
Attention NoScript users - robin_reala
http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users
======
dgallagher
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...

~~~
axod
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
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.

------
mustpax
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.

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

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

~~~
jauco
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.

~~~
axod
>> "Ads are a soft form of brainwashing"

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.

~~~
jauco
No, a constructive argument showcasing pro's and cons and highlighting merits
of competing products serves a use for consumers.

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.

~~~
axod
Perhaps if you're particularly susceptible to brainwashing, then advertising
could be a bad thing. But I think you have to give people a bit more credit
than that. It's about giving potential consumers information so they can make
informed choices.

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.

~~~
shard
_It's about giving potential consumers information so they can make informed
choices._

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?

------
buugs
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.

~~~
thorax
> 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
> 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.

~~~
thorax
Not hyperbole-- it's very much in our interest for these guys to sort this out
publicly before escalation. It's irresponsible to cause a technical fight on
your users machines. Essentially what I said here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=590263>

------
ableal
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
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.

~~~
ableal
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.

------
illumen
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
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?

~~~
spkthed
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.

~~~
duskwuff
"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..."

No. Hell no. Antivirus programs conflict for a good technical reason. NoScript
and AdBlock conflict because _the author of one dislikes the effects of the
other program_ ; were it not for that, the two extensions would be completely
compatible with one another. Equating these two things with each other
completely misses the point.

~~~
spkthed
I'm giving an example of a way to approach this problem. Installing Noscript
could add a rule to an Adblock whitelist. What Noscript is doing by trying to
sneak it in is wrong. If they wanted to overwrite a rule, let the user do it.
As that article points out, and as Mozilla points out, making that the non-
default option is very important.

