5 ms·

"Install AdNauseam 3.7" 3rd party ads are bad for privacy. But browser extensions are even worse. They can see everything you do on any website. They can chang

"Install AdNauseam 3.7" 3rd party ads are bad for privacy. But browser extensions are even worse. They can see everything you do on any website. They can change what you see. Redirect you. Send data wherever they want. Without you noticing any of this. Besides, using this thing result in sending even more data to the advertisers. I can understand the hate about how user hostile the web is. But this is not a solution. A solution would be to use bloated websites less. On HN, we could downrank pages that send data to 3rd parties like this: Tell the submitter of a page "The page loads sends data to 75 different servers. Please be aware that we will not show it on the front page until it has at least 75 upvotes". This would make an impact. Imagine Reddit or Twitter follwing this practice. The web would become better fast.

sametmax 8y ago
Except it's way easier to trust a bunch of extensions that the entire community vets, with a code you can inspect, instead of the thousands of ever changing 3rd party code executing in ads every day.
- TicklishTiger 8y ago
  First of all, it's the other way round. This extension will execute the ads and send data to advertisers. If you don't want that, you need to use an ad blocker, not an ad clicker. And second, you trust them with totally different things. Ads run in the context of a website. Which is heavily sandboxed. Extensions run outside of it and can do anything they want to your browsing.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  > the entire community vets Pardon my ignorance, but not every extension is open source? Recently been a few stories of popular extension maintainers offered money to either include coffee or hand over all control to shady people. Personally I wouldn't count thousands getting auto-updated malware installed in their browser before the world notices as vetting.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    > Pardon my ignorance, but not every extension isnt open source right? No, but this one is.
    - A2017U1 8y ago
      I realize that and even gave it a try long ago, the comment was meant in general. Besides ublock origin and noscript I avoid extensions like the plague. Autoupdates mean that any malicious actor could infect many before it gets pulled.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Not but this one is. A lot of popular extensions are. And even the ones that are not are quite easy to read: - extensions are a just a zip file full of static assets - they are rarely minified or obfuscaded - they use a manifest and a set of standard API - they are distributed through one plateform So it's still way easier to keep them in check than ads, even if we didn't have to take the number of them in consideration.
ionised 8y ago
I trust popular extentions that are open-source and have been well-reviewed far more than any advertiser or tracking network.
anoncake 8y ago
> But browser extensions are even worse. They can see everything you do on any website. Using an operating system is even worse than that. It can do everything. Browser extensions are not bad for privacy, untrustworthy software is. You may have a point when it comes to proprietary niche extensions with an anonymous author. This is a fairly well-known open source extension made by multiple people whose real identity is known and who have a reputation to lose. > Besides, using this thing result in sending even more data to the advertisers. Yes, garbage data.
r3bl 8y ago
> 3rd party ads are bad for privacy. But browser extensions are even worse. Nope. I willingly installed a browser extension. Waaay more different than clicking a link to site X and 3rd party injecting itself. > Besides, using this thing result in sending even more data to the advertisers. That's precisely the point? Increasing the amount of noise so that the signal couldn't be detected? > But this is not a solution. A solution would be to use bloated websites less. Okay, the rest is just laughable. Between "install X and make your computer download less bloatware" and "don't install X, but publicly name-and-shame websites", the first one requires way less effort from me and provides me with the solution now, not after the social media backlash is big enough for the website owners to give enough of a crap.

sametmax 8y ago

Except it's way easier to trust a bunch of extensions that the entire community vets, with a code you can inspect, instead of the thousands of ever changing 3rd party code executing in ads every day.

TicklishTiger 8y ago
First of all, it's the other way round. This extension will execute the ads and send data to advertisers. If you don't want that, you need to use an ad blocker, not an ad clicker. And second, you trust them with totally different things. Ads run in the context of a website. Which is heavily sandboxed. Extensions run outside of it and can do anything they want to your browsing.
A2017U1 8y ago
> the entire community vets Pardon my ignorance, but not every extension is open source? Recently been a few stories of popular extension maintainers offered money to either include coffee or hand over all control to shady people. Personally I wouldn't count thousands getting auto-updated malware installed in their browser before the world notices as vetting.
- anoncake 8y ago
  > Pardon my ignorance, but not every extension isnt open source right? No, but this one is.
  - A2017U1 8y ago
    I realize that and even gave it a try long ago, the comment was meant in general. Besides ublock origin and noscript I avoid extensions like the plague. Autoupdates mean that any malicious actor could infect many before it gets pulled.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Not but this one is. A lot of popular extensions are. And even the ones that are not are quite easy to read: - extensions are a just a zip file full of static assets - they are rarely minified or obfuscaded - they use a manifest and a set of standard API - they are distributed through one plateform So it's still way easier to keep them in check than ads, even if we didn't have to take the number of them in consideration.

ionised 8y ago

I trust popular extentions that are open-source and have been well-reviewed far more than any advertiser or tracking network.

anoncake 8y ago

> But browser extensions are even worse. They can see everything you do on any website. Using an operating system is even worse than that. It can do everything. Browser extensions are not bad for privacy, untrustworthy software is. You may have a point when it comes to proprietary niche extensions with an anonymous author. This is a fairly well-known open source extension made by multiple people whose real identity is known and who have a reputation to lose. > Besides, using this thing result in sending even more data to the advertisers. Yes, garbage data.

r3bl 8y ago

> 3rd party ads are bad for privacy. But browser extensions are even worse. Nope. I willingly installed a browser extension. Waaay more different than clicking a link to site X and 3rd party injecting itself. > Besides, using this thing result in sending even more data to the advertisers. That's precisely the point? Increasing the amount of noise so that the signal couldn't be detected? > But this is not a solution. A solution would be to use bloated websites less. Okay, the rest is just laughable. Between "install X and make your computer download less bloatware" and "don't install X, but publicly name-and-shame websites", the first one requires way less effort from me and provides me with the solution now, not after the social media backlash is big enough for the website owners to give enough of a crap.