Adblock filter rule list modified politically in Finland
github.com
github.com
Content based blacklists have their place too. Users are of course free to create hate-speech-block, union-block, trump-block, liberal-block, nazi-block or any-other-category-block, but if these lists are distributed through an adblocker they should be off by default and clearly labeled.
We'll end up with filter bubbles either way.
As needed filtering is certainly best.
It's time IMVHO to start "filter out" actual web from our lives, we have usenet, we have mails, we have spamassassin, killfiles, mail aliases (at least on paid mails), we have (few) modern MUAs like Notmuch, Mutt&forks, Pine&forks, we have slrn, leafnode, ... we can keep up and evolve them.
There is no one central block list, out of the box uBlock Origin uses something like 9 or 10 different lists and the interface has ~50 to choose from. It also has the ability for you to import your own lists form custom sources and to maintain your own.
The browser makers avoid the issues by having ad-blockers be third-party extensions. The extension makers don't make the filter lists either, they just import from EasyList and similar. It's surprising there arent't more cases of corruption and broken trust.
I wish I could get ad-blocking some somebody I can trust. Unfortunately the only way to turn ad-blocking into a business is to charge advertisers to un-block them. That defeats the whole purpose of ad blocking, and is basically blackmail.
As an aside (but still relating to your comment) I tend to trust my adblocker based on the "many eyeballs" theory and I think the OP and ensuing discussion here is proof that the system mostly works.
I trust gorhill to make the right decisions when it comes to uBlock Origin and the filter lists it uses, based on his previous track record, his stance on Adblock's "acceptable ads" and his refusal to take donations from anyone.
I don't necessarily trust the individual list maintainers[1], but I do trust that gorhill will quickly purge any filter lists that try to put in shady changes.
[1] I do trust the maintainer of the DNK list. He's a former colleague of mine, and I know how strictly principled he is in regards to ads and tracking.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don't-you-accept-...
He'll work on it for as long as he feels like it. I've made sure to thank him for his work and signal that I appreciate what he does very much indeed. All in the hope that he will continue the good work.
Will the project die at some point? Maybe. Or maybe someone will take over. Maybe another better adblocker will come along. The need is there, as long as ads/trackers exist.
No need to rely upon third party lists.
A web that by default preys maliciously on naïve users, even if the tiny technically-savvy minority can work around it, is not an acceptable outcome.
Now, if in order to change your own vehicle engine-oil third-parties made it impossible without viewing advertising and giving personal information up would that be fine with you because some blind people who could disguise themselves were still able to access the oil without viewing the advertising and getting tracked?
"Well you have to make effort to change your own oil, if you don't want to use a white cane and custom printed dazzle-camouflage prostheses then you should pay for someone else to do it."??
at a very high level i do still think there are some similarities. people want to consume a tailored tech experience that costs time and money to put together. they don't want to put in any effort to improve their experience, and they definitely don't want to pay for it. what do we do with/for these people? i say we leave them be and document workarounds for people who are willing to do a little reading.
No, in general I don't "want to consume a tailored tech experience".
When I go to a newspaper or magazine site, for example, I want to read the content I've chosen to look at, just as if I'd picked up the paper in a store. I'll "tailor" my experience by choosing which sites to visit and which links to follow, but I do NOT want the news outlet to "tailor" its content based on having tracked my activity across the web for the past year.
I want to be shown the same content as any other visitor to the site, and to be allowed to explore it on my terms, not have some algorithm looking over my shoulder and deciding what to push at me.
Likewise, when I visit a web store, I want to be offered the same range of products, at the same prices, as any other customer. I don't want the store to analyse my interests, demographic details, past purchasing habits, etc., in order to "tailor" its offerings and prices so as to squeeze the maximum amount of money from me.
If and when a use case arises where I do want a "tailored tech experience", then we can talk about how I might pay for it.
Wikipedia, Firefox, Linux, and Apache, are all freely available. Each of them is a far more challenging project than a list.
I use uBlock with stock default settings. I also have set my browser to purge cookies, local storage, and history every time I close the browser. That's low effort and cuts the annoying crap from websites by a large amount.
Henry Zhu, who maintains the massively popular Babel transpiler, only gets $2200/month in donations
What's the worst that can happen? If a maintainer starts blocking things that shouldn't be then it's easy to complain publicly (as we see in this GH issue) and get the change reverted. If it becomes obvious that a given maintainer doesn't play by the rules then their list will be dropped.
If a list fails to block some ads then people will complete it or create a new one.
Since as far as I'm aware these block lists can't inject or replace content I can't really imagine how one could take advantage of it in a non-obvious manner.
