any | treatment (his wife is not ok with it). | | I'm about as socially liberal as they come, (and I would | never support a ban on porn nor pretty much anything, but | that's a topic for another day), but I've seen and heard | way too many anecdotes about the devastation that porn can | have on a person to ignore it. | | I don't think there's a big difference between a social | conservative (who typically want to use government force to | restrict access to "bad things") and someone who sides with | liberty and tolerance but would advise friends and family | not to do "bad thing." | flappyeagle wrote: | What does it mean to be addicted to porn? Daily viewing? | Hourly? Constant? | elwell wrote: | I feel like addiction is a complicated label; this is a | natural[0] desire. If it is agreed to be destructive to the | pursuit of forming healthy relationships: any amount is | harmful, or at least the start of something that will be | more and more harmful. | | [0] - natural like how we crave sugar for our health, yet | harmful like I eat candy all day | freedomben wrote: | Just my opinion of course, but (like drugs and alcohol) | putting a reasonable and generic metric on it is really | hard, so I would instead ask generic questions that I would | ask about other things like: | | 1. Do you find yourself craving it? | | 2. Do you continually feel the need to increase your | intake? (i.e. developing a tolerance) | | 3. Would you be embarrassed if a like-minded friend knew | about your habit? | | 4. If you were suddenly cut off from it for a few days, how | would it make you feel? | CodeSgt wrote: | Typically viewing to the detriment of your | emotional/mental/physical health. If you consistently | choose porn over real intimacy or if you overly desensitize | yourself (porn-induced ED is a real, and quite common | thing). The biggest concern is choosing porn over physical | intimacy/attempts at physical intimacy. It's super easy for | someone who maybe already isn't a social superstar to just | find themselves choosing the easy option of porn rather | than forcing themselves to go out and put effort into | meeting people. | michannne wrote: | We used to exploit these types of paths when school IT admins | didn't know how to filter traffic properly but knew to block | proxies. | LegitShady wrote: | There was a period of time at my high school where we would | compile a default browser app in Borland c++ and it would let | you access whatever it wanted. They noticed because they got | proper filtering after that... | t8ty2evj wrote: | qwertox wrote: | I think on Android they could use Chrome Custom Tabs [0] | instead of WebViews. IIRC this also protects the browser | content from being accessed by the hosting app, but there is | still a limited communication which is possible between the app | and the tab. | | [0] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/android/custom-tabs/ | smoldesu wrote: | Or maybe... just don't give your kids an iPhone? | | Seriously, using the internet/computers should be treated with | the same level of caution as grown-up scissors or fillet | knives; powerful tools, but they need training to avoid hurting | yourself with them. If _this_ is what you 're worried about, | why are you even giving them a small computer in the first | place? Your kids will always be more cunning than your security | policy (a hard pill to swallow for HN users), so control their | access to technology unless you're ready to have a serious sit- | down discussion about the internet, personal privacy, and all | that jazz. Put yourself in their shoes; if you're given a small | black brick with an indeterminate number of capabilities, | wouldn't _your_ response be pushing it as far as it can go? I | know that was my reaction when I was a kid, after buying a | Pentium desktop at a garage sale. | chinchilla2020 wrote: | You don't have kids. | | Your child would be the only one at school with no phone and | probably be pretty embarrassed about it. | Minor49er wrote: | I wish this was still considered to be common sense | ars wrote: | You can't live in today's world without a phone. | | All the mechanisms of the past that were geared for this no | longer exist. | | For example: Drive on the road, get to a toll, don't have a | Transponder to pay the bill? No problem - just call a phone | number. Uh, what if I don't have a cell? This literally never | even occurred to them, there is no alternative way to pay the | bill. | | That's life today, and it applies to children as well. Want | to go to some sports place that only caters to teens and | above? Load this website on your phone and fill out an | application. Don't have a phone? Borrow a friends phone. | Minor49er wrote: | The toll roads I've seen on the east coast will just scan | your license plate and mail you a bill if you don't have a | transponder | Broken_Hippo wrote: | This is the common way in Norway. Have the toll thingy or | get a bill. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | They're given chrome books in school and can't complete | assignments without them. Now what? | jacquesm wrote: | Brilliant insight. Could you please convince my children's | school that they do not need a smartphone? Because they f'ing | mandate it and I have not found a way around this yet. | bigfudge wrote: | Says someone who doesn't have kids. I really don't think it's | a big empathetic leap to imagine that young teens would want | to take part in the modern world, and that includes some | access to the internet. | | And no, constant supervision is not an appropriate answer. | Teens will want to research some things without their | parents' knowledge. That's normal. | | But it doesn't mean that we should throw our hands in the air | and make no effort to protect the majority of kids from the | worst of the internet. Yes some bright sparks may find ways | to circumvent the controls, but it at least makes it harder | for them to send a disguised goatse link to their friends. | tablespoon wrote: | > Says someone who doesn't have kids. I really don't think | it's a big empathetic leap to imagine that young teens | would want to take part in the modern world, and that | includes some access to the internet. | | At one point, "tak[ing] part in the modern world" included | smoking, and lots of kids wanted to do it. Just saying. | underwater wrote: | This is such a naive take. I assume you don't have kids or | teens? | | Children don't exist in a neat subservient bubble. They have | peers, social pressures, see advertising, consume television | and movies. | | Our kid's school had everyone buy an iPad. Already, at pre- | phone age, so much socialisation has moved into the digital | space. FaceTime, iMessage, Roblox, etc. | | I was going to say banning phones would be like a kid in the | 80s without television. But really it would be like being a | kid in the 80s