AdBlock, NoScript & Ghostery – The Trifecta Of Evil

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by DaTroof
I agree as well, and I also don't use Ghostery, but it's because it makes Firefox run like molasses. HUGE resource hog. It makes browsing nigh impossible.

Hmmm, I haven't noticed that. Seems to work fine for me. May be because you're on a really old computer or something. Not sure but it doesn't seem to cause me any problems.

Btw, I used to use firefox but now use chrome and the addon "no track plus" which does the same as ghostery.

Here is the latest stats on blocked tracking attempts.

Who's tried to track you? Total # Blocked
Social Networks 3,433
Ad Networks 8
Tracking Companies 31,167

In total, you've stopped 34,608 attempts to track you

Originally posted by Neopan100
You can also try this link for more handy about:config

Good article.

browser.backspace_action: Change this to 0 for previous page and 1 for page up.

Or change it to 2 if you want to stop that stupid backspace key from doing anything! Too many times I have lost a post by hitting the backspace key and it decided to take me back a page. If I wanna go back I'll get the damn back button.

I love Noscript, so much...
Not only does it stop most ads from "showing" but a lot of the ones that still appear, their audio doesn't go.
I can understand that their companies lose money, which isn't the point of why I use Noscript.
I like when my browser doesn't just let things go, I have to select and figure out which ones I'll allow.
And if don't know, temp allow.
Overall I have a better web experience with Noscript because I don't have to deal with the clutter.

I've been using AdBlock ever sine it came out for Chrome and I've never looked back. In combination with a custom hosts file blocking over 30,000 domains related to spyware, malware, ad servers, and tracking sites, I can safely browse the web in a spam-free environment.

reply to post by Templeton

This is a very selfish view. Even though you realize the site administrators run ads to cover costs so that you can access their servers for free (and maybe make a little something on the side [read: motivation to keep it going]) you refuse to whitelist the site in ad blocker? Why??

I never said anything like that. I said I will white-list sites which provide great content and have a reasonable amount of ads.

I really cannot understand the motivation for this stance...you mention wanting the freedom to change the HTML once delivered, but that is an entirely different topic. Ad blocker blocks the request to the ad server in the first place so the site does not get credit for your visit... no one cares what you do with the HTML from the ad server or the site you are visiting; only that your browser makes the request.

Your argument is not logical... consider this: I only asked for content to be delivered from the domain I typed into my address bar. When that server sends me the HTML, if there are a bunch of linked scrips or tracking bugs embedded in the HTML, I have the right to remove those parts of the HTML code. All I'm doing is modifying the HTML code which was sent to me by the original server... I'm changing it so the code doesn't send requests to external 3rd party servers which I never wanted to connect to in the first place, I didn't get any warning about those connections and I never gave my consent for those connections to be established, I don't know who they are and what they possibly want to do my browsing experience.

I have every right to change the original HTML which I was served from the original server so that it doesn't make connections to those 3rd parties. Those 3rd party servers are only going to send me scripts and other useless junk which I don't want activated in my browser, I also don't want to waste my bandwidth downloading files which I'm not going to use. And also it's important to remember that the moment I establish a connection with those 3rd party sources, they can see my IP address and they can track me, that is exactly how invisible tracking images work. For instance if you check the source of this page you'll see ATS has a Quantcast tracking gif image which is requested when JavaScript is disabled. Even if you disable all scripts, that simple gif tracker will be able to track you. Luckily Ghostery works to disable those sorts of tricky bugs.

reply to post by SilentKoala

In combination with a custom hosts file blocking over 30,000 domains related to spyware, malware, ad servers, and tracking sites, I can safely browse the web in a spam-free environment.

You should just use something like PeerGuardian or PeerBlock because IP's change and sometimes you may block a legitimate site using an IP once used for malicious purposes. I personally use PeerBlock, it uses massive lists of IP's which are regularly updated, including massive spyware/malware and advertising/tracking lists. No need to manually manage the host file when those applications can do the same thing in an automated intelligent fashion.