Some ad service made a pull request to exempt his ad service under the pretense of a DMCA claim.
Overview: https://adguard.com/en/blog/ad-blocking-is-under-attack/
Major HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228 .
Credit to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989750
> Remove FIN-0 list due to breach of trust
Looks like u-block is handling this well.
I use umatrix with these two default rules:
* * * block
* 1st-party * allow
Then I add rules as needed. The Umatrix interface makes this super easy.
And it's "its own domain"
Context: Decentraleyes is an extension that bundles a lot of those CDN-served JS frameworks and serves the locally stored version when it intercepts a matching HTTP request to fetch from those CDNs.
Basically, another extension can intercept the request before Decentraleyes can get to it. "The race is always won by the most recently installed extension."
To fix: https://decentraleyes.org/configure-https-everywhere/
Example: You go to meetup.com for the first time. You click on the umatrix icon. You click on meetupstatic.com. You click on the save symbol. Done.
There's a lot of room for streamlining the UI for enabling resources.
I understand what it does, I just don't understand how to use it effectively. Like I just tried it: I enabled uMatrix and went on the website of the NY Times. I end up with a rather large matrix with a bunch of domains like "a.nytimes.com", "api.nytimes.com", "samizdat-graphql.nytimes.com", "optimizely.com", "js-sec.indexwww.com" and many others, includind a bunch of google and amazon domains.
How am I supposed to figure out what I should whitelist in there? Trial and error?
There are a few obvious candidates for blacklisting (amazon-adsystem.com for instance) but I'm sure that those would already be blocked by my uBlock filters. Actually so far uBlock with a few ad + privacy enhancing filters seem to do a decent job which makes uMatrix even more frustrating because I feel like I'm doing something by hand that uBlock does just fine automatically.
But at the same time I often see people praise uMatrix here on HN and that makes me feel inadequate and noobish so I really want to understand what I'm not understanding.
I'd check umatrix's site and there are a number of presets to make major sites work you can use. After that, if a site doesn't work fiddle with allowing things from places. Save when you're content. It's pretty easy to get the hang of.
Domains that include "assets", "cdn", "static" and similar will probably be needed, at least if you want scripts to run and css to be included.
Anything with "ad" in the name you should probably not enable.
Other than that, basically trial and error. After a while it'll hopefully be easier to tell, but it will still be somewhat tedious each time you encounter a new site.
Say the images of users on github.com are broken. I open umatrix and think 'Hmm.. which host could they load them from?'. I enable 'githubusercontent.com' and voila! The user images appear.
What TekMol is using sounds like Hard Mode. Personally, I chose Medium Mode (blocking only 3rd-party scripts) as there isn't much difference between them. [1]
Side effect is that it also blocks most ads.
The only remaining indication is the domain, and their iOS app that's still up on the App Store.
It cause a lot of issues on their side but the customer blame the server.
I've heard a story that web-based game not working for some people for no apparent reason.
The developer used their psychic power and change the file name of image files which was something like "foo_ads_bar.png"(the user supplied error log indicated they faild to fetch that resources which shouldn't happen) to not contains the "ads". And he got less bug report.
The image file was not AD but a essential resource for the web-based game. Blocking that, you break the game implementation.
Blanket blocking based on partial three-letter string match on client side? Fine do what you want. It's your computer after all. But don't come toward us crying for help because it's non of our problem.
I've had the issue at one of my projects where an overly broad rule blocked all my images.
If my users are all using list based blockers (adblock, uBlock, mobiles, proxies, ...) and those lists block my content, I'd like to know quickly so I can appeal to the list maintainers.
The goal is to let you know if you're about to be impacted by a false positive. I've been there and it sucks as your users leave your site or contact your support team.
In Finland, unique among Nordic countries, political strikes are allowed. What does this mean? Let's say you're not happy about a decision made by Trump you can go to a strike. Sure the company doesn't have to pay you but they also must allow you to come back to work without repercussions when you decide. It's basically unlimited unpaid holiday. Or alternatively keeping the employer hostage in order to affect the behavior of an unrelated third party.
So obviously we as a country are bit torn on the issue as what can the employer do about it? Go to white house and take Trump as hostage so that he would change his decision? It is also questionable from democratic perspective. Why should a subset of population have more saying than the rest. Shouldn't everyone have a single vote and based on that decisions are made. Instead of a minority having a vote + a veto right.
Similar overreactions like this adblock may come as right now bunch of major unions are protesting against government and that has brought political strikes back into limelight.
Given how cozy the ruling coalition are with business interests, this is hardly some one sided thing over which only one party has control. Sipilä isn't just pulling this shit for fun, that's not how Finnish business or politics works. Everyone knows everyone, and the PM himself has personal business interests even.