who wasn't allowed to have a TV, listen to the | radio, have a phone line, and wasn't allowed to socialise | outside of school. | sroussey wrote: | Actually, TV was severely limited as were video games. We | were told to go outside and not come back until it was | getting dark. | Fogest wrote: | I have a browser based game I play that makes use of many | userscripts and browser extensions to further improve/enhance | the game. However mobile users suffer from a problem of not | having such extras. There is a very nice app someone made on | Android and iOS that uses in-app browsers in order to be able | to add a lot of custom things. | | There are many useful instances for the in-app browsers and I | don't think they should be removed because of some bad actors. | It's similar to how Android has had password managers making | use of autofill tools via accessibility tools. Android was | butchering that access, but luckily started adding some | official autofill support. | | I don't think removing capabilities in the favour of "safety" | is usually the right approach in my opinion. | RainaRelanah wrote: | Mind if I ask what game? | | Kiwi on Android is a Chromium fork that re-enables extensions | on mobile. Works well for userscripts/extensions, though | often times those UIs don't scale well to mobile. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | Ok guys, you've heard it, there's an app that uses in-app | browser to let you play some browser-based game! I guess | we'll just have to accept the status quo, otherwise the | mobile players of this niche browser-based game would be | inconvenienced! | celtain wrote: | Most of the usecases mentioned in this thread wouldn't suffer | if the in-app browser had to be invoked with a whitelist of | approved domains/urls. Perhaps apps could request permission | to run an unrestricted in-app browser, and that could be used | to facilitate parental controls. | | As an aside, is giving parents the option to disable in-app | browsers removing a capability or adding one? | Fogest wrote: | Yes I think in app browsers should still follow parental | controls, and I don't see why that wouldn't already be a | thing on devices. If I can use a VPN on my phone and have | that block sites for me, it seems like it should be pretty | trivial for the phone to respect parental controls across | all apps, not just specifically web browsers. | | That would be an additional capability. But having to force | a website to give specific apps permission to display them | in-app seems like a removal. Some people are also | suggesting removing in-app browsers which also seems silly. | franga2000 wrote: | If someone is knowledgeable and committed enough to dig through | all their apps, find any in-app browsers and try to break out | onto the web, they will also realize that simply using another | device will bypass all your silly blocks. | wepple wrote: | Tangential, but these same links have always been a great way | to break out of poorly designed kiosk systems. | | I recall noodling with a huge interactive display on the side | of a bus stop that had an embedded map, and surely enough the | TOS link launched a browser, and from there you could use the | Save As dialog to get to anything to execute | sirsinsalot wrote: | Novell Netware had a similar bug circa 1998 whereby pressing | `F1` at the login screen of the terminal opened the help | dialog, which opened links in IE ... from there the main | Windows shell could be ran and bingo ... you're in. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | I never saw IE or Windows running on Novell Netware. It was | a server operating system. What you're saying is akin to | saying you can create a windows shell from inside linux. | brk wrote: | The Netware backend server was it's own OS, IIRC. However | on the client side, you had MS-DOS and Windows Netware | clients to login to the Novell server and access the | associated shared resources. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Right, but those clients weren't "Novell netware". | yesbabyyes wrote: | I think what they mean is the Netware login dialogue, on | Windows. My classmate hacked our high school's network, | getting him thrown out of class. I'm pretty sure he used | a different method, though. He got a job working for the | school. This was in the mid 90s. | mandevil wrote: | Colonial? (This definitely happened at my school, | wondering how common this was.) | bparsons wrote: | This brought back many fond memories of using this hack to | play Soldier of Fortune 2 on the school network. | ghayes wrote: | This is how I get to web videos on my Peloton. Viewing the | mandatory software licenses leads to web links and then you | can visit anything in that Chrome browser window. | password4321 wrote: | Risky share -- the statute of limitations is not up on that | one! | grishka wrote: | Also on Android-based kiosks, you can get into the OS through | the on-screen keyboard if they're using it. Try long tapping | the buttons around the spacebar, one of them would usually | get you into system settings. From there you can as much as | completely take over the device if you wish. | orlp wrote: | As a kid I loved doing this in every museum/library/other | place that always had 'locked down' interactive Windows | systems back in my youth. | | One of my favorite ones was in a museum where I was with a | friend, and there was a PC. We were bored and wanted to play | some flash game, but we only had access to a mouse, and | clicking links inside the locked fullscreen browser. With | enough clicks we got to google and managed to copy/paste | letter by letter the name of a game site in the search field | and play some games. | dbtc wrote: | And I'm just excited to be able to 'visit' a museum from | the internet :-) | O__________O wrote: | Reminds me of stories I have heard about users of computer | systems with "strong" access controls figuring out ways to make | it to unfiltered internet; examples include: student/prisoner | computer labs, public libraries, flight entertainment systems, | public kiosks, operating system logins, etc. | amenghra wrote: | In the early 1990s, we used to break out of Macintosh's AtEase | at our middle school by writing a two line MacBasic program | which launched Finder. We would then bring games on floppies. | Everything old is new again! | [deleted] | nmeofthestate wrote: | Of course. That's the point of in-app browsers right? | sergiotapia wrote: | Sick company. Period. | [deleted] | cdransf wrote: | If you insist on running Meta's spyware on your devices you can | also use a service like nextDNS to block trackers at the device | DNS level: https://apple.nextdns.io | nelblu wrote: | I have always hated inapp browsers. I am a degoogled android | user, and I despise any app that defaults browsing to inapp | browser. If you are a developer who is