What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
323 Comments
- prompel, on 05/02/2009, -5/+3301. NoScript quietly added a whitelist subscription to AdBlockPlus to enable supporting ads on the NoScript site. That was sneaky, underhanded and despicable.
2. NoScript *patched the AdBlockPlus code* to enable supporting ads on the NoScript site. This goes *way* beyond the pale. One plugin modifying the code of another? Suddenly, NoScript is malware!
Very interesting discussion here : http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&a ... - atm259, on 05/02/2009, -8/+300I choose adblock plus.
- rnawky, on 05/01/2009, -15/+255Time for negative reviews.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722 ... - xroni, on 05/01/2009, -7/+229The author of NoScript has tried to interfere with AdBlock Plus so it would not block the ads on their website.
- Anand999, on 05/02/2009, -10/+186Honestly, I've tried NoScript a few times and always it to be more trouble than it's worth to use. Tons of sites are practically unusable with the scripts blocked and having to constantly permit stuff was tedious. I found myself disabling the extension frequently.
The ridiculously high number of updates was also annoying. It seemed like every other day there was a new version coming out with the associated auto load of the script's home page when the browser restarted. Now, it's obvious why the author released a new version for every minor change instead of doing fewer updates -- more hits to his web page equals more ads. - mikelieman, on 05/02/2009, -7/+167We don't want to see the ads on NoScript's website.
That's *WHY* we use AdBlock+ in the first place.
If Girogio doesn't straighten up and fly right, and STOP ***** WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S CODE -- hey's gonna find himself a pariah -- and in this game you can't earn back a bad rep. - JMilton, on 05/02/2009, -5/+148Hello, NoScript. Meet the Internet.
- thenativeraver, on 05/02/2009, -11/+138They should have seen this backlash coming. I just uninstalled no-script after I read this and expect many others will do the same.
Adblockplus 4 lyfe! - NegativeDigg, on 05/02/2009, -15/+122***** NoScript....there i said it...
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 05/02/2009, -16/+105Comment hijacking, but...
THIS WAS ALREADY OVER before it hit the front page.
From the NoScript website:
"Important update for Adblock Plus users: Version 1.9.2.6 automatically and permanently removes the cotroversial NoScript Development Support Filterset deployed with NoScript 1.9.2.4. I sincerely apologize with those ABP users who missed the information about it given on the AMO install page, on this site's install page, on this very release note page and in the FAQ. Not including a prompt asking for permission beforehand from the start has been a very bad omission, and I want all the ABP users who felt betrayed to know how much I'm sorry for that. As a sign of good will, current NoScript 1.9.2.6 completely removes the filterset itself, if found there, on startup with no questions asked. Thanks for your patience.
-- Giorgio " - atgmac, on 05/02/2009, -2/+78Who cares? Websites are free to put up ads. I'm free to block them.
- diggnidy, on 05/02/2009, -9/+85I choose you adblock plus!
- sodoh, on 05/02/2009, -1/+60Agreed. They crossed the line when they started to patch another plugin. I am surprised it wasn't thrown back into the sandbox for that stunt.
Totally unethical. - DBeta, on 05/02/2009, -1/+58I block ads because the are built to distract you. If they were all Google Text ads, I wouldn't think to bannish them from my computer, but they aren't plain text, they are flashing, annoying, bouncy, blinking mind *****. There when I'm trying to read an article, there when I'm trying to watch a video. They brought this on themselves.
- thenativeraver, on 05/02/2009, -3/+59This submission was not "whining about it", noscript modified a adblockplus and the author is pissed about it.
I know that I do not want my programs interfering and modifying each other to render them useless.
You may enjoy spending hours trying to troubleshoot what went wrong, But I have stopped using noscript, because I want my plugins to play friendly. - mikelieman, on 05/03/2009, -6/+59"Right now ads make the web world work."
No, HTTP servers make the web world work. I think you would have known this.
Your business model doesn't concern me, and given that it's MY CLIENT making the requests, I'm free to filter them any way I care to.
When your code goes outside its own playground WITHOUT EXPLICIT AND INFORMED CONSENT, you're doing it wrong. - commentbot, on 05/02/2009, -8/+58That NoScript developer can start doing something else. I already imagine folks working on a fork.