The rule serves as a check against the collusion of the state and capital. As a card-carrying union member, I quite happily support any and all attempts to block this coalition's relentless attacks on workers' rights.
So it’s a bit more complex issue. I just wanted to tell HN readers that there even is such a thing as a political strike.
I have a cushy tech job, with a big company, so the recent attempted changes probably won't affect me at all. But if they can go after those it will and get away with it, then next time they will come for me, and there will be no united front left to defend me.
The alternative is we end up like America, and as much as some blinkered people in tech and business seem to want that for their own greedy purposes, a good look at the news should tell you why that's not a road we should want to go down.
As an example I aim for system where employment is at will but that is balanced by strong social security and unemployment benefits. It kinda gives best of both worlds. When you are not screwed when you're fired you don't need insanely strong protections.
I refuse to accept that as a worker I have to support decisions that I personally think as stupid just due to "solidarity". I vote based on my own conscience just like everyone else ought to vote according to theirs.
If Finland was like Sweden where unions don't have legislative power I'd by all means belong into one. And considering that so many more in Sweden belong in unions vs in Finland I am not alone in my thoughts.
I worked on that side of the Pond for almost a decade, and was quite involved in the union where I worked. They're quite politicized there as well although I heard the Social Democrats are slowly losing their grip of the larger unions now.
At-will employment is the reason there's no real workers' rights in the US. If the employer can fire you at any time on a whim and for no reason, it becomes impossible to enforce any other labor protection laws, from discrimination on down.
Sure it was illegal for my employer to fire me from my job at a thrift shop in the States after I got injured on the job doing work I shouldn't legally have been expected to do alone. So they just found another excuse and fired me anyway (in this case, because I took a day off to mourn my dying father. Remember what I said about America?).
This happens over and over, with racial, gender, disability discrimination, labor violations, and on and on. There's no real way to enforce the law when there's a giant loophole around it, and who do you think has more money to win a labor suit? The unemployed person, or the company who fired them?
There's also the pressure and the power imbalance it creates. If my employer can fire me whenever they want for no reason, then I have basically no clout at all on the job. I'm under relentless pressure to just do whatever I'm told, because if I don't, then I'm out on my ass in a day. You make a normally small mistake on a day when the boss is in a bad mood? Disagree with the wrong manager? Decide to stand up when the corporation wants you to do something unethical, or even illegal?
Tough luck. Better hit the dole queue tomorrow.
It creates a constant, oppressive pressure on employees, because you will never have job security. You are always one bad day or one wrong move away from the unemployment line.
And let's face it, the same kind of voters and politicians who say things like you do, are the same ones that aren't gonna be in a hurry to raise the unemployment benefit to actually fit the cost of living. The last time I lost my job in Finland I nearly wound up homeless (surprise! I was on the very probationary period the gov't wants to extend indefinitely, and got let go along with all the other new hires, so my startup could cook the books for the VCs). Helsinki benefits haven't been adjusted for cost of living since the 70s, and if you think the same government looking to toss more people out on the street is gonna be in a hurry to fix that, well then I have some very interesting cryptocurrency investments I'd love to show you.
Part of having a strong safety net is employees having the security not to need it all the time. If anyone can just shit-can people for something as simple as fudging the budget for next quarter, then unemployment costs rise, and the response to that has consistently been to cut benefits, not raise them.
For all the system is imperfect here, Finns need to understand just how good they have it already, and stop supporting people who want to drag us down to the Americans' level just to make a few more euros.
From my point of view, the Sipilä government is working with own best interest in mind, even though I actually do believe they also think that's what's best for the country.
Being selfish now won't help me if I need someone else's solidarity in 15 years though, so I'd rather support the cause now and know that I did what I could when it mattered and not when it happened to suit me.
I wouldn't accept this argument at face value unless you were unusually disciplined about applying it equally everywhere.
For example, applying this rule equally everywhere means, among other things, eliminating capitalism. After all, capitalism creates a significant imbalance in power in practice via private ownership of the means of production. (It doesn't necessarily mean abolishing the free market, though - some form of market socialism should be compatible with democracy even in this extreme interpretation.)
If we step back from the extremes again, it's clear that this is all about balancing acts. Capitalist power means that a tiny minority has much more say than the rest. Political strikes can be a useful tool to provide a counterbalance.
Maybe there are better ways to provide this counterbalance, but you can't just take employee rights away without taking appropriate measures elsewhere as well to balance things out again.
The power to convince is different from the power to flatly override the wishes of others.
