5 ms·

Very revealing. I stopped using NoScript a while ago since it would not properly whitelist some sites. At the time I was wondering why the plugin was updated so

by mustpax 18y ago

Very revealing. I stopped using NoScript a while ago since it would not properly whitelist some sites. At the time I was wondering why the plugin was updated so frequently with very similar change logs each time. This post explains why. Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable. Firefox should consider sandboxing the browser extensions. Maybe they'll get to that after they implement Chrome style robust per tab sandboxing.

just_the_tip 18y ago
The plugin is updated frequently also because doing so lands itself in the Most Popular Add-ons chart. Giorgio has a history of pushing the limit to see what he can get away before backtracking when someone calls him out on it.
- hboon 17y ago
  Sounds like an entrepreneur trait.
axod 18y ago
>> "Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable" Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.
- jauco 18y ago
  No it isn't! I'm allowed to ffwd past comercials using my VHS and to cut out ads on my newspaper. Ads are a soft form of brainwashing, making watching them compulsive sounds too much like "brave new world" to me.
  - axod 18y ago
    >> "Ads are a soft form of brainwashing" Every input we receive to our brains could be said to be a soft form of brainwashing. Good advertising serves a use for consumers. Without it, you wouldn't be aware of what you can buy/do etc. If you want to opt out of that, fine. Personally, I find it invaluable to be aware of what is going on.
    - jauco 18y ago
      No, a constructive argument showcasing pro's and cons and highlighting merits of competing products serves a use for consumers. And while that also has a soft brainwashing effect, it actually adds some information that allows you to make a conscious decission. An ad is just the brainwashing.
      - axod 18y ago
        Perhaps if you're particularly susceptible to brainwashing, then advertising could be a bad thing. But I think you have to give people a bit more credit than that. It's about giving potential consumers information so they can make informed choices. Word of mouth is still the best form of advertising though - agreed. That's not to say other forms of advertising aren't effective, or useful for the consumer. For example, I know what movies are out mainly through billboards. It's useful to me. If one looks interesting, I might look it up on the net and see if I want to go see it. I'm not being 'soft brainwashed', I'm being informed of a new movie I might want to go see.
        shard 17y ago
        It's about giving potential consumers information so they can make informed choices. For a long time now advertisement has been about manipulating people's emotions so that they seek fulfillment in the product being advertised. When was the last time you saw an Apple ad where the purpose was listing the specs so the consumer can make an informed choice?
- sho 18y ago
  "Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock." Why? I am simply requesting their content, and they are willingly sending it to me. I then process it on client side to my satisfaction, which happens to involve filtering out any ads. If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then.
  - axod 18y ago
    >> "If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then." It's certainly an option. It's easy enough to detect adblock, and send the user to a "Since you're not prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt that we'll show you a few useful unobtrusive adverts, please donate something or get lost" page, or otherwise degrade their experience. For example, if the user has disabled javascript, sites should degrade gracefully. Likewise, if the user has disabled common forms of advertising, it'd be good for the website to disable any features that cost them a lot of money to run. Say it's a photo sharing site, give adblock users lower limits or something. Adblock usage is a very small minority though, so unless you're a massive site (And want the very vocal minority to moan about how they should be free to leech all the content they want without giving anything back), probably not worth it. Using adblock actually makes things worse for everyone. If you don't use adblock, and a site abuses your trust by doing popup ads, garish flash ads, then don't go there again. Stick by those principles. If everyone did that, then websites with intrusive stupid adverts would die off. By using adblock, you're rewarding those practices, but since you're never going to click on anything, the webmasters will likely make their ads more intrusive and garish to try and increase their CPM.
    - jauco 18y ago
      I'd be all for that. I don't mind paying for an increased user experience if I actually need it. This would kinda let the user opt out of the ad-based revenue model. Unfortunately some people will try to hack it, tragedy of the commons and all that.
      - axod 18y ago
        Sure, it may turn into an arms race, although one of the other points of adblock is also that it doesn't download the advert - so it's extremely easy to detect an adblock user. I think if adblock usage increases (I don't think it will), we'd move to a 2 tier internet - a degraded slimmed down internet for adblock users, and the full internet for everyone else. Which I think would be fair and just.
- jfarmer 18y ago
  How is that? It's my browser running on my computer. Shouldn't I have final say over what I do and don't see? Nobody has a right to show me advertising, just as I don't have a right to read someone's content. If publishers have a problem with it they need to find a way to not display content to clients who are blocking ads. But this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about NoScript using my computer to interfere with other plugins. The behavior is unexpected and unwanted. If the behavior is "ok" then the NoScript people shouldn't have any problem owning up to it, even broadcasting it to all their users. But I think we all know how that would play out. It would be no different than if when you installed Firefox on your computer it made Safari break, or included some obscure option deep in its configuration menu like "[x] Break Safari."
  - lucumo 17y ago
    > How is that? It's my browser running on my computer. Shouldn't I have final say over what I do and don't see? You're free not to use a site. But if you are viewing a site, why would you even expect to use it without also helping to provide for its upkeep? > Nobody has a right to show me advertising, just as I don't have a right to read someone's content. If publishers have a problem with it they need to find a way to not display content to clients who are blocking ads. Attempts which would be blocked by ABP's author. That would be an arms race. Maybe we should start fighting it, though. It would be much harder to maintain that they're not trying to screw over site owners with the extension.
- twopoint718 17y ago
  When someone pays to advertise they know it is a "leaky" mechanism. It is understood (or should be) that not every person in the world will see that ad. It is also understood that not every person that sees the ad will buy the products advertised. That's the nature of advertising. Why do they still advertise? Because of the people that do see the ad, some do buy the product.

