Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Jetpack and the Battle For the Web
snydeq writes "Mozilla Jetpack makes it so easy to filter, modify, and mash up pages that it might end up pitting developers and users against content producers in a battle for the Web, writes Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister. By allowing users to modify the behavior, presentation, and output of Web apps and pages to their liking, Jetpack gives users the ability to 'patch the server, in a sense,' McAllister writes, bringing us one step closer to a more democratic Web. Good news for developers and users; not so good for SaaS providers and media companies that have a vested interest in controlling the function, presentation, and distribution of Web-based content and apps. In other words, as Jetpack produces fruit, expect more producers to call for 'guardrails for the Internet.'"
I read the raw HTML and compose the pages in my imagination, just like the novel readers of the past used to do.
That really sticks it to the man.
And so the new slashdot layout is finally explained in full.
I keed, I keed. But seriously...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The guy forgot just one important thing: Most people don't use Firefox.
So... Tools that make it even easier to strip the content from people who've spent their free time running websites that are expensive, using their bandwidth to do so? How is this democratic? A democracy is about having a say in how a country (the web) is run, not having your say over individuals (websites). It's easy to spin it as "giving the user control back from the big bad corporations" but there are scores of good websites producing quality content that do struggle to even cover costs, let alone make a profit.
CmdrTaco, you posted this dupe to early as the last one was only posted 8 days ago. You are supposed to wait at least a month before duping. Thank you.
Today's article is more centered on the battle that the author believes is about to transpire between content providers and users. If you're having trouble finding these parts:
Content producers, on the other hand, might not be so thrilled.
He goes on to cite the New York Times effort to provide an open API to their stories as well as Michael Lynton, Sony CEO Troll and wraps up with Obama's often referenced cybersecurity czar (god, I hate typing that):
So far, calls for action such as Lynton's have mostly fallen on deaf ears. But with President Obama due to announce a "cybersecurity czar" this week, there is every indication that the U.S. government is ready to become more directly involved in the workings of the Internet and the Web. According to the White House, the new position will have "broad authority" over the nation's computer networks, both public and private. If that authority includes protecting the economic interests of American Web-based businesses, we could be heading for a helluva scuffle.
I wouldn't call it a dupe as this gives us something new to talk about from a blog.
My work here is dung.
So... Tools that make it even easier to strip the content from people who've spent their free time running websites that are expensive, using their bandwidth to do so? How is this democratic?
Don't make websites that suck and the People won't have to jetpack the suck out of it.
You can't take the sky from me...
I miss the days when just about everyone using the web was a developer, user, and content producer all in one. I think we all saw the commercial 'content producer' jackals circling and licking their lips, but we thought we had the power to fend them off, that the web would never be fully commercialized like every other media. How wrong we were.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Or am I mistaken. I use greasemonkey to already accomplish this.
Yeah, if you read the article, they go on extensively about this:
If you're familiar with the Greasemonkey extension for Firefox, you already have a good idea of how Jetpack works. Like Greasemonkey User Scripts, Jetpack-based add-ins are written primarily in JavaScript, and they manipulate browser windows and their contents using familiar AJAX techniques. You install them directly from the Web, and they don't even require a browser restart to take effect. While developing Greasemonkey User Scripts can be somewhat cumbersome, writing add-ins with Jetpack couldn't be simpler.
Jetpack integrates the popular jQuery JavaScript library, the Firebug debugger, and Mozilla's Bespin browser-based code editor to create a complete, interactive development environment. Although it's still in a raw and experimental stage, the combination is both easy to use and incredibly powerful. For example, one of the Jetpack demos is an ad-blocking script that uses a list of regular expressions to selectively filter unwanted graphics, scripts, and iframes from Web pages. The whole script comprises only about 80 lines of code.
It's a little surprising that Mozilla Labs would choose ad blocking as one of its first demos, however, when that's precisely the sort of application that flies directly in the faces of content providers and other Web-based businesses. While the Web is inarguably a mature computing platform, as a platform for business it's still in its infancy. Media companies are struggling to create viable revenue streams, and so far advertising is one of the few that has shown promise. And yet, with just 80 lines of code, Jetpack promises to take it all away.
