Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

forum.palemoon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 263 posts

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#71

Post by chuckdries »

jszymborski wrote: post #64
chuckdries wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's distinctly passive with ad blockers. Sure, you want to read my content without supporting me (some publications prevent you from doing so, but mine does not). You're just affecting you. With AdNauseum, you are actively attacking our ability to make money off of other users. You're punishing me for writing content that you want to read.

I'm not trying to punish you for writing content I want to read, I'm punishing a horrible and unethical industry that you've chosen to profit from. The current state of online advertisement is an absolute blight on the internet. Online ads are the primary source of malware among anyone I've spoken to, and online advertising standards are atrocious. Just because someone uses the profits of a Ponzi scheme to support th…

How is advertising a ponzi scheme? (genuine, earnest question)

We don't buy from an ad network, we have an ad sales department, the same people that used to sell print ads to local businesses now sell online ads to local businesses.

There may be big systemic problems with practices of the big ad networks, frankly I haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion, but we don't use these big networks and we still have to deal with the fallout

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#72

Post by eropple »

hbbio wrote: post #66
eropple wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding--and I pretty much hang out in the virtual duck blind studying vile people as a hobby, this isn't second-hand--is that this is largely being pushed by the 4chan/alt-right/white-supremacist crowd that's mostly mad at Google for not partying down with them. (People in the comments are referring to 4chan's /g/ board in that thread.) You are right that we need to figure out how to evolve advertising-- wh…

How come? The originator of AdNauseum is https://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/

I didn't say that the writer of AdNauseam was of that crowd, but the folks pushing it sure are.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#73

Post by eropple »

benchaney wrote: post #69
eropple wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is "modify about:config" not having it "your way"?

You already got to decide which extensions you install. Making them disappear by default is a clear attempt to prevent people from installing an extension they may want.

OK, and? "Your way." Modify about:config. (Or, yanno, keep shitposting on /g/, as the complainers are wont to do.)

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#74

Post by icebraining »

eropple wrote: post #59
icebraining wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might as well use Firefox then, you can always modify the source.

I think PaleMoon is largely silly, but we aren't talking about having to modify the source to use the silly clickjacker. We're talking about typing a URL and changing a number. Which is why the angst being demonstrated is bonkers (and largely ideologically motivated, not to put too fine a point on it).

Of course it's ideologically motivated. The whole point of using Pale Moon is its ideology - represented by the motto "Your browser, you way". Ideologies are at the core of humanness. Using it as an insult is just sad.

And it's exactly because the ideology that the browser represented, and for which many people switched to it, is seen as having been betrayed that people are criticizing it. Whether the roadblock is easy to surmount is irrelevant.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#75

Post by chuckdries »

Rjevski wrote: post #63
chuckdries wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are punishing me and only me. We don't use an ad network, we sell our ad space directly to local businesses. Fake ad clicks have been actively hurting our ability to sell ads for about a year now. Our ads are pictures. Pictures are not malware. Also what ads cause damage? Like sure the ads on porn or piratebay are cancerous but no reputable newspaper will have anything harmful, just potentially annoying.

See my other response above ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15112864 ) about why this extension wouldn't change anything for you. > no reputable newspaper will have anything harmful, just potentially annoying. Please look up "malvertising", install an ad blocker if you haven't already then come back and feel free to revise your statement. ;)

I personally use ublock origin in dynamic filtering mode, I use it like a blacklist, where I allow ads on all websites by default but block them selectively on particularly bad websites.

I can't seem to find which comment of yours you're referring to, I know that our ads are still blocked by most ad blockers and we've seen fake traffic and fake ad clicks in our analytics before.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#76

Post by benchaney »

eropple wrote: post #73
benchaney wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already got to decide which extensions you install. Making them disappear by default is a clear attempt to prevent people from installing an extension they may want.

OK, and? "Your way." Modify about:config. (Or, yanno, keep shitposting on /g/, as the complainers are wont to do.)

> OK, and?

Most people view attempts to manipulate others as bad. Especially in the context of free software that has "Your Browser Your Way" as a tag line.

> Modify about:config

I don't use Pale Moon, so I don't have too :)

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#77

Post by notgood »

wongarsu wrote: post #27

>Generating this kind of traffic does not achieve its intended goal (providing protest against ad networks or causing advertising to fail for ad networks) since the ones punished are the publishers (those who rely on this revenue) and not the ad networks. I don't think I follow? People don't like the ad networks and want them to change or fail. That's achievable by forcing change at either the advertiser, the network…

> That's achievable by forcing change at either the advertiser, the network or the website owner.

...Or the user; you see, if people starts getting blocked for using this extension you know what's going to happen once word gets around? That's right, users start avoiding the extension.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#78

Post by icebraining »

eropple wrote: post #49
oh_sigh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant of OPs point. Disallowing an extension that a user might want doesn't seem like "your way"

It isn't "disallowed". You make a change in about:config.

What's the point at which it can be said to be disallowed? Editing a file with notepad? Editing it with an hex editor? Compiling from source?

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#79

Post by sanxiyn »

eropple wrote: post #59
icebraining wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might as well use Firefox then, you can always modify the source.

I think PaleMoon is largely silly, but we aren't talking about having to modify the source to use the silly clickjacker. We're talking about typing a URL and changing a number. Which is why the angst being demonstrated is bonkers (and largely ideologically motivated, not to put too fine a point on it).

I think angst is primarily for classifying AdNauseam as malware, which it clearly isn't. At least, that's the primary reason of angst for me.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#80

Post by Rjevski »

chuckdries wrote: post #75
Rjevski wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other response above ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15112864 ) about why this extension wouldn't change anything for you. > no reputable newspaper will have anything harmful, just potentially annoying. Please look up "malvertising", install an ad blocker if you haven't already then come back and feel free to revise your statement. ;)

I personally use ublock origin in dynamic filtering mode, I use it like a blacklist, where I allow ads on all websites by default but block them selectively on particularly bad websites. I can't seem to find which comment of yours you're referring to, I know that our ads are still blocked by most ad blockers and we've seen fake traffic and fake ad clicks in our analytics before.

I've edited my comment with a link to the response. Again, if your ads are actually safe and not obnoxious you could potentially just alter the markup every time you end up on an ad blacklist so the selectors no longer match.
Post reply on HN