defaulting to inapp | browser, please stop doing it. (Biggest reason I hate inapp | browsing is my ad-blocker and custom ublock origin scripts don't | work correctly.) | AlexandrB wrote: | Awful stuff. I shudder to think what a Meta-run App Store or | "metaverse" would look like from a tracking perspective. | Meanwhile, the "dumb fucks" quote[1] remains evergreen. | | [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg- | im... | blueagle7 wrote: | Does anyone know if something like Hyperweb would affect the | tracking in this? | kart23 wrote: | surprised this is at the top of HN. isn't it obvious that every | app does this? tiktok, snapchat, even linkedin all open links in | their built-in browser and can track what you're doing. click | open in safari if you're doing anything more than visiting a | single page. | SnowHill9902 wrote: | It's not obvious but it is reasonable. | joshstrange wrote: | I was/am a little surprised since I thought everyone had to use | SFSafariViewController for stuff like this (which doesn't allow | the developer to reach in). I "eject" out to Safari almost | always when I get in in-app-browser (if only for cookies/logged | in status) so this doesn't affect me much but it did come as a | surprise. | InCityDreams wrote: | >isn't it obvious that every app does this? | | Not if you never have/ don't use them. | M4v3R wrote: | Not every app does this. Twitter for example doesn't, because | it uses SFSafariViewController which doesn't allow for script | injecting. | stevage wrote: | As a non mobile developer, no, this was completely surprising | to me. | webercoder wrote: | I naively assumed that they were using a WebView object and | that Apple had tight controls over source code injection. Silly | me! | altairprime wrote: | Apple has deprecated but not yet removed the legacy web | embeds that app developers use to spy on and track their | users. | madeofpalk wrote: | It's not surprising, but it's not obvious. | MrStonedOne wrote: | plif wrote: | Yep, this is a feature, not just for tracking but also | containment when navigating to external links. Big reason why | all of those apps and others aggressively push users from web | to mobile. | somerando7 wrote: | To me it's not obvious. I wouldn't think that an app can inject | JS into a website because I'm using a web-browser from their | app. | sixothree wrote: | Also why is the headline "Instagram _can_ track anything you do | on any website in their in-app browser"? | stjohnswarts wrote: | isn't this true for all in-app browsers? | kurupt213 wrote: | Never go in app | ma_arkus wrote: | Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp) is the sneakiest, | impertinent and most evil company of all them all. | | Much worse than the tracking and spying is how Meta does | everything to make people addicted to their slot-machine like | services and thereby destroying their mental health. Especially | harmful for kids. | | The world would be a much better place without it. | benguild wrote: | Obviously! That's the whole reason they don't just use the Safari | modal | spoonjim wrote: | Every app that uses an in-app browser (which is most of them) can | do this. This is a clickbait headline that relies on "Blue | Company Bad" sentiments. | mirkodrummer wrote: | I'm not surprised and it's really annoying apps still use in-app | browsers. I remember even Telegram had that at one point, with | link opening only on in-app browser(at least on iOS). But what | really annoys me is that most of the users, e.g. my girlfriend, | have NO IDEA about the difference, it's just a browsing window, | no matter in-app, which engine, with which privacy feature. | Perhaps os vendors should show more obvious UI, and UX wise, tell | you you're leaving a safe browsing experience? | pphysch wrote: | Isn't this the main reason why social media pushes their apps | over their (once) perfectly functional websites? | | Better analytics = better product*. | | * for the true customers, i.e. marketing & communication firms, | governments, etc. | l33t2328 wrote: | Why do you say "true customers"? | | Is anyone under the impression that they are a customer of a | service they don't pay for? | | People would readily identify as a "Twitter user" instead of a | "Twitter customer" | happymellon wrote: | I would agree that a lot of people who use these things do | not consider themselves to be a product to be sold to | marketing firms. | woodruffw wrote: | > Is anyone under the impression that they are a customer of | a service they don't pay for? | | Maybe not on a technical forum like this, but I think the | distinction between a "customer" and a "user" is sufficiently | fuzzy among non-technical people. | rightbyte wrote: | E.g. Samsung spies on paying users of their TVs. | JohnFen wrote: | These days, you can expect companies to do the exact same | thing even if you do pay for the service. | scraplab wrote: | As a provider is it possible to defend against this with a | Content Security Policy or does this mechanism override the | site's CSP? | the_mitsuhiko wrote: | External sources yes, preventing an app to inject inline HTML | and JavaScript is tricky. | ezekg wrote: | You can block all inline scripts via CSP. | the_mitsuhiko wrote: | That's why I said tricky and not impossible. | xfitm3 wrote: | Strides have been made in web security, check out the | permissions policy[0] along with COOP and COEP[1]. | | [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/permissions-policy-1/ [1] | https://scotthelme.co.uk/enabling-coop-and-coep-reports-on-r... | robocat wrote: | MDN docs for Content Security Policy: | https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP (for | anyone unfamiliar with that browser feature that should _in | theory_ disallow injection for websites you control). | eis wrote: | They not only track very invasively what you are doing but they | create real problems for websites because certain features wont | work anymore. Be it due to them disabling them or third party | services having to block their usage because of the huge privacy | and data safety issue. | | Simple example: try to use "Login with Google" from within one of | those in-app browsers and you will notice Google had to actively | detect them and block the attempt because otherwise the app could | spy on the login credentials without anyone noticing. | | Instagram, Twitter, Facebook Messenger, TikTok.... the list goes | on and on. | | I am very confident that these companies are breaking GDPR laws | left and right on an absolutely massive scale. They are spyware | at this point. | klabb3 wrote: | I'm with you. If you're navigating to a website, you should | open the web browser. The app shouldn't monitor or inject crap | when I'm going to an unaffiliated site. The worst offenders are | the ones that force you to enter credentials for a 3p account | with an in-app browser. | | That