Of course, ad-blocking plug-ins for browsers have been around a long time, and many users wouldn't fire up a browser without one. But by announcing Jetpack with a demonstration of how easy it is to build an ad-blocking script, Mozilla Labs is in effect saying that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Mashups, filters, formatters, and tools -- when Jetpack is done, anything will be possible, and it will be easy. That's bound to send a chill up any would-be Web mogul's spine.
The big news everyone seems to be missing is that everyone and their mom will be able to block ads with very little knowledge. That's dangerous to content providers and I've highlighted the part in the above text where the author talks about this. Is Mozilla entering a maelstrom that was normally between adblock/noscript and content providers?
My work here is dung.
And so the new slashdot layout is finally explained in full.
Yes. There's so much crap running on Slashdot's pages now that Firefox sometimes reports that a script is running too long. Pages load slowly because the five or so different ad servers all need time to respond. The page code has "document.write()" calls which load more Javascript, forcing operations which ought to be in parallel to wait for the previous step to complete. I just had a Slashdot page load wait 9 seconds for "bs.serving-sys.com". That's a 9 second delay for a useless site that's trying to load a "tracking cookie". A Jetpack add-on to block all that stuff will be a huge win.
Dear "Customers"
For too long have you created and shared content amongst yourselves without it passing through our hands first, thus depriving us of our entitled revenue. Luckily we have more lobbying money than you, so this state of affairs will not continue.
As a web developer/designer, things like this irk me. When I design a website it is standards-compliant and looks how I intend it to, for what I think are good reasons. Empowering users to further mess with my presentation of my website is bothersome.
As a web user, things like this make me glad. I will be glad if I am given more control of the presentation of poorly-designed websites, because I really don't have any sympathy for someone who designs a site that hinders me from obtaining the information that the site is supposed to be giving me.
Tools like this are not inherently good or bad. People may use them to the detriment of their experience on the web (if they somehow degrade a site's visual appeal or function [not that the two things go hand-in-hand]), or people may use them to make their experiences on the web more efficient, productive, and enjoyable. I say more power to tools like this, because people should be able to have a say about how content is presented on their computers. And perhaps once poor web design dies (as if this will ever happen), the web developer/designer views the web in a different way, or the browser changes the way it presents websites, tools like this will either go out of fashion or become more integral to our idea of what the web is.
I just had a Slashdot page load wait 9 seconds for "bs.serving-sys.com".
NoScript (FireFox extension: http://noscript.net/)
I don't run AdBlock, just NoScript, and the only reason I know that /. has ads now is that people not running NoScript talk about it.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Keep in mind if people can't pay via their advertising, they'll likely start charging again.
Which will drive people to free sites.
Once upon a time it was possible to make a living by being the only literate person in town, reading and writing letters for people and the like. Universal literacy killed that business model.
The Web was never designed nor intended as a tool for commercial enterprises--it was intended to allow academics to share information, and however far it evolves under commercial pressure, there is not much that can be done about that fundamental aspect of its architecture. To try to use the Web, which was designed for free and open information sharing, as a tool for restricted information sales is probably going to fail.
The past decade has seen a number of successful businesses based on Web revenue models. There is no promise from anyone that those models will continue to be viable. That's what markets are like, and while it may be a pity that certain things are not available to users because there is no viable way to pay for it, we're still all better off for having the Web than not.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
They already can, and more easily if they are using Firefox by installing ad-block plus. I would of thought they could think of better examples than this to show how it can do 'useful' things.
What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.
The internet has the capability to be an incredible paradigm change for us all, but it is unlikely that it will be allowed to become this due to regulation that will invariably be placed upon it by our governments and corporations. What is especially sad is that those regulations are being created to stop people doing unimportant but selfish things like ad-blocking and pirating (this is said as someone who doesn't ad-block but does pirate, so please don't think I'm holding myself above my contempt!).
Am I the only one that finds it interesting how short the lifetime is for Internet business models? Traditional business models can be successful for dozens if not hundreds of years. Web based models seem to only remain viable for around a decade at best, then competition crops up with a new idea or some independent developer ruins the model (Ad-block anyone?).
It seems to me that if your business is going to survive on the web, you'd better be spending time and effort every single day looking for new revenue streams and business models.
That's a bit dramatic. Removing advertisements and altering how Web pages are displayed is more like the concept of being able to ignore or only selectively listen to someone who says things you don't like. It's more like "yes, you have the right to say whatever you want within certain limits, but you do not have the right to force me to listen to any or all of what you say or to make me interpret it any particular way."
