NoScript Please August 26, 2008 11:40 PM Subscribe
If you are not using firefox you may skip this post, because it is about a tool that can help prevent comments like this and this
These comments, and the comments that inspired them have taken me completely by surprise because I see none of the offending ads when I open the links. None not even google ads.
In this way we can discuss actual content instead of how terrible the ads are .
These comments, and the comments that inspired them have taken me completely by surprise because I see none of the offending ads when I open the links. None not even google ads.
In this way we can discuss actual content instead of how terrible the ads are .
I see your point I am not trying to limit any discussion here at all, just wanted to share a useful extension. the complaints remind me of the flash discussions we used to have.
posted by hortense at 12:08 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by hortense at 12:08 AM on August 27, 2008
I love NoScript. I hate JavaScript. But I don't think it's workable to tell people to "stop complaining and use these, guys!"
Because, at the end of the day, if it's anybody's fault that there are obnoxious ads on a page, it's certainly not the fault of the guy on Metafilter who happens to click a link and see 'em there and say something about it. It's the fault of the goddamned web site. And given the fact that Metafilter actually seems to be getting some pull around the internet, traffic-wise, I'd actually like it if an otherwise-good page gets posted here and half the comments say: "HEY! THAT ADVERTISEMENT FOR PENIS CREME THAT RUNS A SCRIPT THAT INFECTS MY COMPUTER WITH SCREAMING PURPLE MONKEYS IS VERY ANNOYING!" Those comments reflect the quality of the link. Ads aren't always separable from the "content;" they're kind of part of it, especially if they become obtrusive like that.
There's a reason that there are internet standards.
posted by koeselitz at 12:15 AM on August 27, 2008 [2 favorites]
Because, at the end of the day, if it's anybody's fault that there are obnoxious ads on a page, it's certainly not the fault of the guy on Metafilter who happens to click a link and see 'em there and say something about it. It's the fault of the goddamned web site. And given the fact that Metafilter actually seems to be getting some pull around the internet, traffic-wise, I'd actually like it if an otherwise-good page gets posted here and half the comments say: "HEY! THAT ADVERTISEMENT FOR PENIS CREME THAT RUNS A SCRIPT THAT INFECTS MY COMPUTER WITH SCREAMING PURPLE MONKEYS IS VERY ANNOYING!" Those comments reflect the quality of the link. Ads aren't always separable from the "content;" they're kind of part of it, especially if they become obtrusive like that.
There's a reason that there are internet standards.
posted by koeselitz at 12:15 AM on August 27, 2008 [2 favorites]
It is a fantastically useful extension, though. It's worth recommending. Most people ought to know just how many times web sites like to reach out and do something on your computer - and how many respectable-looking sites are doing ridiculous things in the background.
That's the fault of the sites themselves, and I still feel like people ought to complain in the comments if sites have annoying advertising or malicious or unnecessary scripting. And those of us who run NoScript or AdBlock ought to be savvy enough to realize it when it becomes apparent that other people are seeing more than us.
posted by koeselitz at 12:19 AM on August 27, 2008
That's the fault of the sites themselves, and I still feel like people ought to complain in the comments if sites have annoying advertising or malicious or unnecessary scripting. And those of us who run NoScript or AdBlock ought to be savvy enough to realize it when it becomes apparent that other people are seeing more than us.
posted by koeselitz at 12:19 AM on August 27, 2008
MetaFilter: "HEY! THAT ADVERTISEMENT FOR PENIS CREME THAT RUNS A SCRIPT THAT INFECTS MY COMPUTER WITH SCREAMING PURPLE MONKEYS IS VERY ANNOYING!"
posted by Sys Rq at 12:37 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by Sys Rq at 12:37 AM on August 27, 2008
The availability of AdBlock and NoScript does not excuse ad-farming spam sites, nor does it make them any less of a drain on Internet Culture.
Ok?
posted by paisley henosis at 1:53 AM on August 27, 2008 [3 favorites]
Ok?
posted by paisley henosis at 1:53 AM on August 27, 2008 [3 favorites]
I've got to admit, I am always completely shocked when I sit down at someone else's computer to hop on the net. People live with that experience? As a longtime AdBlock and NoScript user, I sometimes forget what the web is like for the average user.
posted by JaredSeth at 3:51 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by JaredSeth at 3:51 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
I love NoScript. I hate JavaScript.