I couldn't agree more OP. Have to admit even normal websites (not adult ones) seem to constantly have pictures of young chicks with boobs almost popping out of their tops/bras or showing their underwear or something more or less selling sex! I am soooo fed up with it, and worse still my kids can end up seeing it too.

On top of that, when you do have a look for some thing like shoes or boots for example on different websites or ebay, next thing you know you are being bombarded with shoe adverts wherever you go. Heaven help you if you have a gander at something like corsets!

I think people are smart enough that if they want a product they will go and do a search for it and look at reviews etc before making up their mind. Things like AdBlock are just a way of people 'voting with their feet' so to speak, in a virtual environment.

reply to post by Juggernog

In ATS's case (for example) it has been said that it was created to bring people that had interests in "conspiracies" together. Its when these sites start getting very popular that the owners of them start getting greedy, like making adblockers a violation of their terms. I dont like being forced to fund a site by having to put up with annoying ads, Id prefer a membership/donation based idea, with no ads.

Very true, although as I stated, an ad blocker can easily be used as a donation tool. I don't mind ads, but I don't want to be forced to look at them if I choose not to... especially when this website operates based on the content we supply to it. The truth is a lot of people don't even know about the ad blocker rule on ATS, and even if they do I doubt many of them actually abide by it. ATS is perfectly capable of generating a profit without needing to have such a bogus rule... you are right, it's nothing but a greedy tactic used by people trying to maximize their income through coercion and force, rather than simply relying on people to voluntarily disable their ad blockers and relying on people who simply don't use ad blockers, which is what 99% of all other websites do, and they still do fine.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


What they have a problem with competition?
Ghostery is my best friend, well second bes...t piratebay is my real best friend.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I see it like this: once the server at MakeUsOf transmits the HTML code to my browser, I can do what ever I want to that code. If I want to modify that code so it is displayed differently in my web browser, who are you to tell me I can't do that? Now, I can also use automated programs to modify the HTML code too, like the AdBlock add-on. At the end of the day I don't want to click any of your damn adverts anyway, so you can simply get over it if I choose not to see them by altering the code once it has been sent to me. You think that if you can just get the chance to make me look at them I'm going to change my mind and click some of them don't you? Wrong... and even if that's true for some people, it doesn't change the fact that the end user shouldn't have to be harassed by websites who have the audacity to issue orders concerning what they can and cannot do concerning the way their web browser displays the HTML code.

Wrong. Once that code is available on the internet is is Copyright of the author, you can not legally do whatever you want with it. That is not the point here though. The author is providing you with free content that COSTS THEM to run, as well as costing them their time to make and maintain. The ads are there to cover this cost and provide some income in exchange for you using the free content. A lot of ads pay per page view, not ad click.

Blocking ads is basically like stealing a DVD, you're all for enjoying the content that the author has worked hard on, but you don't want to pay, even though this method of payment takes none of your time, no effort and could even benefit you if the ad interests you. Why is a blank space where an ad should be better than the ad? I HATE ad block programs.

False. The internet would thrive on user-generated content, more than it already does. Even ATS relies on peer generated content... now the admin here may claim the servers don't pay for themselves and therefore advertising is needed, but the fact is ATS has a lot more advertising than it really needs to pay for the costs of hosting this website. This website profits off the content we submit, which would be fine, if there was no rule forcing us to disable Ad Blockers on this website (there is such a rule). And lets just say everyone started using an AdBlocker which forced all websites to put their content behind 'paywalls'.

No it would not. Every website costs to host and maintain. Most, including ATS cover this with ads. Google make practically all their money through advertising, Google probably wouldn't exist, they've done great things and will do even greater things in the future. I'm not just talking about their internet services, they use their wealth to fund ground breaking projects like project Glass, bigger things will happen in the future. This site, facebook, youtube, most of the sites you visit would not exist because they couldn't cover the costs needed to run them.

