Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

[MonztA]

I believe the issue in discussion now is that the filters are no longer targeting patterns and ad sources but rather blocking based on specific sites, that's wrong. If you block all google ads and someone happens to be running them and gets blocked, then that's fine but if you target site xyz.com to cripple it regardless, that's wrong.

There would not be any need for such strict filters if Giorgio would not use his redirect that forces to display the Google ads even with the regular Google ad blocking filter that works on all sites.

[nagan]

@lunboks:
does it happen consistently on any web site (beside flashgot.net and noscript.net, which deploy many tricks to work-around ABP)?

Is that sacrosanct or an invitation for other notorious sites to improve their ad power.So long as it is a deal b/w Giorgio and Vladimir ,fine .Otherwise something needs to be done...

[Giorgio Maone]

@nagan:
it's a well known ABP bug, and everyone could exploit it. It's not widespread because most of the largest sites (which would have the technical capability to do it) are not hurt that much by ABP, having a diverse audience where ABP users are a negligible minority.
My case is very different, since almost the 100% of my traffic is made of Firefox users, and among them there's a vast majority of ABP users (most NoScript users have also ABP, also because I often recommend it for fine-grained external script sources tuning). Therefore these targeted EasyList filters, while not providing much value to their users (since they're unlikely to visit my sites daily) yet manage to almost completely destroy any ad revenue supporting NoScript and FlashGot development.

@MontzA:
the "contract" of ABP is blocking ads while keeping the sites fully functional (Wladimir more than once criticized NoScript because its whitelist-based approach "cripples" sites by default, while ABP comes with no blocking rule at all out of the box).
The EasyList rules I reported early in this thread completely disabled any dynamic content on my sites, but on the other hand their effect was much less discoverable to ABP users than NoScript-based blocking. In other words, they were disproportionally aggressive, violating the "not cripple" ABP principle for the purpose of shutting down every possible ad as a point of principle.

[MonztA]

Of course ABP should not "cripple" any site. But just use the usual way of displaying Google ads then and not the redirect that is forcing users to see the ads. No "crippling" of any of your sites would be needed then if you do so.

[Giorgio Maone]

just use the usual way of displaying Google ads then and not the redirect that is forcing users to see the ads. No "crippling" of any of your sites would be needed then if you do so.

So you too want to dictate how I implement my site, and until I don't comply you keep it hijacked?
Anyway, if a NoScript user doesn't want to see Google Ads on my sites, he just needs to click on NoScript's icon and choose Forbid googlesyndication.com. Easy and quick, since NoScript's blocking cannot be circumvented in any way...

[MontzA]

So you too want to dictate how I implement my site, and until I don't comply you keep it hijacked?

Well you want to dictate ABP users to whitelist your sites.

Anyway, if a NoScript user doesn't want to see Google Ads on my sites, he just needs to click on NoScript's icon and choose Forbid googlesyndication.com. Easy and quick, since NoScript's blocking cannot be circumvented in any way...

ABP users already choosed not to see any ads.

[Giorgio Maone]

So you too want to dictate how I implement my site, and until I don't comply you keep it hijacked?

Well you want to dictate ABP users to whitelist your sites.

Nope, I do not "dictate" anything (user can still choose), while EasyList does dictate my sites to be broken and they have no choice.
I don't prevent users from blocking ads on my site if they whish to, I just don't want an overzealous crusader to decide for them.
Also my sites can't subtract themselves from EasyList's diktat other than using "tricks" that may be deemed shady, while users are unaffected by my supposed "diktat" as soon as they choose to "AdBlock this and AdBlock that" by themselves. So who's the dictator?

Anyway, if a NoScript user doesn't want to see Google Ads on my sites, he just needs to click on NoScript's icon and choose Forbid googlesyndication.com. Easy and quick, since NoScript's blocking cannot be circumvented in any way...

ABP users already choosed not to see any ads.

Wrong. According to Wladimir himself they don't want to see the annoying ones:

There is only one reliable way to make sure your ads aren’t blocked — make sure the users don’t want to block them. [...] Don’t forget about the users. Use ads in a way that doesn’t degrade their experience.

Here's some other other inspirational reading from him along these lines, defending Mozilla's ad revenue.
All this makes sense if users are supposed to opt out from ads served by a certain site when they find they're misplaced or cripple their navigation experience.
Unfortunately, EasyList (which is advertised as an almost mandatory choice on ABP startup) has taken a different path, purposely eradicating all the ads from a bunch of relatively minor Firefox-only sites which almost entirely depend on support by ABP users, and at any cost (even breaking site functionality)...
It's a decision of few people, with dubious benefits for very few people, but damaging a lot of people (all NoScript and FlashGot users, not just me): as I already said, if all the ABP users really wanted to block my ads, they would have blocked them before EasyList did and, most important, I wouldn't see any quantitative difference because ABP users would just refuse to click them (they're all per-click or per-conversion, no per-impression stuff).

[Alan Baxter]

The current EasyList, Last modified: 28 Apr 2009 14:31 UTC, still has noscript.net specific filters which break parts of the NoScript site that have nothing to do with ads. In particular, it hides the link for the development build of NoScript on the "get it" page. Was reported to Ares2 a day ago, but still no fix yet. I have to install NoScript just to fix the problem caused by EasyList.