Yeah, and those newfangled internal combustion engines piss me right off!
Seriously, how can you even use the web these days without javascript for all the swoopy yellowfade Ajaxification? Even good ol' old school Metafilter relies on it for core functionality like favoriting and shit.
I mean hell yeah I block ads, but blocking all javascript is just ridiculous.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:40 AM on August 27, 2008 [5 favorites]
Yeah, and those newfangled internal combustion engines piss me right off!
Seriously, how can you even use the web these days without javascript for all the swoopy yellowfade Ajaxification? Even good ol' old school Metafilter relies on it for core functionality like favoriting and shit.
I mean hell yeah I block ads, but blocking all javascript is just ridiculous.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:40 AM on August 27, 2008 [5 favorites]
No script always seemed like overkill; it breaks half the websites out there. Just using Flashblock and Adblock is enough for me.
posted by octothorpe at 4:57 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by octothorpe at 4:57 AM on August 27, 2008
Well I find that NoScript is a lot like those freeware firewall programs a lot of people use. It starts out really intrusive, but as you add more and more of the sites you use regularly to the whitelist, you have to touch it less and less often. I'm a voracious web surfer and I might have to click on the icon to add another site (usually temporarily) maybe two or three times a day.
posted by JaredSeth at 5:20 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by JaredSeth at 5:20 AM on August 27, 2008
Every time AdBlock comes up, I have to say it:
Axiom: You love many web sites.
Axiom: Some web sites have ads.
Axiom: Some web sites with ads only survive through advertising revenue.
Conclusion: Blocking ads will most likely hurt some web sites you love.
I don't block ads, never have. I don't go back to websites that use them like dicks, but those that use them in a restrained way (I'm thinking here of, frinstance, MeFi, Dock members, etc) should not be punished for the actions of others. And the more people who block ads, the lower CPM will go, and the more ads will be pressed on those without blocking.
Blocking all web ads is extremely short-sighted. You're making yourself slightly more comfortable at the expense of the websites you use. And not only that, but the expense of your actions is directly proportional to the use you get out of the site.
posted by Plutor at 5:25 AM on August 27, 2008 [4 favorites]
Axiom: You love many web sites.
Axiom: Some web sites have ads.
Axiom: Some web sites with ads only survive through advertising revenue.
Conclusion: Blocking ads will most likely hurt some web sites you love.
I don't block ads, never have. I don't go back to websites that use them like dicks, but those that use them in a restrained way (I'm thinking here of, frinstance, MeFi, Dock members, etc) should not be punished for the actions of others. And the more people who block ads, the lower CPM will go, and the more ads will be pressed on those without blocking.
Blocking all web ads is extremely short-sighted. You're making yourself slightly more comfortable at the expense of the websites you use. And not only that, but the expense of your actions is directly proportional to the use you get out of the site.
posted by Plutor at 5:25 AM on August 27, 2008 [4 favorites]
I love NoScript. I hate JavaScript.
Hence 80% of the web is inaccessible- but I like that
posted by mattoxic at 5:31 AM on August 27, 2008
Hence 80% of the web is inaccessible- but I like that
posted by mattoxic at 5:31 AM on August 27, 2008
I use NoScript also. I've always wondered when I allow a page or site "temporarily", how does it define temporary? Maybe I should STFW.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 6:02 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 6:02 AM on August 27, 2008
Blocking all web ads is extremely short-sighted.
Whereas espousing a world on which advertising is on every surface TO DEFEAT COMMUNISM is taking the long view.
posted by DU at 6:08 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Whereas espousing a world on which advertising is on every surface TO DEFEAT COMMUNISM is taking the long view.
posted by DU at 6:08 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Blocking all web ads is extremely short-sighted. You're making yourself slightly more comfortable at the expense of the websites you use.
Hey, I even block the ads on my own sites. To hell with me!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:12 AM on August 27, 2008
Hey, I even block the ads on my own sites. To hell with me!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:12 AM on August 27, 2008
Hmm, I use Adblock, so when I visited the site, I never saw the ads. My apologies if my post offended the delicate sensibilities of anyone.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:17 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by blue_beetle at 6:17 AM on August 27, 2008
I've never bothered with AdBlock stuff, largely out of a kind of rarefied laziness. I rarely notice the ads on the sites I frequent—if I'm a regular, I already know where the content is on the page, and I'm looking at that.