- ppierre, on 05/02/2009, -4/+53We can thank him for opening the pandora box.
mozilla.dev.amo : Addons and trojans/spyware concern
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.amo/bro ... - Zarokima, on 05/02/2009, -4/+52The people who use things like ABP wouldn't click the ads anyway, so it doesn't matter.
- HappyScrappy, on 05/02/2009, -2/+49The NoScript guy was clearly pumping out a lot of releases just so people would see the ads on his site.
Maybe he should consider sending out a new version only every month instead of every week, that'll cut down on his ISP bills. - GeekNurse, on 05/03/2009, -5/+52(from the comments on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722 ...
MALWARE !
No extension should do things without the users permission. No extension should interfere with another extension. No extension should break firefox's security model. Noscript did all 3! AVOID !! This app should be sandboxed and not public. - inactive, on 05/02/2009, -3/+47as opposed to people like yourself who have no problem with websites taking control of my monitor display without my permission showing ***** ads that I do not want to see.. You don't own my computer so you can ***** right off dude.
- mikelieman, on 05/03/2009, -5/+46"I sincerely apologize with those ABP users who missed the information about it given on the AMO install page, on this site's install page, on this very release note page and in the FAQ. Not including a prompt asking for permission beforehand from the start has been a very bad omission, and I want all the ABP users who felt betrayed to know how much I'm sorry for that."
I don't buy it's sincere. I think it's 100% Snark, given that as a developer, he *knows* people don't read the documentation.
Not including a prompt and requesting FULLY INFORMED CONSENT prior to messing around isn't a 'bad omission' -- it's the act of a piece-of-***** scumbag. It's the kind of ***** Microsoft does. And the perceived snarkiness of the post doesn't do anything to dispel that notion.
This guy comes off as a jerk-ass kid. You know. I get the same vibe as I did from Reiser. - FightTest, on 05/02/2009, -3/+43NoScript interfered with ABP in many shady ways in order to force ads through on their site.
- o0brae0o, on 05/02/2009, -5/+44i choose pikachu
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -11/+50It's not my ***** problem if you can't run your site without people seeing your ads.. cry me a ***** river.. if you can't run your business properly don't make it my problem whiny bitches.
- Fhwqhgads, on 05/02/2009, -7/+43yeah, he can do something else. He can go ***** himself.
- Tubal22, on 05/03/2009, -1/+34ABP blocks ads, including the ones on noscript.net.
ABP got on steroids and made some of the real links on noscript.net not work.
ABP fixed it.
NS was mad.
NS made an update that modified ABP when you install it that let you see ads on noscript.net
Excrement hit fan.
Basically, noscript is an addon that is supposed to protect you from the internet being able to change things on your computer. Since NS went in and changed things in ABP so that you would see ads on their site, without telling you, or asking the creators of ABP, people felt like it was pretty shady and pretty much the opposite of what NS is protecting you from.
No one trusts NS anymore. - MavRevMatt, on 05/02/2009, -0/+30Because it's more awesome than regular AdBlock.
No seriously, "A forked version called Adblock Plus has risen to replace the old Adblock. It features improvements to the user interface, filter subscriptions, and element hiding. It has become one of the most popular extensions with more than 4 million daily users.[1]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock] - FightTest, on 05/02/2009, -1/+31There was an Adblock back in the day. I think Plus came out when Firefox 2.0 released, or at least around that time.
All I remember is the original one didn't have a subscription list, at least that I recall. It just let you right click on things and add them to a block filter. - sodoh, on 05/02/2009, -2/+32Actually it does. You can whitelist sites or certain advertisers if you feel you want to support a site. Or if you trust a certain advertiser.
People shouldn't have to be subjected to some of the crap advertising that goes on just access a site. If your model can't survive without being invasive then your probably not worth going to. - jakk, on 05/03/2009, -0/+28The problem is not that it displays ads when the application updates, the problem is that it intentionally modifies Adblock without the user's consent to force the ads to display, then re-adds them to the whitelist if the user deletes them.
