Attention NoScript users

http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users

by robin_reala • 17 years ago

100 40 17 years ago

buugs• 17 years ago

It doesn't surprise me the extent some people go to to generate revenue in what I must think is a small market.

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.

thorax4• 17 years ago

> It doesn't surprise me the extent some people go to to generate revenue in what I must think is a small market.

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.

Nwallins• 17 years ago

> Adblock developers escalated it into some sort of weird war

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.

spkthed5• 17 years ago

I don't think they did overreact. Noscripts function is to block scripts, Adblocks function is to block ads. They found a popular plugin that attacks their functionality and they took steps to combat it. I'm glad they did so.

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.

ableal2• 17 years ago

My method for this madness may be useful to someone. I use two browsers:

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.

earl• 17 years ago

You should try flashblock, if you don't already know about it. Instead of loading flash you get a play button where the flash would have been and you can choose to turn it on if you want. It also supports whitelists, although annoyingly enough on the host of the flash, not on the website displaying the flash.

ableal2• 17 years ago

Thanks, I know it exists - I'm just stubborn ;-).

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.

dgallagher2• 17 years ago

Just to re-iterate the article, NoScript runs ads on their website to generate some revenue. Adblock Plus normally blocks these ads, but NoScript whitelists itself (along with a few other partner developer websites) in Adblock Plus "without" end-user permission, and without making a genuine effort to notify users it's doing this. It hacks Adblock Plus from working on its sites, basically.

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...

axod6• 17 years ago

OTOH It's trivial for any site to get past adblock if they choose to, or degrade the users experience if they're running adblock (If they have js).

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.

simonw• 17 years ago

There's a very good reason to run NoScript: most web developers still don't understand CSRF, and hence many web applications are vulnerable to CSRF attacks. Running NoScript prevents untrusted sites from exploiting CSRF holes in sites that you care about.

That said I don't personally run NoScript (I use Safari), but I totally understand people who do.

dgallagher2• 17 years ago

FYI, the newest version of NoScript (1.9.2.6) stops doing this:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589683

mustpax• 17 years ago

Very revealing. I stopped using NoScript a while ago since it would not properly whitelist some sites. At the time I was wondering why the plugin was updated so frequently with very similar change logs each time. This post explains why.

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.

just_the_tip• 17 years ago

The plugin is updated frequently also because doing so lands itself in the Most Popular Add-ons chart. Giorgio has a history of pushing the limit to see what he can get away before backtracking when someone calls him out on it.

hboon• 17 years ago

Sounds like an entrepreneur trait.

axod6• 17 years ago

>> "Interfering with other extensions' internal state is simply unacceptable"

Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock.

jauco3• 17 years ago

No it isn't! I'm allowed to ffwd past comercials using my VHS and to cut out ads on my newspaper. Ads are a soft form of brainwashing, making watching them compulsive sounds too much like "brave new world" to me.

sho2• 17 years ago

"Interfering with other websites revenue models is also simply unacceptable by using adblock."

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.

jfarmer• 17 years ago

How is that? It's my browser running on my computer. Shouldn't I have final say over what I do and don't see?

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."

twopoint718• 17 years ago

When someone pays to advertise they know it is a "leaky" mechanism. It is understood (or should be) that not every person in the world will see that ad. It is also understood that not every person that sees the ad will buy the products advertised. That's the nature of advertising.

Why do they still advertise? Because of the people that do see the ad, some do buy the product.

illumen2• 17 years ago

Adblock also blocks the behaviour of no-script... by blocking the ads.

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.

pyr3• 17 years ago

NoScript's behavior isn't the display of ads though, so AdBlock is _not_ directly messing with NoScript.

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?

spkthed5• 17 years ago

One of the big points in that article mirrors your example. The correct response is to allow the user to decide.

"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.

illumen2• 17 years ago

Part of NoScripts behaviour is the display of it's ads.

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.

Attention NoScript users

Related Stories