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

UBlock Origin

addons.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#291

Post by kbenson »

baddox wrote: post #290
kbenson wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does javascript have to do with it? It's trivial to display images inline through data URLs. Javascript provides for some of the more onerous types of advertising, but it is by no means necessary to the process. We've all seen plenty of ways CSS could be leverages as an alternate solution. Re: text only browsing, that still allows for advertising, and it's up to the content provider to either take advantage of t…

> What does javascript have to do with it? It's trivial to display images inline through data URLs. My point applies to that too. Images, text, CSS, video, etc. I'm saying I don't have a problem with requesting an HTML file, receiving it, and then choosing to not render/execute/display certain parts of it. > Re: text only browsing, that still allows for advertising, and it's up to the content provider to either take…

> My point applies to that too. Images, text, CSS, video, etc. I'm saying I don't have a problem with requesting an HTML file, receiving it, and then choosing to not render/execute/display certain parts of it.

I think this is a fundamental difference. I think there's an implicit contract. Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit? If there was a preamble to every page that said you were licensed to view the content only if certain conditions were met, such as all included ads were displayed, does that change what you feel comfortable doing or not?

> I agree, but that doesn't sound like your previous position.

I don't think it's any different. It's about intent. Is someone using a text browser specifically to bypass ads? Then the text browser is in essence an ad-blocker (to the degree it works). If it's used because other circumstances that make it desirable or necessary, then it's up to the content provider to either disallow that access mechanism, or provide ads that work. This is the difference between a party failing to collect on their side of a contract, and a party failing to fulfill their side of a contract.

> I'm not talking about programmatically requesting large amounts of content. I just meant a single individual running a single cURL command.

It goes back to intent and text browsing. Any ad that could be made useful in text browsing would be just as applicable to what you got back from cURL. Either it's plain text, or you can parse the output. If oyu can parse it, you can see any included ads.

> I guess I'm arguing that you don't need to be a hypocrite, because it's not troubling behavior.

Eh, I think it is, on a small scale. Similar to littering occasionally with very small items.

Re: UBlock Origin

#292

Post by darkmighty »

manigandham wrote: post #255
LoSboccacc wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that as ads support the content rich internet we all know and love However ads have become just too much annoying with all the pop left and right and other shady tactics to steal your eyeballs or get you to dow load a virus It is time user started pushing back, since content owners are currently little to no incentive to push back to ads provider for getting high quality ads. Adblocking puts the right in…

I think the users always had the same choice, don't visit sites where you don't like the experience. Sure adblockers are finally pushing for better sites and ads but the blunt force approach of just blocking all ad scripts is actually causing more harm then good. Nowadays, hosting is so cheap that independent blogging is not really at risk, everyone can publish anything anytime. The risk is really with top and mid-ti…

I'm getting dismissed too, and people won't even admit it's a problem, much less give a coherent rebuttal: how are we not headed towards a classic 'Tragedy of the commons' type of scenario where no one wants to compromise (watch ads) but everyone wants free content. I can only conclude quality will degrade and we will get either behind paywalls or crappy content. Serious journalism is clearly suffering imo, for example. In this scenarios privacy degrades, since behind the paywall the provider knows your full identity along with all your browsing habits.

We need solutions for this, not a dismissal. No large company is engaging this in the public because there will be obvious backlash from adblocker users: they are currently fine, getting free content and seeing no ads -- why would they want change? While they don't see the trend is probably unsustainable, in the sense that services will generally be worse than they could have been.

My opinion is that some unobtrusive ads is a price that is worthy of payment, but this scenario is running out if we don't change some rules of come up with solutions. I'm very open to alternatives also such as some kind of internet-wide subscription model. It needs to be discussed, not tossed aside, imo.

Re: UBlock Origin

#293

Post by darkmighty »

click170 wrote: post #281
kbenson wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are s…

> It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. What you've just described is me, taking the content from your site, stripping out the ads, and re-posting it on the Internet for others to consume sans advertisements. This is very clearly different from a single person using ad blockers on their own computers, and you know it. However, thi…

No, the difference is we're distributing devices that, at no effort whatsoever, strip out all the ads. An ad blocker is literally a few clicks away on google chrome to never see ads again. His analogy is pretty solid compared to that. It's so easy to use an ad blocker that there's no reason not to, no matter how low impact the ads are. And no single user can make a measurable impact on a website's revenue through advertisements, so his actions don't have a direct content degradation impact either.

Of course, the collective actions do degrade quality. It's classical 'Tragedy of the commons' [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Re: UBlock Origin

#294

Post by baddox »

kbenson wrote: post #291
baddox wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does javascript have to do with it? It's trivial to display images inline through data URLs. My point applies to that too. Images, text, CSS, video, etc. I'm saying I don't have a problem with requesting an HTML file, receiving it, and then choosing to not render/execute/display certain parts of it. > Re: text only browsing, that still allows for advertising, and it's up to the content provider to either take…

> My point applies to that too. Images, text, CSS, video, etc. I'm saying I don't have a problem with requesting an HTML file, receiving it, and then choosing to not render/execute/display certain parts of it. I think this is a fundamental difference. I think there's an implicit contract. Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit? If there was a preamble to every page that said you were licensed to vie…

> I think there's an implicit contract.

And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract?

> Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit?

