5 ms·

This is bullshit, he admits he realised that in addition to installing AdBlock, users had to deliberately get EasyList, then he goes on to conveniently assume t

by dmaclay 17y ago

This is bullshit, he admits he realised that in addition to installing AdBlock, users had to deliberately get EasyList, then he goes on to conveniently assume that said users (who had to make 2 very deliberate decisions to get there) didn't really want the full effect of EasyList, basically because it doesn't suit his business model. It was never a misunderstanding, and it didn't escalate unreasonably, NoScript was abusive from the outset, they were just subtle about it.

ErrantX 17y ago
I choose to use ABP and (prior to this) Easylist. I didnt choose them to inhibit my web experience - and the filters they employed broke noscript for me. It rendered some aspects of the site unusable. That is serious hijacking IMO. Removing the adverts from Noscript would have been easy to do: fix the ABP flaw. Instead he decided to insert content into the ABP plugin via Easylist that targetted and destroyed the site. That was both a deliberate attack and a breaking of the trust I put in ABP. Sure Giorgio also made the same mistake: but he apologised and retracted the updates and, in the heat of anger, I can forgive him. If the ABP team write a similar apology I will forgive them too. But it seems they dont plan too: which is disgusting.
- murrayh 17y ago
  No one likes to break a website, but... given the options of breaking the website's Javascript features, or letting NoScript perpetually undermine the Easylist2 filter, there wasn't much choice for Easylist2. Easylist2 has nothing to apologise for. If anything, staunchly defending the integrity of their list was a good thing.
  - Kadin 17y ago
    Except EasyList wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with. It contained entries that should have blocked the ads, without resorting to domain-specific (obviously individually targeted) rules. It was only due to a flaw in ABP that these rules didn't apply. When asked by the ABP author to implement domain-specific rules against NoScript's site, the correct response from EasyList ought to have been to point out that it wasn't their problem to fix. Had ABP just fixed the bug, NoScript's ads would have disappeared but the rest of the site wouldn't have broken, and although the NoScript developer might have been pissed at his loss of revenue stream, the problem wouldn't have necessarily escalated -- there wouldn't have been the clear gloves-off challenge that implementing a specific rule targeting NoScript's ads represented. There's a lot of overreacting and general stupidity in the whole chain of events (and good reasons why maybe you shouldn't push 'emergency' releases except after a few hours of calm consideration), the core of the problem was someone looking for a lazy way to avoid fixing a software bug.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Just for the record I wasnt suggesting Easylist 2 needs to apologise: the developer of ABP is the one at fault :)

by dmaclay 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

I choose to use ABP and (prior to this) Easylist. I didnt choose them to inhibit my web experience - and the filters they employed broke noscript for me. It rendered some aspects of the site unusable. That is serious hijacking IMO. Removing the adverts from Noscript would have been easy to do: fix the ABP flaw. Instead he decided to insert content into the ABP plugin via Easylist that targetted and destroyed the site. That was both a deliberate attack and a breaking of the trust I put in ABP. Sure Giorgio also made the same mistake: but he apologised and retracted the updates and, in the heat of anger, I can forgive him. If the ABP team write a similar apology I will forgive them too. But it seems they dont plan too: which is disgusting.

murrayh 17y ago
No one likes to break a website, but... given the options of breaking the website's Javascript features, or letting NoScript perpetually undermine the Easylist2 filter, there wasn't much choice for Easylist2. Easylist2 has nothing to apologise for. If anything, staunchly defending the integrity of their list was a good thing.
- Kadin 17y ago
  Except EasyList wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with. It contained entries that should have blocked the ads, without resorting to domain-specific (obviously individually targeted) rules. It was only due to a flaw in ABP that these rules didn't apply. When asked by the ABP author to implement domain-specific rules against NoScript's site, the correct response from EasyList ought to have been to point out that it wasn't their problem to fix. Had ABP just fixed the bug, NoScript's ads would have disappeared but the rest of the site wouldn't have broken, and although the NoScript developer might have been pissed at his loss of revenue stream, the problem wouldn't have necessarily escalated -- there wouldn't have been the clear gloves-off challenge that implementing a specific rule targeting NoScript's ads represented. There's a lot of overreacting and general stupidity in the whole chain of events (and good reasons why maybe you shouldn't push 'emergency' releases except after a few hours of calm consideration), the core of the problem was someone looking for a lazy way to avoid fixing a software bug.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Just for the record I wasnt suggesting Easylist 2 needs to apologise: the developer of ABP is the one at fault :)