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

31–40 of 263 posts

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#31

Post by oh_sigh »

chuckdries wrote: post #28
hbbio wrote: post #19

The motto of Pale Moon is "Your browser, Your way". But apparently not very so... The current ad system is broken and, although I understand Google decision to protect its own profits, I don't see why an open source project that aims to provide an unbiased browsing experience would follow suit.

You're hurting the publishers. I'm a software developer at a local newspaper. We've been dealing with floods of fake ad clicks for about a year now, and they severely hurt our bottom line. We don't even use an ad network a la google, we sell our own ads to local businesses and such. You're not sticking it to the man, you're punishing me and my colleagues and friends for writing content that you wanted to read. You're…

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

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#32

Post by akerro »

wnevets wrote: post #16

I've never heard of this fork before and Im not sure why its on the front page of HN.

Biggest fork of Firefox, apparently not anymore community driven, they tried to "unfuck" Firefox by removing enabled built-in google trackers, business decisions made by Mozilla that community didn't like because they were financially or ideologically driven (like Pocket or Telemetry?).

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#33

Post by SSLy »

falcolas wrote: post #24
chuckdries wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I work at a newspaper, we've survived on ads for decades, the way we deliver them has just changed. Most newspapers are like this, are you saying we should not exist?

And here I thought newspapers were sold via subscriptions and at a per-issue price. Still costs me around $2.50 for a Sunday issue locally.

And that cost is subsidized by ads. Otherwise it'd cost $10.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#34

Post by chuckdries »

oh_sigh wrote: post #31
chuckdries wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're hurting the publishers. I'm a software developer at a local newspaper. We've been dealing with floods of fake ad clicks for about a year now, and they severely hurt our bottom line. We don't even use an ad network a la google, we sell our own ads to local businesses and such. You're not sticking it to the man, you're punishing me and my colleagues and friends for writing content that you wanted to read. You're…

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

True, I misread OP. I don't know that I think the browser should have a say in this discussion.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#35

Post by Rjevski »

chuckdries wrote: post #21
userbinator wrote: post #6

From a quick glance at the thread it seems this "extension blacklist" can be quite easily disabled, and the discussion centers more around the position of the author. Perhaps he has a stake in ad companies too? It's not as if it's difficult to revert the change itself either, fork the project, and keep going: https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon/commit/fe7... Because this extension causes direct and indi…

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 am also attacking your ability to track and infect other users with malware, so I am doing a good thing.

And no, I am not punishing you - I am punishing a shitty industry for wasting millions of hours of time globally and causing damage with malware. We've seen that pacific methods do not work so the only way to drive change is to actively fight back until the lowlife either adapts (by becoming better) or dies.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#36

Post by serf »

addicted wrote: post #13
na85 wrote: post #7

That AdNauseam causes potential damage to people running ads and generating revenue from ads by devaluing clicks is a feature, not a bug. My understanding of the plugin is that it views advertising as universally bad, and that if a site cannot survive without ads, it must not be worth much at all, and deserves to die. I wholeheartedly agree with this view.

So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value? Because those aren't just little sites, but entire companies that have value solely because of ads. Take away ads and they don't exist.

>So Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat have no value?

No, not value-less, but I didn't agree to pay for their services with the total loss of my privacy on-line. (and one doesn't have to use any of those services in order to be spied upon by them)

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#37

Post by chuckdries »

na85 wrote: post #30
chuckdries wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I work at a newspaper, we've survived on ads for decades, the way we deliver them has just changed. Most newspapers are like this, are you saying we should not exist?

Why can't you sustain your business from subscription fees?

It just doesn't work. Most of our readers don't pay for news, and if they did, they'd probably pay for larger national papers.

Back in the day of paper newspapers, our subscription fees had to be augmented with ad revenue as well.

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#38

Post by na85 »

SSLy wrote: post #33
falcolas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here I thought newspapers were sold via subscriptions and at a per-issue price. Still costs me around $2.50 for a Sunday issue locally.

And that cost is subsidized by ads. Otherwise it'd cost $10.

So why can't they produce content worth 10$?

Re: Pale Moon blocks AdNauseam extension

#39

Post by jszymborski »

Frankly, I always thought that the Pale Moon project had more attitude than rationale.

You've really got to have a decently sized team to assure that the changes you've made aren't going to cause security holes in the browser.

The things that they rip out of Firefox also doesn't make much sense to me... Australis is such a weird thing to get rid of, especially when the compact theme is pretty similar to the original, except even more minimal. Not to mention you can customise the theme all you want.

I'm pretty sure this moves comes from the fact that Pale Moon gets revenue from ads on the default start page, which is totally fine in and of itself; but having an extension blacklist for any other reason other than to prevent end-user exploitation is a perfect indicator that the judgement of the development team is not to be trusted.

Post reply on HN