61–70 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. Ahem, no. > It gets highly annoying, sometimes. The thing you made up gets highly annoying, sometimes?
Firefox also has Safe Browsing and Pocket. How do these differ from what Chrome is doing?
Safe Browsing checks against a local database. It doesn't leak the URLs of pages you visit.
> and Pocket.
Pocket doesn't do that either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads... Yes, it absolutely is. Ads not only cost me my time and attention, but also consume resources (network bandwith, CPU time, screen real estate) that I might not want to be consumed. Just open any consumer-oriented webpage these days, and I can guarantee you will get 2-3 videos (!) or animations autoplay immediately, and a large part of your screen eaten by…
>Yes, it absolutely is following your reasoning it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ? no, the browser job is to display what he receive from the resource YOU requested what the server put in that resource is between you and it (you can "cheat"(not my word but liked/steal it from another comment) by drop the ad or choose to not requesting the resource all together).
It is. And it has a time scroller and speed controls, unless you're watching an ad.
A piece of software not doing what you want is following the wishes of its creator, which differ from yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads... Yes, it absolutely is. Ads not only cost me my time and attention, but also consume resources (network bandwith, CPU time, screen real estate) that I might not want to be consumed. Just open any consumer-oriented webpage these days, and I can guarantee you will get 2-3 videos (!) or animations autoplay immediately, and a large part of your screen eaten by…
>Yes, it absolutely is following your reasoning it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ? no, the browser job is to display what he receive from the resource YOU requested what the server put in that resource is between you and it (you can "cheat"(not my word but liked/steal it from another comment) by drop the ad or choose to not requesting the resource all together).
In-video ads are usually OK, the way they do "sponsor" segments on Youtube for example, they are "uninteresting" but usually short and non-obtrusive. Again, I consider these as transactions and don't skip them if otherwise I wanted to watch the video. The best creators (Jay Foreman comes to mind) do these so well that I actually look forward to watching them!
Completely unrelated ads that are forcibly and blindly inserted into the video stream (again, Youtube is an example) are not okay, and I expect the browser/ad blocker to weed them out.
I am the glen briefly referenced here - I miss working with Evan, and I could write chapters about the magical alignment he talks about that we swam in, and how I yearn to feel that sense of directionality and purpose again - one of the many reasons I left Google last week. I am so thankful I got to take part in the Chrome adventure with so many people I still call my friends. Also the close button was only not funny…
That is indeed hilarious.
Now I feel that it is just an other bloated beast, and only use it when forced to access online Google tools (drive etc.) for work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. It gets highly annoying, sometimes.
It used to do that, but doesn't anymore. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-m... > Phishing and Malware Protection works by checking the sites that you visit against lists of reported phishing, unwanted software and malware sites. These lists are automatically downloaded and updated every 30 minutes or so when the Phishing and Malware Protection features are enabled. Although it seems they're…
I work for Mozilla (on Firefox) and I was around when phishing protection was introduced. Pretty sure it never did that. Not leaking the user's visit has always been a top priority for us.
> Although it seems they're still doing that for files:
What exactly do you mean by "that"? What you quoted below for certain executable downloaded files never applied to phishing protection, I don't think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads... Yes, it absolutely is. Ads not only cost me my time and attention, but also consume resources (network bandwith, CPU time, screen real estate) that I might not want to be consumed. Just open any consumer-oriented webpage these days, and I can guarantee you will get 2-3 videos (!) or animations autoplay immediately, and a large part of your screen eaten by…
>Yes, it absolutely is following your reasoning it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ? no, the browser job is to display what he receive from the resource YOU requested what the server put in that resource is between you and it (you can "cheat"(not my word but liked/steal it from another comment) by drop the ad or choose to not requesting the resource all together).
Of course. That's why Sponsorblock exists.
Who is in control? I am in control over my time, my attention, not the middlemen between the video author and me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads... Yes, it absolutely is. Ads not only cost me my time and attention, but also consume resources (network bandwith, CPU time, screen real estate) that I might not want to be consumed. Just open any consumer-oriented webpage these days, and I can guarantee you will get 2-3 videos (!) or animations autoplay immediately, and a large part of your screen eaten by…
>Yes, it absolutely is following your reasoning it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ? no, the browser job is to display what he receive from the resource YOU requested what the server put in that resource is between you and it (you can "cheat"(not my word but liked/steal it from another comment) by drop the ad or choose to not requesting the resource all together).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. It gets highly annoying, sometimes.
> Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. Ahem, no. > It gets highly annoying, sometimes. The thing you made up gets highly annoying, sometimes?
I'm referring to this: https://twitter.com/bert_hu_bert/status/1561650689474011136
Maybe it was removed after August, but it was in Firefox only a few months ago.
And for the record, FF android prioritizes Google searches over history leading to accidentally visiting the Google search for a web page I often frequent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads... Yes, it absolutely is. Ads not only cost me my time and attention, but also consume resources (network bandwith, CPU time, screen real estate) that I might not want to be consumed. Just open any consumer-oriented webpage these days, and I can guarantee you will get 2-3 videos (!) or animations autoplay immediately, and a large part of your screen eaten by…
>Yes, it absolutely is following your reasoning it's your media player job to skip the uninteresting part of a video you're watching ? no, the browser job is to display what he receive from the resource YOU requested what the server put in that resource is between you and it (you can "cheat"(not my word but liked/steal it from another comment) by drop the ad or choose to not requesting the resource all together).
If the server returns a file, the user hasn't implicitly agreed to some limited use of that file or that it must be processed in some specific way, but the business has implicitly agreed to the user's usage of that file. The user (or the client on behalf of that user) can choose to ignore that file, not execute it or not even request it in the first place. This can be done either manually or assisted by tools (e.g. sponsorblock, ublock origin).
Anything else puts arbitrary restrictions on the weaker party (individual vs. large business), and negates their property rights of being allowed to choose what runs on their general computing device. If the business doesn't want a file to be used, don't serve it in the first place.