Attention NoScript users
adblockplus.org
adblockplus.org
You can disable NoScript's "modification" to Adblock Plus by doing the following in Firefox:
1) Tools -> Add-ons -> Adblock Plus -> Preferences
2) Collapse the "Filter subscription: EasyList (USA)" list.
3) Uncheck "Enabled" for the "Filter subscription: NoScript Developer Support Filterset" list.
Now when NoScript installs an update, and loads its webpage full of ads, Adblock Plus won't be blocked from doing its duty. Unless of course NoScript re-enables the filter...
I've never understood the reason for installing NoScript. It seems utterly pointless. Why not install NoHTML while you're at it, or use lynx.
Also never understood the philosophy behind adblock. If a website starts doing garish irritating ads, just don't go there again.
That said I don't personally run NoScript (I use Safari), but I totally understand people who do.
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.
Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Unfortunately some people will try to hack it, tragedy of the commons and all that.
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.
It's a safety buffer and a very, very important one.
Unless you donate to the site/project or enable ads after that you are leeching content.
The responsibility for that goes both ways. If you depend on ad revenue for your entire revenue stream your business model is flawed. Let users do things like purchase the model outright to avoid annoyances or to donate. It's unfair to assume that a product won't be supported.
Well the thing is, no it doesn't. It makes things a lot better for me, because I don't have to look at ads.
But the funny thing is, I do look at ads, and quite a bit. Any site serving its own ads is not blocked. For example, I just went to railscasts.com and I saw a lot of ads - tasteful, non-animated, and I don't mind at all. What I cannot stand are animated or ugly ads, so I block them. So I had a problem, it's now solved, end of story.
"Stick by those principles."
But it's not my duty or interest to spend a lot of time like this, to "vote" for some sites and boycott others, to teach them a lesson. They have to figure it out. If they do, bring their ads in-house, and make them tasteful and relevant, then I wouldn't take any further action. But "fighting the power" like you propose? It's just not my battle.
"since you're never going to click on anything, the webmasters will likely make their ads more intrusive"
They can do what they want; I'm never going to see them.
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."
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.
Why do they still advertise? Because of the people that do see the ad, some do buy the product.
I am an adblock plus user and I must say it enhances my browsing a noticeable amount that when I am using a different browser or no adblock I notice and although this is not ideal for websites that make money off of ads I really dislike them.
Same can't be said for noscript I've stopped installing it on firefoxs I use and don't think I have it installed on any of my computers it just stopped being functional for me with firebug and adblock.
I agree there, but (and I'm in the minority here) it actually surprises me the extent the developers went to block ads in such a small corner situation.
NoScript's behavior started out shady, but it feels like Adblock developers escalated it into some sort of weird war. A war against ads that appear only rarely and that only a small number of people probably noticed? Was that really necessary?
It seems like you'd just uninstall NoScript if it was a major problem seeing their update pages. I mean, someone specifically installed NoScript and it could be serving ads from their local machine if it wanted, right? Do I really expect AdBlock to try to protect me from other extensions to such a level?
I don't use either extension, but it bothers me that extension developers are turning this into a one-up-man-ship for something so minor in the scheme of things.
Some hyperbole for sure. Nothing gets around the fact that NoScript overstepped very clear and natural boundaries.
If I had been the target, I would probably overreact as well. NoScript's behavior is nonetheless well worth pointing out and publicly shaming.
The major point behind all of this is that extensions should be an island. You shouldn't be messing with the work of anyone else, especially for the reasons they had here.
Note that NoScript could easily change their scheme to move further into their island where AdBlock Plus would be forced to invade fully-- it's in no one's interest to escalate before diplomacy has been worked through.
The last thing we need is the light-smattering of gray Firefox addons (who are at worst showing some adsense ads) to be forced to push things deeper into darker areas.
Imagine if this was Symantec and Trend? Microsoft or Apple? Do you really want them to be fighting technically on your machine? In principle, it's just fundamentally bad for us to encourage that kind of behavior. They should use diplomacy, and shine lights in the dark areas before escalating technically.
Yes, NoScript reacted to the escalation fiendishly. I just don't think it was responsible on AdBlock Plus's side to escalate technically on such a minor issue when diplomacy/communication is so much better for everyone.
Okay, so, you do realize that Adblock faces spammers that are constantly trying to tweak the system to get through blockers like Adblock, right? It's a constant fight. How is what Noscript is doing any other than other spammers?
Adblock is simply treating them as any other ad company that's trying to sneak ads in. Given that that is the reason people install Adblock, that's a perfectly appropriate response.
The NoScript developers not only overreacted, they also acted incredibly against the wishes of the users installing both programs.
The whole reason we're even talking about this is because the situation is different than a normal spammer. NoScript is an extension and thus is doing things spammers can't do, and all on the end user's machines.
That's why it makes me sad that Adblock didn't play this more responsibly from the outset. I'm even more sad that everyone else is content in believing that Adblock was doing the right thing by escalating. What they did was less bad than NoScript, but it's still wild west gunslinging without exhausting more civilized options.
We need discussion/diplomacy between developers before people start fighting/warring using their customers' resources.
A) Konqueror (aka Webkit/Chrome), with NO Java/Javascript/etc., for general reading and exploratory browsing. (Reads PDFs too, btw).
B) Firefox for the "usual suspects". No extensions. No Flash either, but that's me.
Problem solved. A surprising amount of the web works with A, some shops or social sites need B, I don't care about the rest.
I dislike opaque executable blobs delivered inside HTML, proprietary plugins to deal with them, and browser extensions to deal with the problems ... feels like piling bricks on moving sand - tiresome, ineffective, unsafe.
Both are doing wrong in a way... but not in others. It's a contradiction, but neither can claim to be the white knights... both are at best grey.
It could be that the users installed AdBlock to block the NoScript ads. In this case, NoScript is giving the finger to the users opinion.
At some point when the default behavior of two programs with similar feature-sets overlaps you just have to leave resolving them as an exercise for the user.
But targeting the other program in such a way is no different than someone installing two A/V softwares. Sure they may conflict in some areas, but if one of them silently disables or cripples the other on purpose... who is in the wrong?
"But targeting the other program in such a way is no different than someone installing two A/V softwares. Sure they may conflict in some areas"
"This software program conflicts with this software program. You can choose to run them both and accept the problems that occur accordingly or you can choose to cancel this installation or remove program X"
Do you want to cancel, remove program X, or cancel the installation?
Give users the option to opt-into using your software, don't force users to get into a proxy battle by automatically opting into things.
No. Hell no. Antivirus programs conflict for a good technical reason. NoScript and AdBlock conflict because the author of one dislikes the effects of the other program; were it not for that, the two extensions would be completely compatible with one another. Equating these two things with each other completely misses the point.
That's what it does - it displays ads as part of its website on the extension update page. So those ads are part of the extensions behavior.
Obviously some users supported the NoScript author through the ads or donations. So by blocking those - and blocking the update alltogether - AdBlock was disrespecting what some of the NoScript users wanted.
My point still holds that both were not doing the best in the interest of their users, mozilla, or even themselves.
It was destructive all round.