4 ms·

Can't people just compile their own version sans-censorship?

by rocky1138 9y ago

grenoire 9y ago
Seems like the block isn't hardcoded, so you don't even have to do that.
- nonbel 9y ago
  It looks like it is not even "blocked", just placed on a list: >"Probably the biggest issue is (as Grainfrog said) one of word choice, that using the word "blocked" in the title was less constructive than, say, announcing "AdNauseam moved to malware list", and then explaining what this feature is (before now I was not entirely aware of it, personally) and that users may choose to opt out of this feature if they wish to install any of the items listed therein."
wongarsu 9y ago
That's a lot of effort. Most people would either switch browser or choose a normal ad blocker instead.
posguy 9y ago
Sure, but then it won't auto-update, requires the user to make more than a minimal effort to install, etc.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
0xndc 9y ago
You can remove the "censorship" with a 30-second config change. I don't understand why the people on that forum are so up in arms about something this trivial.
- anonymousab 9y ago
  For a similar reason people get mad about telemetry and other features being opt-out rather than opt-in. I think the more overarching point is that many people went to palemoon in response to actions they viewed as harmful for the web or for browsers, from mozilla and Google. For many people this establishes that it is not the ideologically pure browser they (mistakenly or not) thought they were getting.
- userbinator 9y ago
  It's more about the position of the Pale Moon maintainer in making this change, than the (lack of) difficulty in reverting it. Even Mozilla currently allows it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/ Google, quite understandably, didn't: https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html
  - red023 9y ago
    "Even Mozilla currently allows it" Even? I don't think this is very surprising.
4bpp 9y ago
I don't know about Pale Moon, but at least Firefox was well-known back in the day for being extremely resource-intensive to compile (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites#Hardware_and_software_requirements https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_g...) - I vaguely remember somebody talking about how they had to cross-compile to obtain the Raspberry Pi build, for instance. Either way, per the developer's post, you can in fact just flip an about:config switch to disable the addon blacklist (not sure if this would also leave you susceptible to actual malicious addons); it's more of an issue of compliance budget/trivial inconveniences, and the implicit message of the action. (Note how the developer is very insistent about referring to AdNauseam as "malware"; if we go with the conventional definition of malware as being harmful to its user, this may paint Pale Moon as perceiving the website and/or ad network operators as being its clientele, rather than the person using the browser.)
- ChoGGi 9y ago
  (not sure if this would also leave you susceptible to actual malicious addons) If you want the extension without flipping the about:config entry. You can open up the extension in something that can handle zip files, edit install.rdf, and change the extension id to something else. Of course that will need to be done for every update of said extension.
belorn 9y ago
The reason people use a fork like pale moon is because they want the changes that the fork provide. If that is no longer the case, they can just go back to Firefox and modify that version to their heart's content.
JohnTHaller 9y ago
You only need to make a single change to about:config to allow you to use extensions on the restricted list.
sandov 9y ago
Yes. But the whole point of having a free (as in freedom) browser in the first place is so that the user controls it, and not google, apple, microsoft, 'Moonlight', etc.

Can't people just compile their own version sans-censorship?

grenoire 9y ago

Seems like the block isn't hardcoded, so you don't even have to do that.

nonbel 9y ago
It looks like it is not even "blocked", just placed on a list: >"Probably the biggest issue is (as Grainfrog said) one of word choice, that using the word "blocked" in the title was less constructive than, say, announcing "AdNauseam moved to malware list", and then explaining what this feature is (before now I was not entirely aware of it, personally) and that users may choose to opt out of this feature if they wish to install any of the items listed therein."

wongarsu 9y ago

That's a lot of effort. Most people would either switch browser or choose a normal ad blocker instead.

posguy 9y ago

Sure, but then it won't auto-update, requires the user to make more than a minimal effort to install, etc.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

0xndc 9y ago

You can remove the "censorship" with a 30-second config change. I don't understand why the people on that forum are so up in arms about something this trivial.

anonymousab 9y ago
For a similar reason people get mad about telemetry and other features being opt-out rather than opt-in. I think the more overarching point is that many people went to palemoon in response to actions they viewed as harmful for the web or for browsers, from mozilla and Google. For many people this establishes that it is not the ideologically pure browser they (mistakenly or not) thought they were getting.
userbinator 9y ago
It's more about the position of the Pale Moon maintainer in making this change, than the (lack of) difficulty in reverting it. Even Mozilla currently allows it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/ Google, quite understandably, didn't: https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html
- red023 9y ago
  "Even Mozilla currently allows it" Even? I don't think this is very surprising.

4bpp 9y ago

I don't know about Pale Moon, but at least Firefox was well-known back in the day for being extremely resource-intensive to compile (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites#Hardware_and_software_requirements https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_g...) - I vaguely remember somebody talking about how they had to cross-compile to obtain the Raspberry Pi build, for instance. Either way, per the developer's post, you can in fact just flip an about:config switch to disable the addon blacklist (not sure if this would also leave you susceptible to actual malicious addons); it's more of an issue of compliance budget/trivial inconveniences, and the implicit message of the action. (Note how the developer is very insistent about referring to AdNauseam as "malware"; if we go with the conventional definition of malware as being harmful to its user, this may paint Pale Moon as perceiving the website and/or ad network operators as being its clientele, rather than the person using the browser.)

ChoGGi 9y ago
(not sure if this would also leave you susceptible to actual malicious addons) If you want the extension without flipping the about:config entry. You can open up the extension in something that can handle zip files, edit install.rdf, and change the extension id to something else. Of course that will need to be done for every update of said extension.

belorn 9y ago

The reason people use a fork like pale moon is because they want the changes that the fork provide. If that is no longer the case, they can just go back to Firefox and modify that version to their heart's content.

JohnTHaller 9y ago

You only need to make a single change to about:config to allow you to use extensions on the restricted list.

sandov 9y ago

Yes. But the whole point of having a free (as in freedom) browser in the first place is so that the user controls it, and not google, apple, microsoft, 'Moonlight', etc.