Incorrect. A large number of viruses and trojans are still effective because of their ability to compromise browser security by implementing malicious JavaScript. Remember that recent news about up to 2 billion Euro stolen from 60+ Banks, the report released by McAfee revealed that the victims were first infected via JavaScript exploits, which proceeded to download and install malicious trojan viruses onto their computers. Security is just as important as privacy, because a security breach could dismantle your privacy in a matter of minutes once an attacker gains access to your system. I simply cannot trust the large range of 3rd party tracking companies and advertising companies to only transmit safe scripts to my browser, because there have been numerous cases even on ATS where people have reported an external source trying to compromise their browser security.

Although possible it's extremely rare. Remember, you not a bank, people won't be doing this to you unless you visit dodgy sites. Many sites rely on JavaScript to function correctly, this will increase (Your site should fall back to a basic version that still works but maybe not in the future, even now theres not much point as all major browsers support Javascript.). I use JQuery all the time to inprove the user experience. Yep, to benefit you. By blocking Javascript you only miss out.

Lastly, websites do not "often share or sell that information to other companies for a profit", some may, but that information is pretty useless. If they save your IP they do not have your personal information, the most they can do is find your country. I save users IP's on a forum to prevent multiple votes, multiple accounts and so I can block abusive users. Nothing malicious there, I'm not going to hand your IP over to anyone, in the long run it's to benefit the users. A lot of websites do this.

This is an ignorant post by someone that has not experience the other end, if you did you would change your tune.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I also use HTTPS Everywhere by the EFF and DuckDuckGo instead of Google search & also the "Collusion" add on.

reply to post by SpearMint

No it would not. Every website costs to host and maintain.

Then shut down if you dont want the expense. If a site is publicly available and not password protected,.then its on you to keep it up.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by SpearMint

 

No it would not. Every website costs to host and maintain.

Then shut down if you dont want the expense. If a site is publicly available and not password protected,.then its on you to keep it up.

What a ridiculous attitude that is. Most of the internet would shut down if they had to pay everything from their own pocket.

reply to post by chr0naut

I also use HTTPS Everywhere by the EFF and DuckDuckGo instead of Google search & also the "Collusion" add on.

Yes I use HTTPS Everywhere as well, another great add-on which provides extra protection. I tried Collusion but it didn't seem to show me anything, I assume because I was blocking all the trackers.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by SpearMint

 

No it would not. Every website costs to host and maintain.

Then shut down if you dont want the expense. If a site is publicly available and not password protected,.then its on you to keep it up.

What a ridiculous attitude that is. Most of the internet would shut down if they had to pay everything from their own pocket.

The internet survived and thrived, way before ads and pop ups.

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by SpearMint

 

No it would not. Every website costs to host and maintain.

Then shut down if you dont want the expense. If a site is publicly available and not password protected,.then its on you to keep it up.

What a ridiculous attitude that is. Most of the internet would shut down if they had to pay everything from their own pocket.

The internet survived and thrived, way before ads and pop ups.

When? Ads have been around as long as I can remember. Websites run by an organization that makes profit by other means do not need ads, but others rely on it. Pop ups are a whole different thing, they just annoy people and I'm against them. Even if the web once thrived without ads, it wasn't anywhere near what it is today. The internet as we know it would not survive without ads.

I don't even understand what's driving people to have this attitude, how does an ad on a page annoy you? I see how big flashing things can annoy you but any decent webmaster wouldn't have them. You don't even have to look at it. I browse websites and don't really notice ads, but I don't block them because I'm not an asshole and I know what it's like to be on the other end.

I don't understand why this is even a discussion?

My computer is my property, I have the right to decide what domains and IP's it connects to, and what domains and IP's it does not. If an ad server tries to send unwanted content to my computer, it is my right to reject the content. I own my computer and control everything that does and does not get sent to my computer.

reply to post by SpearMint

When? Ads have been around as long as I can remember.

I guess you werent around back in the BB days, when people shared information freely, un-censored, un-monitored and un-molested by commercialism.

reply to post by SpearMint

Wrong. Once that code is available on the internet is is Copyright of the author, you can not legally do whatever you want with it.

Errr.... completely false. I cannot do what ever I want with the code, such as use it on my own website, but I can modify the code before it is graphically displayed in my web browser or I can simply modify the way the code is displayed in web browser. Either of those things are completely legal and there is no law related to copyright which says I cannot change the way the code is displayed in my web browser. So your argument is completely false.

