Attention NoScript users • Hacker News Board

Re: Attention NoScript users

#31

Post by jfarmer » Sat, May 02, 2009, 7:45 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #13

mustpax wrote: post #8

Very 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.

How is that? It's my browser running on my computer. Shouldn't I have final say over what I do and don't see?

Nobody has a right to show me advertising, just as I don't have a right to read someone's content. If publishers have a problem with it they need to find a way to not display content to clients who are blocking ads.

But this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about NoScript using my computer to interfere with other plugins. The behavior is unexpected and unwanted.

If the behavior is "ok" then the NoScript people shouldn't have any problem owning up to it, even broadcasting it to all their users. But I think we all know how that would play out.

It would be no different than if when you installed Firefox on your computer it made Safari break, or included some obscure option deep in its configuration menu like "[x] Break Safari."

Re: Attention NoScript users

#32

Post by thorax » Sat, May 02, 2009, 10:11 PM UTC

spkthed wrote: post #27

thorax wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, they overreacted. NoScript shouldn't have started out that way. AdBlock Plus shouldn't have forced the issue by making it even more of an "island" war. They should have started with this kind of blog in the first place before escalating on the technical side.

Note that NoScript could easily change their scheme to move further into their island where AdBlock Plus would be forced to invade fully-- it's in no one's interest to escalate before diplomacy has been worked through.

The last thing we need is the light-smattering of gray Firefox addons (who are at worst showing some adsense ads) to be forced to push things deeper into darker areas.

Imagine if this was Symantec and Trend? Microsoft or Apple? Do you really want them to be fighting technically on your machine? In principle, it's just fundamentally bad for us to encourage that kind of behavior. They should use diplomacy, and shine lights in the dark areas before escalating technically.

Yes, NoScript reacted to the escalation fiendishly. I just don't think it was responsible on AdBlock Plus's side to escalate technically on such a minor issue when diplomacy/communication is so much better for everyone.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#33

Post by thorax » Sat, May 02, 2009, 10:14 PM UTC

Nwallins wrote: post #10

thorax wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Adblock developers escalated it into some sort of weird war Some hyperbole for sure. Nothing gets around the fact that NoScript overstepped very clear and natural boundaries. If I had been the target, I would probably overreact as well. NoScript's behavior is nonetheless well worth pointing out and publicly shaming.

Not hyperbole-- it's very much in our interest for these guys to sort this out publicly before escalation. It's irresponsible to cause a technical fight on your users machines. Essentially what I said here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=590263

Re: Attention NoScript users

#34

Post by twopoint718 » Sun, May 03, 2009, 12:20 AM UTC

axod wrote: post #13

mustpax wrote: post #8

Very 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.

When someone pays to advertise they know it is a "leaky" mechanism. It is understood (or should be) that not every person in the world will see that ad. It is also understood that not every person that sees the ad will buy the products advertised. That's the nature of advertising.

Why do they still advertise? Because of the people that do see the ad, some do buy the product.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#35

Post by duskwuff » Sun, May 03, 2009, 3:39 AM UTC

spkthed wrote: post #28

pyr3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

"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..."

No. Hell no. Antivirus programs conflict for a good technical reason. NoScript and AdBlock conflict because the author of one dislikes the effects of the other program; were it not for that, the two extensions would be completely compatible with one another. Equating these two things with each other completely misses the point.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#36

Post by spkthed » Sun, May 03, 2009, 3:44 AM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #35

spkthed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

"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..." No. Hell no. Antivirus programs conflict for a good technical reason. NoScript and AdBlock conflict because the author of one dislikes the effects of the other program ; were it not for that, the two extensions would be completely compatible with one another. Equating thes…

I'm giving an example of a way to approach this problem. Installing Noscript could add a rule to an Adblock whitelist. What Noscript is doing by trying to sneak it in is wrong. If they wanted to overwrite a rule, let the user do it. As that article points out, and as Mozilla points out, making that the non-default option is very important.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#37

Post by spkthed » Sun, May 03, 2009, 3:47 AM UTC

thorax wrote: post #32

spkthed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, they overreacted. NoScript shouldn't have started out that way. AdBlock Plus shouldn't have forced the issue by making it even more of an "island" war. They should have started with this kind of blog in the first place before escalating on the technical side. Note that NoScript could easily change their scheme to move further into their island where AdBlock Plus would be forced to invade fully-- it's in no one'…

AdBlock Plus shouldn't have forced the issue by making it even more of an "island" war. They should have started with this kind of blog in the first place before escalating on the technical side.

Okay, so, you do realize that Adblock faces spammers that are constantly trying to tweak the system to get through blockers like Adblock, right? It's a constant fight. How is what Noscript is doing any other than other spammers?

Adblock is simply treating them as any other ad company that's trying to sneak ads in. Given that that is the reason people install Adblock, that's a perfectly appropriate response.

The NoScript developers not only overreacted, they also acted incredibly against the wishes of the users installing both programs.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#38

Post by thorax » Sun, May 03, 2009, 6:04 AM UTC

spkthed wrote: post #37

thorax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they overreacted. NoScript shouldn't have started out that way. AdBlock Plus shouldn't have forced the issue by making it even more of an "island" war. They should have started with this kind of blog in the first place before escalating on the technical side. Note that NoScript could easily change their scheme to move further into their island where AdBlock Plus would be forced to invade fully-- it's in no one'…

AdBlock Plus shouldn't have forced the issue by making it even more of an "island" war. They should have started with this kind of blog in the first place before escalating on the technical side. Okay, so, you do realize that Adblock faces spammers that are constantly trying to tweak the system to get through blockers like Adblock, right? It's a constant fight. How is what Noscript is doing any other than other spamm…

> How is what Noscript is doing any other than other spammers?

The whole reason we're even talking about this is because the situation is different than a normal spammer. NoScript is an extension and thus is doing things spammers can't do, and all on the end user's machines.

That's why it makes me sad that Adblock didn't play this more responsibly from the outset. I'm even more sad that everyone else is content in believing that Adblock was doing the right thing by escalating. What they did was less bad than NoScript, but it's still wild west gunslinging without exhausting more civilized options.

We need discussion/diplomacy between developers before people start fighting/warring using their customers' resources.

Re: Attention NoScript users

#39

Post by shard » Sun, May 03, 2009, 8:32 AM UTC

axod wrote: post #21

jauco wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's about giving potential consumers information so they can make informed choices.

For a long time now advertisement has been about manipulating people's emotions so that they seek fulfillment in the product being advertised. When was the last time you saw an Apple ad where the purpose was listing the specs so the consumer can make an informed choice?

Re: Attention NoScript users

#40

Post by lucumo » Sun, May 03, 2009, 9:12 AM UTC

jfarmer wrote: post #31

axod wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

How is that? It's my browser running on my computer. Shouldn't I have final say over what I do and don't see? Nobody has a right to show me advertising, just as I don't have a right to read someone's content. If publishers have a problem with it they need to find a way to not display content to clients who are blocking ads. But this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about NoScript using my computer to int…

> How is that? It's my browser running on my computer. Shouldn't I have final say over what I do and don't see?

You're free not to use a site. But if you are viewing a site, why would you even expect to use it without also helping to provide for its upkeep?

> Nobody has a right to show me advertising, just as I don't have a right to read someone's content. If publishers have a problem with it they need to find a way to not display content to clients who are blocking ads.

Attempts which would be blocked by ABP's author. That would be an arms race. Maybe we should start fighting it, though. It would be much harder to maintain that they're not trying to screw over site owners with the extension.