Slashdot Mirror
NoScript Adds Subscriptions To Adblock Plus
hahiss writes "Apparently, NoScript has taken to adding its own whitelist updates to Adblock Plus — so that the ads on the NoScript page show up — without notifying users. (It is described on the NoScript addon page, however.) This was a part of the last update to NoScript. Wladimir Palant, the main developer of Adblock Plus, describes the situation in an informative blog post."
Update — 5/02 at 12:30 GMT by SS: Reader spyrochaete notes that "InformAction, makers of the NoScript extension for Firefox, have removed the recently introduced AdBlock exceptions which unblocked the revenue-producing ads on the NoScript homepage with little or no warning to the user. According to the changelog, InformAction pushed out an update specifically addressing this controversial decision 'permanently and with no questions asked.'"
what's the problem with that? It's his extension, are you really too much of a cheap bastard to reward him for his work. You said yourself you can see what sites he whitelisted so he's not hiding it.
I think the cross site ad thing has gone too far, but ads do pay for bandwidth, it's not really fair to surf sites like slashdot, that do a good job of keeping them to a minimum, and skip the ads. I think noscript serves a useful purpose in controlling your connections and scripts as well as diagnosing hacking attempt... ad block seems to be for cheapskates.
Well, AdblockPlus was injecting itself into NoScript first...
I run adblock with filterset and all that good stuff. But I'm going to play devils advocate here. Something about the tone of your post makes me feel like I need to ask this question: If you feel entitled to read someone's content, why do you feel entitled to read it without ads? While I agree that most flash/gif ads are obnoxious, they spent time creating the content and money on hosting it for your consumption, that's not exactly information wanting to be free.
I used to read a website where behind the banners, the author had a simple text graphic worked into the background with text along the lines of "If you can read this, you are hurting my ability to pay for the hosting of this site". Granted he ran punch the monkey type ads for the 10 minutes I white listed him, but it doesn't feel right to be able to be entitled to read everything on the net without ads.
I realize that ads can bring scams, drive by installs, monkey punching, and malicious behavior, and that should be blocked, but I don't see the problem that people have with the simple applied text based concept embodied by google ads (well, I won't when google steps up and removes scams and malware type ads from their advert list).
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
... is a fag!
http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=877&start=75
I don't think AdBlock is displaying malicious intent here. But then again, does it amount to copyright infringement?
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
I always thought the incremental updates to NoScript were too frequent to be entirely for the benefit of its users.
1) Involuntary web page visits after an update
2) serve ads
3) no step 3
4) profit
He probably looks for any typo that he can fix to get the next update out on time. At some point he needs to just call it adware, and I think we'd all agree that point has been reached. I'm now going find a way to avoid going to his page after an update, that way it won't matter if his ads were blocked or not.
First off, the FAQ tells you how to turn off the home page display after an update. It's a double click.
2) Noscript will block the ads on noscripts site if you tell it to. The issue was ABP was effectively blocking his site's navigation menus, not just the ads.
Lastly, if you bothered to read the updates or change logs, you'd see the updates are for vulnerabilities.
The not asking was a bug, which he has already fixed in one of those many free updates you apparently find so irritating.
I'd ask if you had ever donated, but I can tell you haven't. Neither have I actually, though I'll change that now.