said, it's a huge UX failure that navigating between the | web and an app is so broken. That doesn't mean that it's | motivated to break the fundamental models of the web. Long term | it does much more harm than good. How do you teach non- | technical users good practices if developers circumvent these | barriers anyway? "Trust us, we won't steal your Google account" | is not exactly reassuring, but ok say that you trust a | reputable app to do that. What happens when the user normalizes | this behavior and a less reputable app does the same thing? | Obviously many users will have no idea of the risk. | AtNightWeCode wrote: | I believe this is not legal. It is a grey area for users to do | things like this but for a browser to change the actual contents | is illegal on most sites. Or at least, there is no general way | for a browser to validate if it is legal or not. | AtNightWeCode wrote: | HN should really get rid of the down votes... Please explain | why you think it is legal for a proxy to inject custom scripts. | I am sure our TOS states that this is not allowed. Also, I | think it basically is a copyright infringement. | shadowgovt wrote: | Interesting. This is a risk vector I never considered regarding | allowing third parties to provide a browser on a mobile device. | nemothekid wrote: | I also noticed TikTok does this as well; at the very least they | are snooping inside their in-app browser to prevent you from | visiting adult sites. | Flimm wrote: | The article isn't complaining about in-app browsers per se, but | that Instagram implements a special version of an in-app | browser that injects Javascript code to track user behaviour. | If you have noticed TikTok doing the same thing, please publish | a blog post about it, and I expect it would get attention here | on Hacker News, at least. | zahma wrote: | Any reason why Google Maps wouldn't* use the same in-app | tracking? | | Edit: meant why Google wouldn't do this. I guess what I really | mean, is what are the chances they don't do this? | smitty1110 wrote: | Yeah, tracking your behavior. If you searched for a bar, did | you look at other bars? Parking? What other things did you look | at? All of this could potentially be used for segmentation. | rawling wrote: | Yes, Google Maps probably tracks your usage of Google Maps. But | when you click through to a location's website, it doesn't open | that in a local webview and track how you use their website. | | Whether Chrome tracks how you use it... | wonderbore wrote: | Please tell every newspaper to publish this so Apple puts a stop | to this. I have no idea why they allow this. All apps should use | Safari unless they're a browser and this rated "18+" | TaylorAlexander wrote: | Well I like when browsing reddit that when I open links they | are sandboxed. The in-app browser in that case has an easy | button to open to get to my normal safari if I want to. | wonderbore wrote: | I'd much rather seen a system-wide "container" implementation | a-la-Firefox instead. Safari is pretty good at this but not | as good as Firefox. I really want my real-life accounts be | segregated from the rest of the internet. Reddit should never | be able to know what other sites I use. | tiku wrote: | I still remember the LinkedIn app ripping all my contacts, so no | apps for me. I just use the sites. | AtNightWeCode wrote: | I remember when the Twitter app asked if I wanted to sync the | mobile contacts every time I opened the app. Thankfully Android | has become better when it comes to this even if there are still | flaws. | testfoobar wrote: | Quite a few apps from the early mobile days did this. | jimbob45 wrote: | I just keep an old phone around for when I need to use apps | (banking, especially). Can't steal the information off my | device if there's nothing on there _taps forehead_ | PenguinCoder wrote: | > use the sites. | | Which are increasingly user hostile, if not down right | impossible to view on mobile. Go try using Reddit or Twitter on | your Mobile browser. | navbaker wrote: | It is infuriating that I can't browse certain Reddit pages | because they want me to "use the app so they know I'm over | 18". I first ran into this in my current attempt to play | through Dark Souls 3. It seems like the community there has a | lot of good discussions about beating certain bosses, but for | some reason, Reddit has decided that the content in that sub- | reddit needs age verification and they wall it behind the | app. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > It is infuriating that I can't browse certain Reddit | pages because they want me to "use the app so they know I'm | over 18". | | Nothing's stopping you. There is no such message on | old.reddit.com. | navbaker wrote: | I had no idea this existed | PenguinCoder wrote: | Use it while you can. Can bet they'll disable it soon. | winternett wrote: | They also restrict your ability to copy links and text in | apps, so that you can't open things in a non-walled app | browser. This I believe is why sites like Twitter also uses | URL conversion... There is a wild variety of ways in which | they can limit where those URLs go, and I've noticed | sometimes it even makes externally pointing links not work | properly (Which can be turned on and off at will by the link | service owner). | | Those URLs also mask origination when they point to other | sites, so that site logs don't provide any real specific data | on where traffic to them is coming from. | | The most Internet/user hostile era ever is probably going on | right now. Will be interesting to see where this all goes. | rmnclmnt wrote: | My solution to this for past year: only use the laptop for | most things. No more distractions in the pocket, feels pretty | good! | comprev wrote: | Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook (and | mbasic.facebook.com), LinkedIn, etc. are all user hostile. | | This gets amplified when using ad/tracker blockers at DNS | level (NextDNS). | kurupt213 wrote: | That makes it real easy, actually. No Reddit or Twitter | jeffwask wrote: | RIF is a good alternative Reddit phone client. | | https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andrewshu | .... | | For those of us who can't go to the bathroom without | reddit. | corobo wrote: | I used this to reduce my usage of the sites. It's so terrible | I'm in and out in just enough time to check notifications | | Having said that I find Twitter to be quite usable in a | mobile browser, it's one of the few that isn't awful | | Facebook is by far the worst, image posts overlap the edges | of the screen, terrible for anything with text overlaying[1]. | You can use the mobile version instead but then you can't use | FB messenger at all | | [1] e.g. https://img.imgy.org/-7p8.jpg | prmoustache wrote: | Actually twitter is fine on a mobile browser provided you use | an account. | | What I miss is the