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

Attention NoScript users

adblockplus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Attention NoScript users

#21

Post by axod »

jauco wrote: post #19
axod wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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.

Perhaps if you're particularly susceptible to brainwashing, then advertising could be a bad thing. But I think you have to give people a bit more credit than that. It's about giving potential consumers information so they can make informed choices.

Word of mouth is still the best form of advertising though - agreed. That's not to say other forms of advertising aren't effective, or useful for the consumer.

For example, I know what movies are out mainly through billboards. It's useful to me. If one looks interesting, I might look it up on the net and see if I want to go see it. I'm not being 'soft brainwashed', I'm being informed of a new movie I might want to go see.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#22

Post by axod »

jauco wrote: post #20
axod wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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.

Sure, it may turn into an arms race, although one of the other points of adblock is also that it doesn't download the advert - so it's extremely easy to detect an adblock user.

I think if adblock usage increases (I don't think it will), we'd move to a 2 tier internet - a degraded slimmed down internet for adblock users, and the full internet for everyone else. Which I think would be fair and just.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#23

Post by ableal »

earl wrote: post #5
ableal wrote: post #3

My method for this madness may be useful to someone. I use two browsers: A) Konqueror (aka Webkit/Chrome), with NO Java/Javascript/etc., for general reading and exploratory browsing. (Reads PDFs too, btw). B) Firefox for the "usual suspects". No extensions. No Flash either, but that's me. Problem solved. A surprising amount of the web works with A, some shops or social sites need B, I don't care about the rest.

You should try flashblock, if you don't already know about it. Instead of loading flash you get a play button where the flash would have been and you can choose to turn it on if you want. It also supports whitelists, although annoyingly enough on the host of the flash, not on the website displaying the flash.

Thanks, I know it exists - I'm just stubborn ;-).

I dislike opaque executable blobs delivered inside HTML, proprietary plugins to deal with them, and browser extensions to deal with the problems ... feels like piling bricks on moving sand - tiresome, ineffective, unsafe.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#24

Post by dgallagher »

dgallagher wrote: post #4

Just 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 "…

FYI, the newest version of NoScript (1.9.2.6) stops doing this:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589683

Re: Attention NoScript users

#25

Post by simonw »

axod wrote: post #12
dgallagher wrote: post #4

Just 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.

There's a very good reason to run NoScript: most web developers still don't understand CSRF, and hence many web applications are vulnerable to CSRF attacks. Running NoScript prevents untrusted sites from exploiting CSRF holes in sites that you care about.

That said I don't personally run NoScript (I use Safari), but I totally understand people who do.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#26

Post by spkthed »

axod wrote: post #18
sho wrote: post #16

Earlier 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…

The problem with your argument is huge. It requires you to basically have a whitelisted internet experience. Since most of the browsing we do is to new sites and new content, Adblockplus and Noscript have value in letting you evaluate the site first, then do whatever you want with it after.

It's a safety buffer and a very, very important one.

Unless you donate to the site/project or enable ads after that you are leeching content.

The responsibility for that goes both ways. If you depend on ad revenue for your entire revenue stream your business model is flawed. Let users do things like purchase the model outright to avoid annoyances or to donate. It's unfair to assume that a product won't be supported.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#27

Post by spkthed »

thorax wrote: post #6
buugs wrote: post #2

It doesn't surprise me the extent some people go to to generate revenue in what I must think is a small market. I am an adblock plus user and I must say it enhances my browsing a noticeable amount that when I am using a different browser or no adblock I notice and although this is not ideal for websites that make money off of ads I really dislike them. Same can't be said for noscript I've stopped installing it on fir…

> It doesn't surprise me the extent some people go to to generate revenue in what I must think is a small market. I agree there, but (and I'm in the minority here) it actually surprises me the extent the developers went to block ads in such a small corner situation. NoScript's behavior started out shady, but it feels like Adblock developers escalated it into some sort of weird war. A war against ads that appear only…

I don't think they did overreact. Noscripts function is to block scripts, Adblocks function is to block ads. They found a popular plugin that attacks their functionality and they took steps to combat it. I'm glad they did so.

The major point behind all of this is that extensions should be an island. You shouldn't be messing with the work of anyone else, especially for the reasons they had here.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#28

Post by spkthed »

pyr3 wrote: post #15
illumen wrote: post #11

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.

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 o…

One of the big points in that article mirrors your example. The correct response is to allow the user to decide.

"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"

"This software program conflicts with this software program. You can choose to run them both and accept the problems that occur accordingly or you can choose to cancel this installation or remove program X"

Do you want to cancel, remove program X, or cancel the installation?

Give users the option to opt-into using your software, don't force users to get into a proxy battle by automatically opting into things.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#29

Post by tetha »

axod wrote: post #22
jauco wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, it may turn into an arms race, although one of the other points of adblock is also that it doesn't download the advert - so it's extremely easy to detect an adblock user. I think if adblock usage increases (I don't think it will), we'd move to a 2 tier internet - a degraded slimmed down internet for adblock users, and the full internet for everyone else. Which I think would be fair and just.

This will not work. A good adblocker will load the ads, but it will not display them. This is basically what my recognition center did before I switched to adblock (and had an improved internet experience due to (massively) reduced load times and no annoying, blinking things). The important thing about the last sentence: You cannot assume I actually react to something in the ad, and the ads are loaded, thus, there is no way for the server to recognize a good adblocker.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#30

Post by sho »

axod wrote: post #18
sho wrote: post #16

Earlier 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…

"Using adblock actually makes things worse for everyone."

Well the thing is, no it doesn't. It makes things a lot better for me, because I don't have to look at ads.

But the funny thing is, I do look at ads, and quite a bit. Any site serving its own ads is not blocked. For example, I just went to railscasts.com and I saw a lot of ads - tasteful, non-animated, and I don't mind at all. What I cannot stand are animated or ugly ads, so I block them. So I had a problem, it's now solved, end of story.

"Stick by those principles."

But it's not my duty or interest to spend a lot of time like this, to "vote" for some sites and boycott others, to teach them a lesson. They have to figure it out. If they do, bring their ads in-house, and make them tasteful and relevant, then I wouldn't take any further action. But "fighting the power" like you propose? It's just not my battle.

"since you're never going to click on anything, the webmasters will likely make their ads more intrusive"

They can do what they want; I'm never going to see them.

Post reply on HN