4 ms·

A user's perspective: http://yardley.ca/2009/05/04/when-blockers-block-the-blockers/ http://yardley.ca/2009/05/04/when-blockers-block-the-blocker... "Finally,

by dcancel 17y ago

A user's perspective: http://yardley.ca/2009/05/04/when-blockers-block-the-blockers/ http://yardley.ca/2009/05/04/when-blockers-block-the-blocker... "Finally, NoScript is still blocking Ghostery through a Ghostery-specific CSS rule. This is especially vile, since Ghostery doesn’t affect NoScript’s revenue model in the slightest - it’s just the tool I use to be informed about the analytics and advertising technologies in use from site to site. The site owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is completely unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the content in the manner of my choosing."

tdavis 17y ago
So, wait, let me get this straight: someone who is using a plugin to circumvent the intended operation of something is complaining that it is circumventing the intended operation of something? How do people come to the conclusion that it is their browser/computer/whatever when they intentionally install plugins and third-party code to both change the operation of said browser/computer and change how stuff is displayed on the page? Is it "mine" until I notice something I don't want to be missing is missing, at which point it switches to being "stolen" from me? Where's the rationale? I just don't see it.
- drewcrawford 17y ago
  > when they intentionally install plugins and third-party code to both change the operation of said browser/computer Computers don't do anything until you install software. By installing/running software, you tell them what to do.
  - tdavis 17y ago
    You missed the point entirely. The site owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is completely unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the content in the manner of my choosing. How is it unacceptable? First off, you give up the ability to view the content in the manner of your choosing as soon as you install a plugin that filters the content for you. It would be like complaining about SPAM filtering because it decides an important e-mail is SPAM; for every other email it was perfectly fine, but when it gets one wrong, suddenly it's stealing my email? Please. Secondly, it is completely the plugin developer's prerogative! If Mr. NoScript doesn't like the look of the Ghostery CSS overlay and blocks it, that's his choice! Nobody is asking him why NoScript blocks pop-ups or full-page overlays or even text ads. And guess what, if people don't like it, they can remove the plugin. And maybe everybody will. But I doubt it.
    - iamcalledrob 17y ago
      I think everyone is missing the point. If you install and enable the Ghostery extension, it is because you want the extension to do its thing. There is no valid reason why another extension should deliberately and specifically disable this behaviour, breaking Ghostery, when it is clearly behaviour that the end user intended.
      - Jem 17y ago
        > There is no valid reason why another extension should deliberately and specifically disable this behaviour It's not - as far as I could tell - this style is deployed on his websites, not through his plugin. It's a nifty trick, I've just added it to my own site.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]

by dcancel 17y ago

tdavis 17y ago

So, wait, let me get this straight: someone who is using a plugin to circumvent the intended operation of something is complaining that it is circumventing the intended operation of something? How do people come to the conclusion that it is their browser/computer/whatever when they intentionally install plugins and third-party code to both change the operation of said browser/computer and change how stuff is displayed on the page? Is it "mine" until I notice something I don't want to be missing is missing, at which point it switches to being "stolen" from me? Where's the rationale? I just don't see it.

drewcrawford 17y ago
> when they intentionally install plugins and third-party code to both change the operation of said browser/computer Computers don't do anything until you install software. By installing/running software, you tell them what to do.
- tdavis 17y ago
  You missed the point entirely. The site owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is completely unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the content in the manner of my choosing. How is it unacceptable? First off, you give up the ability to view the content in the manner of your choosing as soon as you install a plugin that filters the content for you. It would be like complaining about SPAM filtering because it decides an important e-mail is SPAM; for every other email it was perfectly fine, but when it gets one wrong, suddenly it's stealing my email? Please. Secondly, it is completely the plugin developer's prerogative! If Mr. NoScript doesn't like the look of the Ghostery CSS overlay and blocks it, that's his choice! Nobody is asking him why NoScript blocks pop-ups or full-page overlays or even text ads. And guess what, if people don't like it, they can remove the plugin. And maybe everybody will. But I doubt it.
  - iamcalledrob 17y ago
    I think everyone is missing the point. If you install and enable the Ghostery extension, it is because you want the extension to do its thing. There is no valid reason why another extension should deliberately and specifically disable this behaviour, breaking Ghostery, when it is clearly behaviour that the end user intended.
    - Jem 17y ago
      > There is no valid reason why another extension should deliberately and specifically disable this behaviour It's not - as far as I could tell - this style is deployed on his websites, not through his plugin. It's a nifty trick, I've just added it to my own site.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]