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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.