multi-container extension on | fennec/firefox mobile. I keep using those sites in incognito | mode but that mean I can only use one at a time. | PenguinCoder wrote: | > provided you use an account. | | Within 3 days of registering a new account they will prompt | you 'for a phone number, because we detected security | issues with your usage'. Don't know how having a phone | number helps with security issues like that, but again | -user hostile-. | | I'm not creating a Twitter account just to read their | public site, because they are user hostile and privacy | invasive. | macNchz wrote: | I actually find Twitter's mobile web app experience to be | pretty good-they don't nag me to install the app every 5 | seconds, it's reasonably performant, the back button works | properly and even mostly preserves scroll position. All of | the core functionality is there, except new features like | Fleets I don't care about anyway. I use it regularly and have | been pretty impressed. | | Reddit on the other hand is absolutely hostile and basically | none of what I said above is true of their mobile web UI. I | refuse to install their app simply out of spite for how | aggressively they nag for me to use it. I've said no like 500 | times at this point, will I change my mind on the 501st | prompt? | dylan604 wrote: | I all I ever see when following Twitter links on mobile is | the lower 1/3 of the screen with a "it's better in the app" | banner bullshit. What web app from Twitter are you seeing | that doesn't have that? | eCa wrote: | I have the same experience. When I want to access twitter | I use https://nitter.net/<twitterhandle> | miramba wrote: | Thank you!! I was unsuccessfully searching for something | like this. Btw I also see a full screen, not closable | login nag when scrolling down a few tweets. The solutions | is to tap on login and close the dialog on the following | screen. I won't make an account, twitter. Shut me out | completely and I'll be gone, just like with reddit. | rrix2 wrote: | Its significantly less hostile if you use it as an web | app, logged in. Even presents a PWA that is basically | indistinguishable from the Twitter-Lite app served to | data starved localities in Google Play. | slickdork wrote: | Have you tried using the website without logging in? | Basically impossible. | BudaDude wrote: | I just saw this in another article: | https://apps.apple.com/us/app/banish-for-safari/id1632848430 | | I wonder if it can solve this problem since | reddit/twitter/tiktok won't stop. | [deleted] | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | This theoretically can't happen anymore, right? | | You have to give apps permission to get your contacts, right? | cloudking wrote: | They can also track anything you do outside their browser, on a | website with their tracking pixel. | croes wrote: | You can install blockers in your browser but not in in-app | browsers | stephenson wrote: | This is why I have pi-hole on my network | (https://github.com/pi-hole) | hashishen wrote: | Firefox has built in tracking protection to prevent this iirc | ledauphin wrote: | I can't imagine why anyone would expect otherwise. If you're | still 'inside' an application, why wouldn't that app be able to | track everything you do? | | To completely hijack the discussion here, I believe that Apple is | actually one of the strongest forces for anti-privacy in the | world, because of their long-term, successful push for the | convention of app > website (not fully supporting PWAs, | disallowing web push, etc). A website may spy on you, but it can | only do so in ways constrained by the browser, which has to serve | many "masters". Mobile apps are completely unconstrained in their | spying, and in-app browsers are just the logical extension of | that pattern. | | Thanks largely to Apple, we've conditioned ourselves to expecting | that you can't have good mobile UX without a mobile-native | application, and it's hard to imagine ever escaping back into the | relatively open web now that we're this far down this path. Most | people will never question the privacy implications of installing | the Facebook app, and most of Apple's privacy-directed efforts on | iOS are basically playing walled-garden whack-a-mole on problems | that are better solved at a societal level with web browser | standards. | | Yes, it's quite likely that I'm scapegoating here, but it's the | way I see it. | ezfe wrote: | Apps that use Safari View Controller cannot view the page - of | course Facebook doesn't use SVC for this reason. | | While you're right that the Facebook/Instagram app can spy on | links opened within the app, it can't plant cookies in your web | browser - so those go both ways. | jefftk wrote: | I thought Facebook/Instagram used a WebView for their in-app | browser on both iOS and Android? Which means they can do | anything they want, including exfiltrate your browsing. | wonderbore wrote: | GP a was referring to a specific "web view" implementation | that offers an almost-complete browser implementation and | security on iOS. Facebook does not use this but a regular | WebView | ezfe wrote: | I meant "of course Facebook doesn't [use Safari View | Controller]". WebView [?] Safari View Controller. | | Safari View Controller keeps the users cookies from Safari | and prevents this behavior. For most apps, keeping users | logged in without leaving the app is preferred, so they | give up the ability to inspect the contents of the page. | jefftk wrote: | Sorry, rereading your comment that's exactly what you | said and I just misread! | saagarjha wrote: | > Safari View Controller keeps the users cookies from | Safari | | It does not, because apps decided to abuse it for | fingerprinting. | [deleted] | iamjk wrote: | Isn't this... what everyone (that uses in-app browsers) does? I | just assumed that's a big reason _why_ one would use in-app over | sending a person to their native environment, which is decidedly | a better browsing experience. | yreg wrote: | I think that in times when user just quickly checks some | website the better UX is to stay in the app, so there would be | legitimate use cases. | | e.g. Apollo by iamthatis here on hn does this and I very much | doubt he is doing it for tracking reasons. | nxtbl wrote: | Open in [X] Firefox Focus | | and it forgets everything when you close it. | solarkraft wrote: | No shit! Instagram tracks what I do in the Instagram app! | eis wrote: | You get a link inside Instagram to some website that does not | belong to Instagram. It is none of Instagrams business what you | do on that website. People do not even realise they are still | inside Instagram while logging into their bank account and | Instagram keeping a log of some of their activity inside that | bank website. It's insane. | elorant wrote: | That's the definition of a malware. | sneak wrote: | If these platforms do things that are