by mustpax 18y ago

just_the_tip 18y ago

The plugin is updated frequently also because doing so lands itself in the Most Popular Add-ons chart. Giorgio has a history of pushing the limit to see what he can get away before backtracking when someone calls him out on it.

hboon 17y ago
Sounds like an entrepreneur trait.

axod 18y ago

>> "Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable" Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.

jauco 18y ago
No it isn't! I'm allowed to ffwd past comercials using my VHS and to cut out ads on my newspaper. Ads are a soft form of brainwashing, making watching them compulsive sounds too much like "brave new world" to me.
- axod 18y ago
  >> "Ads are a soft form of brainwashing" Every input we receive to our brains could be said to be a soft form of brainwashing. Good advertising serves a use for consumers. Without it, you wouldn't be aware of what you can buy/do etc. If you want to opt out of that, fine. Personally, I find it invaluable to be aware of what is going on.
  - jauco 18y ago
    No, a constructive argument showcasing pro's and cons and highlighting merits of competing products serves a use for consumers. And while that also has a soft brainwashing effect, it actually adds some information that allows you to make a conscious decission. An ad is just the brainwashing.
    - axod 18y ago
      Perhaps if you're particularly susceptible to brainwashing, then advertising could be a bad thing. But I think you have to give people a bit more credit than that. It's about giving potential consumers information so they can make informed choices. Word of mouth is still the best form of advertising though - agreed. That's not to say other forms of advertising aren't effective, or useful for the consumer. For example, I know what movies are out mainly through billboards. It's useful to me. If one looks interesting, I might look it up on the net and see if I want to go see it. I'm not being 'soft brainwashed', I'm being informed of a new movie I might want to go see.
      - shard 17y ago
        It's about giving potential consumers information so they can make informed choices. For a long time now advertisement has been about manipulating people's emotions so that they seek fulfillment in the product being advertised. When was the last time you saw an Apple ad where the purpose was listing the specs so the consumer can make an informed choice?
sho 18y ago
"Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock." Why? I am simply requesting their content, and they are willingly sending it to me. I then process it on client side to my satisfaction, which happens to involve filtering out any ads. If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then.
- axod 18y ago
  >> "If they don't like that, tough luck, stop sending it to me then." It's certainly an option. It's easy enough to detect adblock, and send the user to a "Since you're not prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt that we'll show you a few useful unobtrusive adverts, please donate something or get lost" page, or otherwise degrade their experience. For example, if the user has disabled javascript, sites should degrade gracefully. Likewise, if the user has disabled common forms of advertising, it'd be good for the website to disable any features that cost them a lot of money to run. Say it's a photo sharing site, give adblock users lower limits or something. Adblock usage is a very small minority though, so unless you're a massive site (And want the very vocal minority to moan about how they should be free to leech all the content they want without giving anything back), probably not worth it. Using adblock actually makes things worse for everyone. If you don't use adblock, and a site abuses your trust by doing popup ads, garish flash ads, then don't go there again. Stick by those principles. If everyone did that, then websites with intrusive stupid adverts would die off. By using adblock, you're rewarding those practices, but since you're never going to click on anything, the webmasters will likely make their ads more intrusive and garish to try and increase their CPM.
  - jauco 18y ago
    I'd be all for that. I don't mind paying for an increased user experience if I actually need it. This would kinda let the user opt out of the ad-based revenue model. Unfortunately some people will try to hack it, tragedy of the commons and all that.
    - axod 18y ago
      Sure, it may turn into an arms race, although one of the other points of adblock is also that it doesn't download the advert - so it's extremely easy to detect an adblock user. I think if adblock usage increases (I don't think it will), we'd move to a 2 tier internet - a degraded slimmed down internet for adblock users, and the full internet for everyone else. Which I think would be fair and just.
jfarmer 18y ago
How is that? It's my browser running on my computer. Shouldn't I have final say over what I do and don't see? Nobody has a right to show me advertising, just as I don't have a right to read someone's content. If publishers have a problem with it they need to find a way to not display content to clients who are blocking ads. But this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about NoScript using my computer to interfere with other plugins. The behavior is unexpected and unwanted. If the behavior is "ok" then the NoScript people shouldn't have any problem owning up to it, even broadcasting it to all their users. But I think we all know how that would play out. It would be no different than if when you installed Firefox on your computer it made Safari break, or included some obscure option deep in its configuration menu like "[x] Break Safari."
- lucumo 17y ago
  > How is that? It's my browser running on my computer. Shouldn't I have final say over what I do and don't see? You're free not to use a site. But if you are viewing a site, why would you even expect to use it without also helping to provide for its upkeep? > Nobody has a right to show me advertising, just as I don't have a right to read someone's content. If publishers have a problem with it they need to find a way to not display content to clients who are blocking ads. Attempts which would be blocked by ABP's author. That would be an arms race. Maybe we should start fighting it, though. It would be much harder to maintain that they're not trying to screw over site owners with the extension.
twopoint718 17y ago
When someone pays to advertise they know it is a "leaky" mechanism. It is understood (or should be) that not every person in the world will see that ad. It is also understood that not every person that sees the ad will buy the products advertised. That's the nature of advertising. Why do they still advertise? Because of the people that do see the ad, some do buy the product.