Ads are be fine. Modifying the settings of separate add-on without the user's consent for monetary gain is not.
Yes, Giorgio fixed the issue since, after receiving overwhelmingly horrible responses from the community. However, do you really think he would have done so had it not been for the backlash?
Noscript was awesome, yes, but now it absolutely deserves this. - viruz, on 05/02/2009, -3/+29It's only over because he got caught. But in reality it's not over. It's our duty to spread the word that noscript has malware like tendencies and that it must not be used because he will do it again, when we've forgotten about this incident.
- adragontattoo, on 05/03/2009, -4/+29To those of you that are defending the use of Ads as a revenue model for a site, please honestly answer the following for me.
At what point is it "acceptable" for me to block the ads you are displaying?
Is it when they are text on the sidebar? Or when they become pop ups when I mouse over certain words? Or when they take over the entire page with a damn near Video that I had no interest in watching EVER and would prefer not to have to watch? Or when the Ad site you are using starts playing little tricks and I end up with 400 pages open because the ads never stopped?
You want to call us all sorts of names, you have to moderate yourselves as well. Text ads aren't bad, I personally block them but I don't mind them, the blinking flashing, flash based videos that some sites have as ads are downright ***** annoying on more then I can think of levels. - sodoh, on 05/02/2009, -2/+27No we didn't. Unless you had a link on your main page that had an option to agree to it.
You get revenue from your site based on the value of the site. Not how much crap adverts you can throw onto the page and have bounce around, click through or multiple pages or tricks to bring up further adverts. The only reasons such sites have lasted as long as they have is because people are disabling that crap from the client side. - techdever, on 05/02/2009, -2/+26GTFO my digg
- MerchantofPanic, on 05/02/2009, -3/+26Identifies an interesting outcome. Develop a totally useful and hence popular extension, use it to put malware in either in your own or someone elses extension later. Sounds like a vulnerability model we might, unfortunately, be seeing a bit more of.
- Oddish, on 05/03/2009, -2/+23Fixed or not, the developer has made it crystal clear that he cannot be trusted which basically makes this extension malware. Mozilla should really consider taking it down.
- BinaryFragger, on 05/02/2009, -3/+23So I guess I'm also stealing when I go for a bathroom or snack break during TV commercials, or if I ignore billboards.
You should work for the RIAA or MPAA... it looks like you'd fit right in. - sirbeta, on 05/03/2009, -1/+20Internet leech? Hell, I'm saving them the bandwidth they would have otherwise utterly wasted to serve me ads. I have never and will never click on an ad found on a website.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -6/+24Hey Giorgio, I don't see any ads on your NoScript site... oh, maybe because I don't have NoScript.
http://maone.net/ - JMilton, on 05/02/2009, -7/+25Not if we can block it.
- Fhwqhgads, on 05/02/2009, -3/+21He can apologize and cry and beg all he wants. ***** HIM. He did it in the first place and that's that. If he wasn't caught, that post wouldn't have been made. End of story.
- Fhwqhgads, on 05/02/2009, -1/+19What's with all the fuss? Did you read the article? To use your reliable condom analogy, its creator poked holes in it to let only the STDs he wants to allow get through.
Or rather he modified another addon to do that but you know what I'm saying? - MavRevMatt, on 05/02/2009, -3/+20There's a limit to what number of ads and what types of ads are reasonable.
I for one, as many others I assume and hope, only block ads that are annoying or excessive.
Of course, most people aren't like this nor do they understand that things can't be for free without any ads. - JMilton, on 05/02/2009, -3/+20No, we should not have to see the ads. And yes, we are special.
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -0/+17There was, it was called just 'Adblock', but was discontinued. Another developer then forked the code and created Adblock Plus.
- mabsark, on 05/03/2009, -1/+17Not only does it protect you from some exploits, it can give you back control of your browser.
Sneaky popups - javascript.
Cant resize window - javascript.
No context menu - javascript.
Javascript can do a lot of things, not all of it is good for the user though. - jeremymccurdy, on 05/03/2009, -1/+17Hahaha, their rating is starting to drop. Keep at it folks and show them that you don't ***** with your users and get away with it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 332 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is