I also discovered that virtually all the ads are blocked by EasyList even if the filters which explicitly target Giorgio's sites are removed. I reported that to Ares2 as well, along with a request for him to remove them. No response yet. He seems to be ignoring my concern.

[greenhatch]

I am somewhat perturbed to read of Ares2 manipulating ABP's filters to cause problems on Giorgio's sites. Rick752 will be turning in his grave.

[Alan Baxter]

Otherwise something needs to be done...

It will be done in Adblock Plus 1.1. http://adblockplus.org/development-buil ... king-added

[Salvy]

Using Adblock Plus 1.1.alpha+ development build (2009042809) all the ads are blocked without using any direct blocking for Noscript.net, looks like the redirect exploit used to display ads on Noscript.net is patched.

[MontzA]

The current EasyList, Last modified: 28 Apr 2009 14:31 UTC, still has noscript.net specific filters which break parts of the NoScript site that have nothing to do with ads. In particular, it hides the link for the development build of NoScript on the "get it" page. Was reported to Ares2 a day ago, but still no fix yet. I have to install NoScript just to fix the problem caused by EasyList.

Wrong. You could just disable the respective filter until Ares fixes it.

[Giorgio Maone]

Wrong. You could just disable the respective filter until Ares fixes it.

Can't you see the problem here?
Could a "normal" user (Alan Baxter is definitely a power user) understand that the culprit is EasyList (or even just that something is broken), let alone finding and disabling the relevant filter?

@Salvy:
I guess it's what Alan Baxter was pointing out.

[GµårÐïåñ]

I believe the issue in discussion now is that the filters are no longer targeting patterns and ad sources but rather blocking based on specific sites, that's wrong. If you block all google ads and someone happens to be running them and gets blocked, then that's fine but if you target site xyz.com to cripple it regardless, that's wrong.

There would not be any need for such strict filters if Giorgio would not use his redirect that forces to display the Google ads even with the regular Google ad blocking filter that works on all sites.

How he programs his site is HIS right, the filters are supposed to block ads, not target individual programming styles, that's beyond the scope and ethics of the filters.

Of course ABP should not "cripple" any site. But just use the usual way of displaying Google ads then and not the redirect that is forcing users to see the ads. No "crippling" of any of your sites would be needed then if you do so.

No act to cripple should be taken, regardless, because that is not the purpose of ABP filters and if it becomes that, then they are acting as malware. Look up the definition of malware and the current ABP filter behavior qualifies.

So you too want to dictate how I implement my site, and until I don't comply you keep it hijacked?

Well you want to dictate ABP users to whitelist your sites.

Actually it seems you and ABP filters are dictating on how users should experience the web as you think you have a right to cripple a site that doesn't match your view of acceptable. If that is the principle of the filters then you should be boycotted and people should know they are no longer putting their trust in benevolent people helping them but rather people who choose to censor anyone they want.

Anyway, if a NoScript user doesn't want to see Google Ads on my sites, he just needs to click on NoScript's icon and choose Forbid googlesyndication.com. Easy and quick, since NoScript's blocking cannot be circumvented in any way...

ABP users already choosed not to see any ads.

Yeah but that should be user choice, ABP users CHOOSE what they don't want to see, the filters on the other hand are shoving and forcing what they should see/not see down their throat. Continued support of filters that does that begins to reverse the value and ethics of ABP. Until now it was there to provide a choice, now its taking that choice away, no different than M$.

The current EasyList, Last modified: 28 Apr 2009 14:31 UTC, still has noscript.net specific filters which break parts of the NoScript site that have nothing to do with ads. In particular, it hides the link for the development build of NoScript on the "get it" page. Was reported to Ares2 a day ago, but still no fix yet. I have to install NoScript just to fix the problem caused by EasyList.

I also discovered that virtually all the ads are blocked by EasyList even if the filters which explicitly target Giorgio's sites are removed. I reported that to Ares2 as well, along with a request for him to remove them. No response yet. He seems to be ignoring my concern.

He is ignoring everything because he has made this personal and its a shame that the person he is replacing is being dishonored by such behavior.

I am somewhat perturbed to read of Ares2 manipulating ABP's filters to cause problems on Giorgio's sites. Rick752 will be turning in his grave.

Ditto, Rick would be disgusted that someone took over who does not share his moral compass and acts unethically.

[GrailKNight]

I am somewhat perturbed to read of Ares2 manipulating ABP's filters to cause problems on Giorgio's sites. Rick752 will be turning in his grave.

You are just assuming that about Rick and the peanut gallery is sticking their nose into an issue that is really between two people
and we know who that is. Rick was a good man and now he is gone so lets deal with the present and move on from there.

As long as Noscript is not being manipulated to favor one site over the other I do not see an issue.
Any manipulation of security software or extensions by a developer to make that program or extension
do a job it was not intended to do or adds an edge to the program to favor a site is called Malware and I do not think anyone wants to see their extension
labeled that as the consequences will go further then their extension when their word is sallied and it takes
money out the developers pocket due to a loss of trust.

Companies that wrote good reviews about an extension can taketh away from those developers also.

End