abusive and invasive, the | solution is not to complain about it, the solution is to _stop | donating content to them for free_ and _delete your account_ so | they aren 't attractive to more users. | | Continuing to enrich them, even by your reachability via their DM | messengers, makes them more attractive to your friends and | family. | | Delete your Facebook and Instagram accounts. Stop giving them | positive feedback (via continued usage and content donations) | after they make clear choices to abuse you. | dazbradbury wrote: | Websites need cookie notices, but apps can track your full web | usage (albeit within the in-app browser) without any such notice | or opt in? Doesn't seem like this would be legal. Anyone know how | this could be compliant in the EU? | | It's also frustrating that on an android device you can't simply | disable in-app browsers globally. | flipbrad wrote: | The EU+UK e-privacy "cookie" rule applies to apps in the same | way as anything else that's sending/receiving data over a | public network (e.g. the Internet): all storage of information | to, or reading of information from, the end-user device | requires their free, informed and specific consent, unless it's | a technical necessity for the service they requested, or | certain limited (technical) purposes like load balancing. How | strictly this is enforced by regulators has waxed and waned | over time and from one country to another. Civil litigants, | however, have had pretty good results in the courts (or just | threatening litigation) - e.g. the Lloyd and Vidal-Hall cases | against Google in the UK | fleddr wrote: | I'm not familiar with the Instagram signup flow but it may very | well be that the user did opt-in at one point. The opt-in would | of course only be valid if there's also a clear "reject" | option. | karek wrote: | Why is this legal? | georgex7 wrote: | Another reason why we hate Zuck: | https://backtohumanity.substack.com/p/why-people-hate-zuck | nodejsthrowaway wrote: | Is this different from my android experience where I open a link | from an app and it opens my default browser, Firefox, but kind-of | within the app, but allows me to instantly switch over to the | Firefox app instead using a drop-down menu option? | Flimm wrote: | iOS provides a way of showing a browser that looks like it's | within the app from which it is launched. This is not what | Instagram is doing. Instagram is doing something different from | what other apps like Telegram do, according to the article: | | > Comparing this to what happens when using a normal browser, | or in this case, Telegram, which uses the recommended | SFSafariViewController: | | > As you can see, a regular browser, or SFSafariViewController | doesn't run any JS code. SFSafariViewController is a great way | for app developers to show third party web content to the user, | without them leaving your app, while still preserving the | privacy and comfort for the user. | izacus wrote: | Android has two ways of doing that - Chrome Custom Tabs which | are secured against this (iirc) and WebView which isnt. | | Custom Tabs always have a title bar and a small writing | "Powered by <browser>" at the end of the menu. | dilDDoS wrote: | I generally don't see any appeal to in-app browsers in the first | place. They often have extremely broken navigation controls (i.e. | attempting to swipe back to a previous page usually just returns | back to the app), block the ability to navigate to a specific | URL, content blockers don't work, don't allow opening "smart | links" that would typically open in another app if opened from a | normal browser, etc. From what I'm gathering from this article, | it sounds like in-app browsing allows apps to give you all of the | "benefits" of being tracked (for their benefit only), with none | of the (actual) benefits of using a real browser. | inlined wrote: | The appeal of in-app browsers is that apps like Facebook can | boost their "time in app" metrics while you read linked | articles. | the_gipsy wrote: | They lock users into the app. Every app and website tries hard | to not let the user follow a link. Engagement. | darth_avocado wrote: | I frankly am surprised why anyone would think otherwise? The | "In-app" in the name should kind of give it away that it is, | after all, in the app. Anything you do will be available for | the app to track. | lrvick wrote: | Consider the overwhelming majority of users are technically | illiterate. Everything is just magic scrolling machines | people learned to trust from watching people they trust use | them. | darth_avocado wrote: | I would sympathize with all of the illiterate users. But | the person who reported this and the people on HN | discussing the article would be considered a little more | technologically literate I would assume. | rchaud wrote: | Considering that a simple iOS privacy disclosure dialog box | cost FB $10bn in revenue loss, I'd say there are a lot of | things users would be surprised to know when it comes to how | apps work and what they collect. | zippergz wrote: | I'm sure this has gotten better as people have become more used | to smartphones, but I worked on a popular app for a big company | a number of years ago, and we would send people out to Safari | to open links. The number of customer service calls we got from | people who couldn't figure out how to get back to the app after | that was ASTOUNDING. We eventually gave in and did an in-app | browser. Not only did it get rid of that category of call, but | it also noticeably helped our key metrics because fewer people | were leaving the app to never come back again. | | I realize that doesn't address the appeal FOR USERS, but it is | why we did it as developers. | fleddr wrote: | Same issue when your website opens a link in a new tab on | mobile: many mobile users have no idea how to get back. The | back button does not work and they don't know how to | close/switch tabs. They're barely aware of the concept of a | tab. | autoexec wrote: | > They're barely aware of the concept of a tab. | | What mobile browsers actually have tabs that look like | tabs? Honest question, I've only ever used firefox on | android. If the others handle tabs anything like firefox | does tabs are way more intuitive on a PC. | fleddr wrote: | None, and that's indeed the issue. You can't even see | you're in a tab as the entire concept is in no way | communicated. | djxfade wrote: | iOS does have visible tabs, identical to desktop Safari. | But only in landscape mode | brianslp wrote: | This has actually been fixed since iOS 9: https://developer.a | pple.com/documentation/safariservices/sfs... | | This opens Safari, but makes it _appear_ like it 's an in-app | browser. Best of both. | [deleted] | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | That's a very understandable decision from an app developer | POV. But the fault lies with the OS