3 ms·

I'm not sure if it's included in your 90%, but an advantage of Flash is that it was not JS or HTML. Meaning that you could block it easily, when it offended you

I'm not sure if it's included in your 90%, but an advantage of Flash is that it was not JS or HTML. Meaning that you could block it easily, when it offended your senses (animated ads, autoplaying videos), without affecting the functionality of most web sites. CSS + animations + JS + HTML5 cannot be blocked without destroying the web site as well.

Bakingpotato 3y ago
yeah I remember that people demonized flash so much for that and turned a blind eye once html and javascript was given that power. jokes on them now, I guess not to mention flash content could run on a potato, while javascript is soon to see your processor as fried as a potato chip instead
justsomehnguy 3y ago
> CSS + animations + JS + HTML5 cannot be blocked without destroying the web site as well. That's a lame excuse. There were enough 'not malicious' sites, there are enough sites now what treat you like a 3rd rate netizen even if you are on a 4k desktop in a landscape orientation. If anything, Web is destro^W profiling itself for a narrow subset of mobile users for quite some years already, so I can't accept your 'blovk Flash' stance as anything having a substinence.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  I'd like to reply, but I'm not sure how to read this comment. There were always user-unfriendly sites. It used to be possible to easily block the nasty content (Flash), now it's rather hard. It used to be possible to extract the interesting content (Flash) and save it without the junk website. Now it's not. Separation was an advantage. I agree that the Web is narrowing itself down. One of the symptoms is not having interactive content clearly delineated from the rest. You seem to come from the same premises but arrive at the opposite conclusion, and I don't understand your reasoning.
xp84 3y ago
Oh yeah! We used a plug-in called FlashBlock which would load by default and basically do nothing but show a button to load, and if you clicked the button it would load actual Flash for that single embed. Blocked so many ads but let you play games.

Bakingpotato 3y ago

yeah I remember that people demonized flash so much for that and turned a blind eye once html and javascript was given that power. jokes on them now, I guess not to mention flash content could run on a potato, while javascript is soon to see your processor as fried as a potato chip instead

justsomehnguy 3y ago

> CSS + animations + JS + HTML5 cannot be blocked without destroying the web site as well. That's a lame excuse. There were enough 'not malicious' sites, there are enough sites now what treat you like a 3rd rate netizen even if you are on a 4k desktop in a landscape orientation. If anything, Web is destro^W profiling itself for a narrow subset of mobile users for quite some years already, so I can't accept your 'blovk Flash' stance as anything having a substinence.

rhn_mk1 3y ago
I'd like to reply, but I'm not sure how to read this comment. There were always user-unfriendly sites. It used to be possible to easily block the nasty content (Flash), now it's rather hard. It used to be possible to extract the interesting content (Flash) and save it without the junk website. Now it's not. Separation was an advantage. I agree that the Web is narrowing itself down. One of the symptoms is not having interactive content clearly delineated from the rest. You seem to come from the same premises but arrive at the opposite conclusion, and I don't understand your reasoning.

xp84 3y ago

Oh yeah! We used a plug-in called FlashBlock which would load by default and basically do nothing but show a button to load, and if you clicked the button it would load actual Flash for that single embed. Blocked so many ads but let you play games.