The only exceptions I can think of off hand are Comics Curmudgeon (animated gifs are distracting), White Ninja (which seems to be an ongoing experiment in site-crippling slow-loading advertisements), and Talking Points Memo (sheer volume and real estate of ads makes 'em harder to ignore, and political ads at that, woof).
In general, there seems to be strong enough of a correlation between restrained use of ads and actually having regular interesting content that it's a non-issue.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:39 AM on August 27, 2008
The only exceptions I can think of off hand are Comics Curmudgeon (animated gifs are distracting), White Ninja (which seems to be an ongoing experiment in site-crippling slow-loading advertisements), and Talking Points Memo (sheer volume and real estate of ads makes 'em harder to ignore, and political ads at that, woof).
In general, there seems to be strong enough of a correlation between restrained use of ads and actually having regular interesting content that it's a non-issue.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:39 AM on August 27, 2008
I rarely notice the ads on the sites I frequent
Same here; I long ago developed a finely honed ability to block advertising from my perceptual universe (having been schooled by my grumpy but beloved Uncle Gene, who was the first person I knew to have a device to mute TV ads—he called it a "blab-off" and installed it himself in the early '60s). In fact, I had to be told about the fact that the Google ads on my own site were featuring an offer to buy languagehats (and no, I don't know what they were selling, if anything).
posted by languagehat at 6:55 AM on August 27, 2008
Same here; I long ago developed a finely honed ability to block advertising from my perceptual universe (having been schooled by my grumpy but beloved Uncle Gene, who was the first person I knew to have a device to mute TV ads—he called it a "blab-off" and installed it himself in the early '60s). In fact, I had to be told about the fact that the Google ads on my own site were featuring an offer to buy languagehats (and no, I don't know what they were selling, if anything).
posted by languagehat at 6:55 AM on August 27, 2008
These Premises Are Alarmed: I've always wondered when I allow a page or site "temporarily", how does it define temporary?
One browser session. Temporary permissions are revoked when you close your browser.
posted by carsonb at 7:10 AM on August 27, 2008
One browser session. Temporary permissions are revoked when you close your browser.
posted by carsonb at 7:10 AM on August 27, 2008
The only comment I have about ads on web sites -- I always end up getting much to distracted by wondering just what animations of dancing people has to do with mortgages.
And that's all I have to say about that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:12 AM on August 27, 2008
And that's all I have to say about that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:12 AM on August 27, 2008
carsonb: Thanks! I'm sure that's documented somewhere, but I couldn't find it (in my 68 seconds of searching).
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:31 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:31 AM on August 27, 2008
I love NoScript. It's really good for showing exactly which sites were designed by people who don't bother to consider accessibility to be an important point. There are plenty of legitimate uses for Javascript, but making ALL your links ONLY function via onclick events is most definitely not one of them, especially when all it does is load a new page.
posted by Godbert at 7:34 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Godbert at 7:34 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Blocking all web ads is extremely short-sighted. You're making yourself slightly more comfortable at the expense of the websites you use.
I will add websites I really like to Adblock's whitelist. I think it should be my decision when and where I see advertisements, not anyone else's.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:01 AM on August 27, 2008
I will add websites I really like to Adblock's whitelist. I think it should be my decision when and where I see advertisements, not anyone else's.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:01 AM on August 27, 2008
You're making yourself slightly more comfortable at the expense of the websites you use.
How does that work? Does simply loading the page cost the owner money? Because I'd let ads through for sites I like, if that's the case, even though I never buy anything I'm not already looking for.
posted by merelyglib at 8:21 AM on August 27, 2008
How does that work? Does simply loading the page cost the owner money? Because I'd let ads through for sites I like, if that's the case, even though I never buy anything I'm not already looking for.
posted by merelyglib at 8:21 AM on August 27, 2008
merelyglib: Yes, loading a site generally costs the owner money. Not very much though.
As someone who runs a site that makes money from ads, I personally block them all and say anyone who wants to should, and shouldn't even feel bad about it. As easy as it is to do, still hardly anyone does it. I'm increasingly certain that most people never will, and the long-predicted End Of The Business Model will never come about.