and ideally should be | solved by it. This isn't a problem on real computers. | | It's like putting a toilet in every room because people can't | find the bathroom when maybe the bathroom shouldn't have been | hidden down in a hatch under a rug. But you can't easily | rebuild your house, and now there's shit everywhere, so what | is one to do? | judge2020 wrote: | iOS 'solved' this by including a back button in the top | left that takes you to the previous app, but now I | sometimes misclick that when trying to hit a button/control | in the top left of the foreground app. On a small 5 to | 8-inch display, there's tradeoffs for every change they | make and in every stage of the design process. | thrashh wrote: | I'm a developer and I remember turning off in-app browsers | whenever I could and I absolutely hated it | | My browser would get littered with old tabs and coming back | to the app for a small click became a hassle | | On the off-chance I do want to save a link, I know I can just | open it in my browser anyway | | So I much prefer in-app browsers as a user and a developer | conductr wrote: | I feel like half the time I encounter them is when I'm | already in my browser, click a link (probably search | results), it opens the app, the app proceeds to display | content in an in app browser.. and I'm just left think why, | WhY, WHY? | modeless wrote: | I'm the opposite, I hate in app browsers as a user. It's | like having a bunch of extra poorly made web browsers that | can only have one tab, and block me from using one of my | apps. When I'm trying to find a tab I had open now I have | to search both my browser tabs and every app in my app | switcher. And if I want to keep using an app but it's | showing an in-app browser I have to either throw away my | tab, or navigate a menu to migrate it to my real browser to | save for later, then switch back to the app and close the | in app browser, and only then can I continue to use the | app. It's a constant pain. | shawnz wrote: | I think Android's "custom tabs" functionality is a great | compromise. Apps can open a separate instance of the user's | default browser which becomes part of the app's activity | stack and doesn't share tabs with the main browser | instance. However the UI and navigation are controlled by | the browser, not the app. Cookies and local storage are | also shared with the main browser instance, allowing | seamless SSO without the app being able to intercept the | secrets. | | AFAIK iOS supports something similar, but only for | authentication use cases. | brianslp wrote: | iOS has essentially the same: https://developer.apple.com | /documentation/safariservices/sfs... | samtheprogram wrote: | Ironically the whole point of it originally was sandboxing, and | it's true at least on iOS. Thus, you won't be logged into the | same sites within an in-app browser, and clicking a link from | within an app (whether it appears to be an link or not) can't | automatically connect you to cookies and any other tracking | from your actual browser. | tjoff wrote: | On android I have firefox-focus as my default browser (and | disable any in-app browsing) for that same purpose. | flanbiscuit wrote: | Also available in Firefox for Android (not just FF Focus) | | Settings > Advanced > "Open links in apps" | | https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/set-firefox-android- | ope... | tjoff wrote: | The point with firefox focus is that the whole browser is | in private mode. And even another browser, so no shared | sessions or anything with your normal browser or precious | interactions/sessions. | | Not sure if open-links-in-apps is comparable to that, | never tried it (I rather prefer multitasking than doing | it from within the app anyway). | mrtksn wrote: | On iOS this is traditionally done with UIWebView or | WKWebView(like the former but better performance, runs as | separate process) and you are right about the problems it | creates. | | However, the developers do have options to incorporate | SFSafariViewController since iOS9.0 and that gives the user | full Safari experience with Autofill and everything and without | giving access to its contents to the app developer. | | It actually makes a lot of sense from users perspective when | the context is that the app temporary needs to take you to a | webpage for something with the intention of you going back to | the app. With SFSafariViewController this is done securely and | with good user experience but unfortunately most apps business | model revolves around tracking everything you do and as a | result, most developers would use UIWebView/WKWebView instead | of SFSafariViewController just to be able to track you. | | The UIWebView/WKWebView has legitimate uses like letting you | sign in from a web interface and transfer the session into the | app but I kind of feel like we would be better off to | depreciate it in favour of using alternative methods to do the | web/app connection and improve privacy significantly. | | Personally, I would never do anything sensitive from within a | browser that is in an app. It looks like very obvious attack | vector to me. | zionic wrote: | > i.e. attempting to swipe back to a previous page usually just | returns back to the app | | Is there any way to turn that damn functionality off? I can't | tell you how many times I've been navigating some newfangled | web UI and had a swipe go "back". | | That and disabling pinch to zoom backing out to the tabs UI. I | wanna zoom out dammit. Is hitting a back or tab button really | so hard that you have to break basic pan/zoom mechanics?! | | I know I'm putting off "old man yells at cloud" vibes here, but | come on | tolmasky wrote: | It's even worse than that: | | 1. Nothing you visit gets saved in your history. So many times | I'm looking through my history thinking "I could have sworn I | read an article about this..." only to eventually discover (if | I'm lucky) that it was in Twitter's stupid in-app browser. But | oh well, never going to find that article again! The irony of | the APP knowing everything you visit but you _never_ getting to | remember what you visited. | | 2. All your logins are gone! I actually pay a bunch of stupid | newspapers just to click on links in Twitter and STILL be told | I can't read the article because of course I'm not logged-in in | the in-app browser. UGH. | | You could imagine a world where iOS tried to balance the desire | of an app to not bounce you out with a more "integrated | experience" by providing an "in-app" browser that was | completely controlled by the OS, modifying your history, | keeping you logged in, running out of process, and being able | to be "adopted" as a tab in Safari, but instead they just made | "SFSafariViewController" which does none of these things and | instead just makes it really really easy for all apps to | incorporate these infuriating