If you start trying to equalize the power to convince, now you're upending the entire media/journalistic system (where reporters and filmmakers and celebrities have far more influence than normal people) as well as the economy.
This is Finland where unions are more than just bit strong. Based on gallups the next election likely goes to the union backed party.
more recently there's the novel shortcut of the business people themselves just running for office. Our current PM has a long list of business interests, including lobbying the Modi government on behalf of a startup he co-owns to sell them a chemical plant. His family also has holdings in a mining company that has received considerable amounts of government money, a fact he actually tried to cover up with in the Finnish state media Yle.
So painting this as "why is it business' fault what government does!" is more than a little misleading. Government doing exactly what business wants is the whole problem.
Apart of YLE in English (witch feel... A bit limited) did you know other finnish media in English?
It's beyond frustrating.
It's not only Finland, I think MANY other countries do the same, unfortunately I can't read Finnish so...
Sure, money doesn't directly give you votes in parliament.
But the right to political strikes doesn't directly give you additional votes either.
For the record, political strikes happen in the other Nordic countries as well. According to a quick search on the Internet, the only Nordic citizens who are _not_ allowed to partake in a political strike are public servants in Sweden.
I just wanted to give especially Americans some view on how different things may be.
According to my search as an example in Denmark they're only allowed if "Short and for reasonable cause" and so forth and sweden was not listed at all, but norway was. This is likely a mix of case law and actual written law. https://www.asi.is/media/7581/Strike_rules_in_the_EU27.pdf
Finland is probably one of the few places where you can't fire an employee for participating in a poltical strike. The ability to fire someone for going on strike doesn't make the strike illegal though.
So even if Finland would make political strikes illegal it would not change much.
In other words, political strikes are effectively banned i Sweden.
I'm not aware of any exception to this rule for public servants but I could be wrong.
The Nordic countries all have certain restrictions on striking for some groups of public servants. The groups vary and the restrictions do, too. If I read my book correctly, Sweden forbids key officials (those who have certain positions of authority) from participating in solidarity strikes (strikes in support of others), unless those others are also public servants.
https://books.google.se/books?id=IYx2GZdMA7AC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA...
The purpose of the law is to prevent certain tempting corrupt practices.
As far as I know, this law has never been used, but I feel like it is sensible.
Note: 99% of the time, like all Swedish workers, those officials have a binding collective bargaining agreement, so are forbidden from striking anyway. (I e if they go on strike, they may be legally fired.)
Not exactly true. What you're talking about is the industrial peace obligation inherent in each collective agreement. But this obligation is not applied where the strike has nothing to do with the collective agreement, i.e., where the objective of the industrial action is not covered by the collective agreement. This is precisely the case with political strikes. In this respect, the system is very similar to that in Finland. However, AFAIK, there are other limitations to purely political strikes, see the source below.
At least this source [1] states that 'purely political strikes are, in most countries, at least in theory, prohibited, exceptions being Denmark (if short and for “reasonable cause”), Finland, Ireland, Italy and Norway.'
Looking more carefully at that source you will find, however, that there is, in practice, a lot of room for strikes of varying political nature in many more EU states.
[1] https://www.asi.is/media/7581/Strike_rules_in_the_EU27.pdf
So yeah, strikes are perfectly legal.
This gives political clout back to the normal people.
Cleaners and trash disposal workers on strike for 2 months?? Country comes to a standstill.
Investment bankers on strike for 2 years? Nobody noticed except for retirees that get more pension benefits.
Investment bankers might be able to afford 2 years, but I think they'd rather get paid too.
One of the major reasons why strikes typically last only a couple of days, is that the unions start losing their support when their members' personal financial loss exceeds the perceived importance of the issue.
Maybe talk to the workers? They are losing money, so the issue must be important for them.
Democracy means "rule by the people". Anything that devoLves power from leaders to individuals is democratic. And anything that shifts power from some individuals to others is a complex case to analyze.
This is a huge shift of power. But perpetual referenda doesn't seem workable with present technology so rule by the demos is always going to mean devolving power to a small group, which has inherent difficulties.
I like the system of the demos being able to force a referendum with a substantial minority, eg 5%. Then perhaps require a supermajority to pass legislation. This works to limit the power of the chosen representatives.
It go nice with https://lwn.net/Articles/768483/ in FOSS world we must understand actual IT evolution path and know how we work freely in the past.
So please reconsider Usenet, advertise it, enforce email instead of ANY actual "communication platform" from WhatsApp to Slack passing trough Reddit, StackExchange etc. We know that finding past information on usenet for newcomers it's not as easy as these modern platform, but we have wiki's, blog's for that. We need to act now us all, anybody who understand because tomorrow it will be too late.