So if you're annoyed by ads and clever enough to find and install AdBlocker or whatever, by all means, do it. If you're annoyed by ads and too morally righteous to do it, you should know that you're just being silly, but do what makes you happy.
But for god's sake, don't block all javascript. You're just breaking lots of interface that we're working very hard to make better.
posted by rusty at 9:02 AM on August 27, 2008
As someone who runs a site that makes money from ads, I personally block them all and say anyone who wants to should, and shouldn't even feel bad about it. As easy as it is to do, still hardly anyone does it. I'm increasingly certain that most people never will, and the long-predicted End Of The Business Model will never come about.
So if you're annoyed by ads and clever enough to find and install AdBlocker or whatever, by all means, do it. If you're annoyed by ads and too morally righteous to do it, you should know that you're just being silly, but do what makes you happy.
But for god's sake, don't block all javascript. You're just breaking lots of interface that we're working very hard to make better.
posted by rusty at 9:02 AM on August 27, 2008
You're making yourself slightly more comfortable at the expense of the websites you use.
"Slightly" my fucking ass. Given the means to avoid it, what kind of masochistic asshole puts up with the longer load times and subsequent let's-trigger-an-epileptic-fit flash ads?*
*That's a rhetorical question; I already have my answer.
posted by trondant at 9:05 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
"Slightly" my fucking ass. Given the means to avoid it, what kind of masochistic asshole puts up with the longer load times and subsequent let's-trigger-an-epileptic-fit flash ads?*
*That's a rhetorical question; I already have my answer.
posted by trondant at 9:05 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Speaking of longer load times, is it me or has Federated Media blown another gasket this morning?
Sub-question: Why doesn't all the content load on MeFi pages before trying to load ads out of fmpub?
posted by carsonb at 9:30 AM on August 27, 2008
Sub-question: Why doesn't all the content load on MeFi pages before trying to load ads out of fmpub?
posted by carsonb at 9:30 AM on August 27, 2008
I browse the web in Links on my BeOS system. Photo sites load particularly quickly, it's awesome.
Related note: could you insensitive clods stop posting about games that only work on Windows and MacOS?
posted by Nelson at 9:31 AM on August 27, 2008
Related note: could you insensitive clods stop posting about games that only work on Windows and MacOS?
posted by Nelson at 9:31 AM on August 27, 2008
"But for god's sake, don't block all javascript. You're just breaking lots of interface that we're working very hard to make better."
Blocking JavaScript becomes unreasonable only if it were made legal to impale anyone who thinks their Flash site with tiny tiny tiny "full size" photographs and annoying music should resize my fucking browser. Seriously. It's too widely abused for your plea not to be silly. When JavaScript stops being used to make interfaces worse, we can talk about not blocking it to make interfaces better.
posted by majick at 10:01 AM on August 27, 2008 [3 favorites]
Blocking JavaScript becomes unreasonable only if it were made legal to impale anyone who thinks their Flash site with tiny tiny tiny "full size" photographs and annoying music should resize my fucking browser. Seriously. It's too widely abused for your plea not to be silly. When JavaScript stops being used to make interfaces worse, we can talk about not blocking it to make interfaces better.
posted by majick at 10:01 AM on August 27, 2008 [3 favorites]
I believe most modern browsers allow you to selectively disable specific JavaScript functionality, including resizing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:12 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:12 AM on August 27, 2008
Indeed. Not all, but most. But that doesn't negate the value of a damned fine rant (if I do say so myself) against script abuse!
posted by majick at 10:30 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by majick at 10:30 AM on August 27, 2008
Far be it from me to stand between a man and his rant, sir.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:34 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:34 AM on August 27, 2008
Thanks for the explanation, rusty. I feel better now.
posted by merelyglib at 12:10 PM on August 27, 2008
posted by merelyglib at 12:10 PM on August 27, 2008
"I believe most modern browsers allow you to selectively disable specific JavaScript functionality, including resizing."