Blocking ads is basically like stealing a DVD, you're all for enjoying the content that the author has worked hard on, but you don't want to pay, even though this method of payment takes none of your time, no effort and could even benefit you if the ad interests you. Why is a blank space where an ad should be better than the ad? I HATE ad block programs.

There is often not any blank space, the box were the advert was collapses and the website looks perfectly fine 99% of the time, I never really even know were the ads were supposed to be unless I turn off the ad blocker. And you clearly haven't read anything I said concerning free content. I simply think people have the right to block ads if they choose, there is nothing illegal about it, contrary to your naive proclamations, and if people like a website and the content it provides they are likely to unblock ads on that site and thus help "donate" to the costs of running the website.

No it would not. Every website costs to host and maintain.

Information distributed on peer-to-peer networks doesn't cost anyone anything except the cost of computing power and bandwidth provided by all the peers in the network, which is very little and completely irrelevant, it's not something people are concerned about when they download something like a torrent or anything else from any other p2p network. People are already sharing vasts amount of data on p2p networks because a great deal of the information out there is still behind 'paywalls'. That is the natural order of things. And such activities would explode if everything were to suddenly cost money.

Although possible it's extremely rare. Remember, you not a bank, people won't be doing this to you unless you visit dodgy sites. Many sites rely on JavaScript to function correctly, this will increase (Your site should fall back to a basic version that still works but maybe not in the future, even now theres not much point as all major browsers support Javascript.). I use JQuery all the time to inprove the user experience. Yep, to benefit you. By blocking Javascript you only miss out.

Clearly you didn't read the part where I stated it's possible to whitelist the main domain but block out any 3rd party sources. This hardly ever causes the website to become nonfunctional and if it does, it's easy to figure out which external scripts need to be allowed to run. That is the beauty of NoScript, it doesn't just let everything run wild in your browser, it only allows what you want it to allow, which is much safer because a great deal of 3rd party sources ARE malicious.

Lastly, websites do not "often share or sell that information to other companies for a profit", some may, but that information is pretty useless. If they save your IP they do not have your personal information, the most they can do is find your country. I save users IP's on a forum to prevent multiple votes, multiple accounts and so I can block abusive users. Nothing malicious there, I'm not going to hand your IP over to anyone, in the long run it's to benefit the users. A lot of websites do this.

One word: Collusion. Try it out some time. And if they save your IP they can build a large profile on you because every single website which uses the same trackers will enable that company to cross-reference your activity on other websites. Think of how many websites have Google and Facebook plugins, it's 99% of them. Most websites these days have the same large trackers, so it's very easy for them to build a profile on you.

This is an ignorant post by someone that has not experience the other end, if you did you would change your tune.

I operate several websites thanks. Tune not changed.

I don't have the time or energy to reply to everything you just said, but I'll say one thing.

Websites have the right to force you to pay for content, but they don't. Instead they cover the costs and provide you with free content using a method that does not take your time, money or really affect you at all. Ads on a page don't negatively affect you in any way, with the exception of flashing or visually loud ads like I previously mentioned. So why would you block them and negatively affect the owner of the website? You are using the content that they have given you on the condition that the page contains ads. There is really no point in blocking ads unless you only enable it for sites covered in ads with popups and whatnot. Sure you have the right to block them, but why be a jerk just because you have the right to? If you enjoy the site, the least you can do is not block ads. That's all I have to say.

I don't care about blocking JS because that only negatively affects the user and may ruin the site's user experience. I'm very sceptical that you run any websites due to you attitude towards ads and your view on JS. Only website owners can really see my point I think, so of course most people here will disagree because they are only concerned about their user experience, which is fair enough but I would hate to live in a world where everyone only thinks of themselves, and only cares about what's affecting them.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by SpearMint

 

When? Ads have been around as long as I can remember.

I guess you werent around back in the BB days, when people shared information freely, un-censored, un-monitored and un-molested by commercialism.

You cannot compare that to the internet now, of course it could survive then, it couldn't now.