Yes. If there were an explicit contract requiring the viewer to view ads in order to view the content, then using an adblocker would be a violation of that contract and would be liable for whatever damages the contract stipulates.

> If there was a preamble to every page that said you were licensed to view the content only if certain conditions were met, such as all included ads were displayed, does that change what you feel comfortable doing or not?

It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract.

> It's about intent. Is someone using a text browser specifically to bypass ads? Then the text browser is in essence an ad-blocker (to the degree it works).

I don't think intent is relevant in this case, because I do not believe there is anything resembling a contract.

Re: UBlock Origin

#295

Post by kbenson »

baddox wrote: post #294
kbenson wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point applies to that too. Images, text, CSS, video, etc. I'm saying I don't have a problem with requesting an HTML file, receiving it, and then choosing to not render/execute/display certain parts of it. I think this is a fundamental difference. I think there's an implicit contract. Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit? If there was a preamble to every page that said you were licensed to vie…

> I think there's an implicit contract. And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract? > Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit? Yes. If there were an explicit contract requiring the viewer to view ads in order to view the content, then using an adblocker would be a violation of that contract and would be liable for whatever damages the contract stipulates. > If there…

> And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract?

Depending on the site, yes.

> It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract.

How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand? Is it any different if it's a sign that says it instead of a person? In both cases, I view taking the book while not reading the pamphlet stealing. You were only granted a copy of the book if you performed an action, and in both cases you failed to carry out the action, so a book was not granted. Thus the taking of the book was stealing.

> I don't think intent is relevant in this case, because I do not believe there is anything resembling a contract.

And that is the fundamental difference in our points of view. I believe there is an expectation on the part of the content providers for what they are providing, and as long as the consumer understands this expectation and purposefully ignores it, they are acting dishonestly.

Re: UBlock Origin

#296

Post by manigandham »

darkmighty wrote: post #292
manigandham wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the users always had the same choice, don't visit sites where you don't like the experience. Sure adblockers are finally pushing for better sites and ads but the blunt force approach of just blocking all ad scripts is actually causing more harm then good. Nowadays, hosting is so cheap that independent blogging is not really at risk, everyone can publish anything anytime. The risk is really with top and mid-ti…

I'm getting dismissed too, and people won't even admit it's a problem, much less give a coherent rebuttal: how are we not headed towards a classic 'Tragedy of the commons' type of scenario where no one wants to compromise (watch ads) but everyone wants free content. I can only conclude quality will degrade and we will get either behind paywalls or crappy content. Serious journalism is clearly suffering imo, for examp…

Agreed. There are really 3 things they argue for: performance, privacy and security.

Performance is a given, loading less = faster. Same with security, its just a few bad actors who keep allowing 3rd party content and malware. Many networks dont allow for anything other than text + images which have no malware possibilities.

Those two issues are starting to be solved by this consumer backlash and its a good thing. However when it comes to privacy I never understand how people think paying for things with their credit card is somehow more private (especially with all these data breaches) than some random ad network tracking script. The 3rd party cookie was actually a great thing that could easily be deleted and also stored any opt-out settings for users who wanted to skip tracking. Now with random out-of-context "privacy" reasons, browsers have ruined the effectiveness of cookies which means most networks cant even store a proper opt-out preference and they're also resorting to fingerprinting and other signals (at the ISP level) to track users no matter what device/platform/browser.

What the industry needed was more regulation and better standards, not this brute force guerilla warfare which is really harming the entire industry and leading to an eventually smaller and "closed" web.

Re: UBlock Origin

#297

Post by gpvos »

untog wrote: post #148
gpvos wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sites are being lazy and/or cheap by using GA. They can use piwik instead. As long as they are lazy, I have an equal right to be lazy.

Not really, GA offers a lot more features than Piwik. But either way, that doesn't stop ad blockers being lazy activism.

Well, then the sites should buy a service that gives them more features. If the existence of GA means there is no market for such products, then GA should go away.

I have no problem with lazy activism.

Re: UBlock Origin

#298

Post by baddox »

kbenson wrote: post #295
baddox wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there's an implicit contract. And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract? > Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit? Yes. If there were an explicit contract requiring the viewer to view ads in order to view the content, then using an adblocker would be a violation of that contract and would be liable for whatever damages the contract stipulates. > If there…

> And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract? Depending on the site, yes. > It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract. How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet bef…

> How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand?

Because order is important. On the web, you ask a server for something and it gives it to you. If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. And, of course, physical books are scarce, but that's another issue.

> I believe there is an expectation on the part of the content providers for what they are providing

I don't dispute that there is an expectation on the part of the content providers. I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract.

Re: UBlock Origin

#299

Post by anc84 »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #157
anc84 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a replacement per se but they would conflict, yes.

github seems to imply you can use both together (with the chrome caveat at the bottom) https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/Using-uBlock-with-uM...

Oh wow, thank you so much for that info!

Re: UBlock Origin

#300

Post by tim333 »

tobylane wrote: post #227
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been seeing those issues with uBlock.

The one issue I've had with it is it won't hide the share feature on each link of Reddit.

try right clicking on the thing, click uBlock link, paste:

## .post-sharing-button[href="javascript: void 0;"]

into the box (or delete the other text till you get that) and click create

Post reply on HN