And yet, some pages still manage to circumvent both that and the settings that are supposed to open all new windows in a new tab and block popups. Which is why I try to make sure that I use wildcards as often as possible—due to the stupid Classmates.com pop-unders, I will only see a blank window for that or anything else off of the same networks or servers.
posted by klangklangston at 12:50 PM on August 27, 2008
And yet, some pages still manage to circumvent both that and the settings that are supposed to open all new windows in a new tab and block popups. Which is why I try to make sure that I use wildcards as often as possible—due to the stupid Classmates.com pop-unders, I will only see a blank window for that or anything else off of the same networks or servers.
posted by klangklangston at 12:50 PM on August 27, 2008
It's always interesting to me to see how others use javascript. I use it a bit for "unavoidable" things where clients want some sort of "snazzy" ajaxy thing like a "share this page" box which doesn't reload the page when used, etc. But if you don't have JS, you won't miss much and everything will look OK.
Always surprising how many "big" websites simply present a "broken image" icon--and that's it--if you cruise to their site using noscript.
I love noscript, I do, but does the developer really think I need to be taken to his web page every time he makes a minor update? Small price to pay, though.
posted by maxwelton at 12:54 PM on August 27, 2008
Always surprising how many "big" websites simply present a "broken image" icon--and that's it--if you cruise to their site using noscript.
I love noscript, I do, but does the developer really think I need to be taken to his web page every time he makes a minor update? Small price to pay, though.
posted by maxwelton at 12:54 PM on August 27, 2008
As much as I love things like AdBlock, etc, I'm a little concerned about what mass adoption of it will do to the web.
If everyone were using it, many websites (most websites) would have to cease to exist.
posted by twiggy at 1:36 PM on August 27, 2008
If everyone were using it, many websites (most websites) would have to cease to exist.
posted by twiggy at 1:36 PM on August 27, 2008
And stop using spam filters while you're at it!
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 2:00 PM on August 27, 2008
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 2:00 PM on August 27, 2008
maxwelton: I love noscript, I do, but does the developer really think I need to be taken to his web page every time he makes a minor update? Small price to pay, though.
I imagine that has something to do with the small price the developer has to pay to rent his house and eat food. But I know what you mean.
posted by koeselitz at 2:18 PM on August 27, 2008
I imagine that has something to do with the small price the developer has to pay to rent his house and eat food. But I know what you mean.
posted by koeselitz at 2:18 PM on August 27, 2008
stavros: I mean hell yeah I block ads, but blocking all javascript is just ridiculous.
Yes. Geez. Overstated, certainly.
Amendment:
I hate 99% of the deployment of JavaScript. And I dislike the gaping security holes that JavaScript creates just for the sake of a few flashy widgets. And I can't stand the way a huge chunk of the web is broken because people who can't even really handle html are puking JavaScript all over their pages and trying to force my browser onto whatever ridiculous railroad they've built into stupid-land. And I'm so flipping tired of having to stream video through JavaScript, although I guess I'll just have to live with it at this point.
JavaScript is useful for small things. Metafilter's use of JavaScript is notably subtle and tasteful. It is one of very few sites, in my experience, for which this is true.
I like NoScript because it's a whitelist, not a blacklist. Using it thus is very illuminating; you find quickly that blocking everything and unblocking on certain particular sites as you need to works quite well. And the increase in security is phenomenal. This whitelist approach works because there's a hell of a lot more stupid JavaScript in the world than there is good JavaScript.
That is all.
posted by koeselitz at 2:26 PM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yes. Geez. Overstated, certainly.
Amendment:
I hate 99% of the deployment of JavaScript. And I dislike the gaping security holes that JavaScript creates just for the sake of a few flashy widgets. And I can't stand the way a huge chunk of the web is broken because people who can't even really handle html are puking JavaScript all over their pages and trying to force my browser onto whatever ridiculous railroad they've built into stupid-land. And I'm so flipping tired of having to stream video through JavaScript, although I guess I'll just have to live with it at this point.
JavaScript is useful for small things. Metafilter's use of JavaScript is notably subtle and tasteful. It is one of very few sites, in my experience, for which this is true.
I like NoScript because it's a whitelist, not a blacklist. Using it thus is very illuminating; you find quickly that blocking everything and unblocking on certain particular sites as you need to works quite well. And the increase in security is phenomenal. This whitelist approach works because there's a hell of a lot more stupid JavaScript in the world than there is good JavaScript.