I think the real question is, whose Internet is it? Does it belong to the corporations, the marketers, the governments, and other monied interests? Or does it belong to the people who use and enjoy it?
If it belongs to the monied interests, then they should do as they please and we should have to adapt to what they want, by force of law if necessary. If that means that state police power needs to be used to jeopardize people who are doing something that should not be a crime, just refer to it as "collateral damage" or use some kind of specious "greater good" argument.
Here I refer to the local display of information. I am not referring to redistributing someone else's work, which is another matter entirely. If the Internet belongs to the people, then we should do whatever we want with the content that others have chosen to place on the public network. If commercial interests don't like that, they should be told that their choice is to adapt to it and find a way to profit from it or to go bankrupt.
To put that another way, if you don't like the freedoms associated with a particular medium, such as an end-user's ability to control how information is displayed, your option is to choose not to publish your content on that medium. If you do choose to publish your content on a medium that allows many options for how that content is displayed, it's rather underhanded to cry "foul" when those options are exercised. It's downright despicable to use political clout and the legal system to remove some of the freedoms from a medium that never forced you to publish your content on it. At the risk of being accused of hyperbole, the mentality is exactly the same as those psychopaths who murder a woman screaming "if I can't have her, no one can!" Of course one of those expressions is far, far more extreme and ghastly than another, but the underlying mentality is exactly the same.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
God I hate advertising. I hate the American attitude that advertising is acceptable (indeed inevitable) in all areas of life. Billboards everywhere, sportscasters interrupting their coverage to promote products, ads read by the presenters on NPR, advertising of prescription medication...
These things don't happen anywhere else. It's only in America that you've been persuaded by the advertisers that their hold on your psyche and paycheck is normal.
The figures I have are from 2000, when the total amount spent on advertising worked out to about $5000 per inhabitant of the US per year.
What a stupid tax for us all to be paying! It doesn't go to anything we particularly want. It lines the pocketbooks of advertising agencies and irritates us when we're trying to browse the web or watch television or listen to the radio or see the countryside from our cars.
As a way of funding anything, it's hugely inefficient. I bet it's even more inefficient than taxes.
From day one, the actual rendering (or not) of HTML was intended to be user configurable. HTML was intended to be semantic tagging, not some sort of paste-up specification. A P tag specifies a paragraph, but does not specify what the browser does with a paragraph. The default is a reasonably sane rendering, but if the user wants something else, that's their call. All of the stuff like font, etc and CSS are strong suggestions which most browsers happen to accept and follow by default.
'Content Providers' in print media cannot stop me from drawing Hitler mustaches or horns on the ads in magazines I buy and they can't stop me from wearing tinted glasses when I read them.
Television 'Content providers' cannot stop me from hitting mute, modifying my TV to display the picture upside down, or creating funny commercial mash-ups by changing channels right after the voiceover asks a question.
They'd love the right to strap us down and give us the Clockwork Orange treatment, but that's not something they can have.
"Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like. "
This doesn't ring true to me. Using ad blocking I only alter how *I* see people's work. I see my attention as a valuable, finite resource and most advertising does not respect that resource. Just check out IMDB, opening a popup window almost every time I click a link. So, to stop this abuse, I am taking measures.
I would rather compare this situation to wearing glasses that make advertising messages disappear. The only person on the receiving end of this is me. Nobody gets punched, including my eyeballs.
Look at how polluted our public spaces are with advertising. Reading these messages because I have no other choice (reading is automatic and I have to keep my eyes open when driving) and unconsciously repeating the written messages in my own head, with my own energy, on my own time, without consent, is unacceptable.
Anyone got a hold of a pair of theseshades?
I recommend seeing "The Century of the Self" and Carpenter's "They Live." Eye opening :)
I don't understand why you think I should need your permission to increase the size of the font displayed in my browser when I view a web page from your server. Likewise, changing colors or even radically reinventing a better (for me) CSS scheme has nothing to do with any legal rights you might accrue due to having created (or published, or bought) said content.
Can you imagine if textbook publishers tried this? "Highlighting text in this book without the publisher's permission is contrary to our purpose in publishing this work. If the author had wanted that text highlighted, it would be highlighted. Likewise, margin notes require written permission beforehand. If the author had wanted a note in the margin, one would have been printed."