Adblock also blocks the behaviour of no-script... by blocking the ads.
Both are doing wrong in a way... but not in others. It's a contradiction, but neither can claim to be the white knights... both are at best grey.
Attention NoScript users
11–20 of 42 posts
Re: Attention NoScript users
#12Just to re-iterate the article, NoScript runs ads on their website to generate some revenue. Adblock Plus normally blocks these ads, but NoScript whitelists itself (along with a few other partner developer websites) in Adblock Plus "without" end-user permission, and without making a genuine effort to notify users it's doing this. It hacks Adblock Plus from working on its sites, basically. You can disable NoScript's "…
OTOH It's trivial for any site to get past adblock if they choose to, or degrade the users experience if they're running adblock (If they have js).
I've never understood the reason for installing NoScript. It seems utterly pointless. Why not install NoHTML while you're at it, or use lynx.
Also never understood the philosophy behind adblock. If a website starts doing garish irritating ads, just don't go there again.
Re: Attention NoScript users
#13Very revealing. I stopped using NoScript a while ago since it would not properly whitelist some sites. At the time I was wondering why the plugin was updated so frequently with very similar change logs each time. This post explains why. Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable. Firefox should consider sandboxing the browser extensions. Maybe they'll get to that after they implement Chr…
>> "Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable"
Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.
Re: Attention NoScript users
#14Very revealing. I stopped using NoScript a while ago since it would not properly whitelist some sites. At the time I was wondering why the plugin was updated so frequently with very similar change logs each time. This post explains why. Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable. Firefox should consider sandboxing the browser extensions. Maybe they'll get to that after they implement Chr…
>> "Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable" Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.
No it isn't! I'm allowed to ffwd past comercials using my VHS and to cut out ads on my newspaper. Ads are a soft form of brainwashing, making watching them compulsive sounds too much like "brave new world" to me.
Re: Attention NoScript users
#15Adblock also blocks the behaviour of no-script... by blocking the ads. Both are doing wrong in a way... but not in others. It's a contradiction, but neither can claim to be the white knights... both are at best grey.
NoScript's behavior isn't the display of ads though, so AdBlock is _not_ directly messing with NoScript.
It could be that the users installed AdBlock to block the NoScript ads. In this case, NoScript is giving the finger to the users opinion.
At some point when the default behavior of two programs with similar feature-sets overlaps you just have to leave resolving them as an exercise for the user.
But targeting the other program in such a way is no different than someone installing two A/V softwares. Sure they may conflict in some areas, but if one of them silently disables or cripples the other on purpose... who is in the wrong?
Re: Attention NoScript users
#16Very revealing. I stopped using NoScript a while ago since it would not properly whitelist some sites. At the time I was wondering why the plugin was updated so frequently with very similar change logs each time. This post explains why. Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable. Firefox should consider sandboxing the browser extensions. Maybe they'll get to that after they implement Chr…
>> "Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable" Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.
"Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock."
Why? I am simply requesting their content, and they are willingly sending it to me. I then process it on client side to my satisfaction, which happens to involve filtering out any ads.
If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then.
Re: Attention NoScript users
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable" Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.
No it isn't! I'm allowed to ffwd past comercials using my VHS and to cut out ads on my newspaper. Ads are a soft form of brainwashing, making watching them compulsive sounds too much like "brave new world" to me.
>> "Ads are a soft form of brainwashing"
Every input we receive to our brains could be said to be a soft form of brainwashing.
Good advertising serves a use for consumers. Without it, you wouldn't be aware of what you can buy/do etc. If you want to opt out of that, fine. Personally, I find it invaluable to be aware of what is going on.
Re: Attention NoScript users
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable" Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.
"Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock." Why? I am simply requesting their content, and they are willingly sending it to me. I then process it on client side to my satisfaction, which happens to involve filtering out any ads. If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then.
>> "If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then."
It's certainly an option. It's easy enough to detect adblock, and send the user to a "Since you're not prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt that we'll show you a few useful unobtrusive adverts, please donate something or get lost" page, or otherwise degrade their experience.
For example, if the user has disabled javascript, sites should degrade gracefully. Likewise, if the user has disabled common forms of advertising, it'd be good for the website to disable any features that cost them a lot of money to run. Say it's a photo sharing site, give adblock users lower limits or something.
Adblock usage is a very small minority though, so unless you're a massive site (And want the very vocal minority to moan about how they should be free to leech all the content they want without giving anything back), probably not worth it.
Using adblock actually makes things worse for everyone. If you don't use adblock, and a site abuses your trust by doing popup ads, garish flash ads, then don't go there again. Stick by those principles. If everyone did that, then websites with intrusive stupid adverts would die off. By using adblock, you're rewarding those practices, but since you're never going to click on anything, the webmasters will likely make their ads more intrusive and garish to try and increase their CPM.
Re: Attention NoScript users
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn't! I'm allowed to ffwd past comercials using my VHS and to cut out ads on my newspaper. Ads are a soft form of brainwashing, making watching them compulsive sounds too much like "brave new world" to me.
>> "Ads are a soft form of brainwashing" Every input we receive to our brains could be said to be a soft form of brainwashing. Good advertising serves a use for consumers. Without it, you wouldn't be aware of what you can buy/do etc. If you want to opt out of that, fine. Personally, I find it invaluable to be aware of what is going on.
No, a constructive argument showcasing pro's and cons and highlighting merits of competing products serves a use for consumers.
And while that also has a soft brainwashing effect, it actually adds some information that allows you to make a conscious decission. An ad is just the brainwashing.
Re: Attention NoScript users
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock." Why? I am simply requesting their content, and they are willingly sending it to me. I then process it on client side to my satisfaction, which happens to involve filtering out any ads. If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then.
>> "If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then." It's certainly an option. It's easy enough to detect adblock, and send the user to a "Since you're not prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt that we'll show you a few useful unobtrusive adverts, please donate something or get lost" page, or otherwise degrade their experience. For example, if the user has disabled javascript, sites should deg…
I'd be all for that. I don't mind paying for an increased user experience if I actually need it. This would kinda let the user opt out of the ad-based revenue model.
Unfortunately some people will try to hack it, tragedy of the commons and all that.