in-app browsers. | dwighttk wrote: | You might consider using Twitter in Safari instead of the app | based on those irritations. | tolmasky wrote: | On everything other than iOS (desktop and iPad), I either | use Twitter in the browser or it is reasonable to just have | links open in the main browser. Using Twitter in Safari on | iOS (on the phone, to distinguish it from iPadOS), you end | up with kind of the reverse problem of needing to fish | around for Twitter in tabs. If Safari on iOS had a better | "save web app"/site-specific browser story, then this could | possibly remedy some of these problems (or if they | implemented some of the basic ideas I described, like | storing history). | kccqzy wrote: | The original SFSafariViewController did share cookies with | regular Safari. The documentation says | | > In iOS 9 and 10, it shares cookies and other website data | with Safari. | | I was also also disappointed that they removed it in iOS 11. | But it's still a step-up from other even more horrible in-app | browsers like in Instagram, which are implemented with | WKWebView. I refuse to read anything in those in-app | browsers; I always manually open them in Safari. | nocsi wrote: | lol what you're describing as a 'feature' is actually | insecure & vulnerable. There are strong security reasons | why Apple mandates WKWebView and bans SFSafari. | 0x0 wrote: | What are you talking about? Care to give some sources for | this? | djxfade wrote: | Not really, SFSafariViewController was a "view" only | controller. The app couldn't communicate or extract data | from it. | mrtksn wrote: | > instead they just made "SFSafariViewController" which does | none of these things | | Actually, SFSafariViewController acts as a full Safari | without giving any ability to the developer to inject scripts | or receive data to track you(except for ad taps through | Private Click Measurement). It's actually a nice solution, it | shares cookies(non-session ones) with Safari. | tolmasky wrote: | Right... by "none of these things" I meant... the stuff I | listed, which for the record is not incompatible with | isolating the browser from the initiating app. It would be | totally viable to give SFSafariViewControllers "write only" | access to your history (implemented as just an API call | that SFSafariViewControllers makes to notify the OS of a | page navigation, which it can then store the URL of in your | history, so that when you go to history in Safari later, it | would show up there). Similarly, there could be a very nice | "adopt as tab" button that would "rip" the view controller | out of the enclosing app and just plop it into Safari | proper, complete with it's back-forward list/history, and | make it really easy to transition from the app to Safari | without the much less ideal "open in Safari" button that | loses navigation/page-state/etc. In other words, the way | SFSafariViewController could work is that you _are_ in | Safari (forcing the full screen experience), just with a | "Done" button that takes you "back" to the app (or an adopt | button that "solidifies" the app switch. Think something | more akin to the "app banner" that Safari shows when you go | to an app's page, just with a nice transition of the | webpage coming in from the app, kind of like the old Mail | animation from iOS 1). This actually accommodates both | goals: you get the _real_ "full Safari" (again, you have | effectively opened the link in Safari), but a nice little | "Done" button to let you get back to what you were doing in | the initiating app, which is the only "good faith" thing | the app should care about (obviously we don't care about | accommodating tracking/etc.). | mrtksn wrote: | I like the "adopt as tab" button idea a lot and generally | agree but I also see the associated risks with other | suggestions. | | For example, write only access to history will also mean | SEO-consultant-type people paying app developers to write | certain websites to the users history. When Safari does | suggestions on the address bar, browsing history is a | major source. | tolmasky wrote: | The only caller of said API would be the | SFSafariViewController itself, the same way the Share | Panel can see your Contacts despite you not having given | the app that opened the Share Panel Contacts "access". | This way, only organic page navigations get recorded (or | at minimum is equally susceptible to any history | pollution as a normal web page that you encounter). The | idea was not to have SFSafariAddURLToHistory(), apologies | if that's the way it came off. | saagarjha wrote: | Twitter uses SFSafariViewController, which does not give | Twitter access to what you browse. | tolmasky wrote: | Right, I know. I mentioned SFSafariViewController in my | post. I am saying, in the _9 years since | SFSafariViewController was introduced_ , Apple could have | made the experience with SFSafariViewController better, for | example by having pages you visit in a | SFSafariViewController get saved into your normal browsing | history (this can be done without giving Twitter access to | anything, it can simply notify the OS of an internal | navigation, and then the OS can add that item to your | Safari history. If SFSafariViewController runs out-of- | process, then it can be even simpler than that). I then | wouldn't have to keep a weird mapping in my head of what | "app" I read an article in to ever get back to it. This | would go a long way in closing the gap with the benefits | you get from opening a link in Safari proper instead of | viewing it in-app. | sayrer wrote: | Well, I'm sure there are "growth hacker" types out there | abusing the ability to observe browsing. But I think the real | reason they don't bounce you to Safari, Chrome, etc is because | users don't stay in the app if they do that. | | I think all of the various bad things people talk about here | must happen sometimes, but it's mostly just retention I'd | guess. | stingrae wrote: | My assumption is that it is a Product managers play to get | people to stay in the app for longer. If you give people a link | out of the app, then they are less likely to come back after. | | You get a bump in engagement and time spent in the app at the | cost of UX. | nerdponx wrote: | There is no appeal for users and there never has been. | systemvoltage wrote: | Instagram isn't doing it for the benefit of the user. | rconti wrote: | The very first thing I do, every time, is click "open in | browser", just because, if nothing else, the framing of the | site always feels "off" to me when using one of those in-app | browsers. | guelo wrote: | Apps in general are awful for users. I do all my mobile social | media browsing on the web where I have much more control over | things like copying text, saving images, zooming, adblockers, | privacy tools, etc. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-10 23:00 UTC)