That is all.
posted by koeselitz at 2:26 PM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
The combination of AdBlock & Flashblock works perfectly well for me. I tried NoScript briefly when FF3 came out, but I just did not get it. I like having the option of loading flash content with a single click. I don't want to universally disallow it and then have to go in and allow it on a site-by-site basis. NoScript pestered me with alerts on every single site I visited and seemed to only offer the option of opening myself up entirely to 'trusted' sites (whereas I may prefer to allow some content and disallow other content within a single site with FlashBlock) and then being pestered continuously on every new or non-regularly-visited site I went to. Maybe I was doing it wrong, but it just seemed like grotesquely aggravating security-at-the-expense-of-usability to me.
posted by anazgnos at 4:34 PM on August 27, 2008
posted by anazgnos at 4:34 PM on August 27, 2008
Pretty sure you were doing it wrong, actually. You can turn off the alerts and noscript has the same one click allow flash that flashblock uses (which is nice since flashblock broke when I started using ff3) so you don't have to allow scripting on the entire site.
posted by puke & cry at 7:50 PM on August 27, 2008
posted by puke & cry at 7:50 PM on August 27, 2008
The availability of AdBlock and NoScript does not excuse ad-farming spam sites, nor does it make them any less of a drain on Internet Culture.
quoted for truth - I hate knowing that any of these crap sites get traction from mefi - even when they have interesting content. Geekyguy did a little tracking of that site - that crap makes me really pissed, it's on a par with spam. I'm not criticizing blue_beetle, I am sure it wasn't intentional, but I think we should have a standard of deleting such posts rather than contributing to the problem.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:41 PM on August 27, 2008
quoted for truth - I hate knowing that any of these crap sites get traction from mefi - even when they have interesting content. Geekyguy did a little tracking of that site - that crap makes me really pissed, it's on a par with spam. I'm not criticizing blue_beetle, I am sure it wasn't intentional, but I think we should have a standard of deleting such posts rather than contributing to the problem.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:41 PM on August 27, 2008
NoScript and/or Flashblock seems like a shotgun blast to the face, when all you needed was a toothbrush. AdBlock is plenty good enough for everything I give a shit about, and it's not something I have to remember to turn off for various specific sites (artists using shitty flash interfaces, I'm looking at you!)
I guess if you REALLY wanted the ultimate web browsing experience, you should use Lynx, or any other text-only web browser.
posted by agress at 12:39 AM on August 28, 2008
I guess if you REALLY wanted the ultimate web browsing experience, you should use Lynx, or any other text-only web browser.
posted by agress at 12:39 AM on August 28, 2008
twiggy: "As much as I love things like AdBlock, etc, I'm a little concerned about what mass adoption of it will do to the web.
If everyone were using it, many websites (most websites) would have to cease to exist."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by dg at 4:38 AM on August 28, 2008
If everyone were using it, many websites (most websites) would have to cease to exist."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by dg at 4:38 AM on August 28, 2008
flashblock broke when I started using ff3
Flashblock's been FF3-compatible since May.
These days, I don't bother with AdBlock, but use CookieSafe, Flashblock, NoScript, and have image animation turned off. What advertising I see doesn't move, doesn't bother me (and doesn't track me with cookies.)
posted by Zed_Lopez at 8:24 AM on August 28, 2008
Flashblock's been FF3-compatible since May.
These days, I don't bother with AdBlock, but use CookieSafe, Flashblock, NoScript, and have image animation turned off. What advertising I see doesn't move, doesn't bother me (and doesn't track me with cookies.)
posted by Zed_Lopez at 8:24 AM on August 28, 2008
there are some things that I like that noscript blocks, but on the whole it was just a really amazing way to make sure that browsing the internet was exponentially more difficult and frustrating so I disabled it.
posted by shmegegge at 12:20 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by shmegegge at 12:20 PM on August 28, 2008
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
But on the other hand, if you harp on this, you start to sound like the guy at the party that reminds everyone that he has not owned a television for some time and would not like to discuss the upcoming season of Lost or Heroes.
I think it's a valid point -- here's a post about photos that changed the world at a nice URL that reflects that -- but wait, they are a bunch of photos some kid just pilfered from Google image search and he threw ads all over them? WTF? That's messed up on many levels and worth discussing, whether you didn't see the ads or not.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:52 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]