EasyList blog: Giorgio Maone actively bypassing ABP filters?

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by Eice, May 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,098
    Location:
    USA
    This is a tough situation. As I noted above, NoScript and Adblock Plus are, IMO, the best FF extensions. I hate to see trouble in what I see as the "paradise" they provide to my browsing. I donate to many of my favorite freeware makers but have never done so with ABP or NS. I will be changing that soon!

    Mr Maone, I don't agree that "many (most?)" ABP users only want to block bad ads. I believe they want to block them all. I know I do. Show anyone a Facebook page without ABP and one with ABP, it doesn't take long for them to figure out which one they want.

    I don't pretend to have an answer to this situation. Even though many of us may not want ads, maybe the changes ABP is mulling over is AN answer (not necessarily THE answer.) If I understand it correctly, it sounds like it may well allow the kind of ads found on NoScript.net??

    Anyway, I hope some kind of middle ground can be found...
     
  2. Giorgio Maone

    Giorgio Maone Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Posts:
    27
    Even if it was the case, I'm surely not going to pay them for "protection" against their filters. As I said, these are well known practices here in Sicily, and something I've been educated to fight strenuously by parents I'm proud of.
     
  3. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Neither did I. And it asked me to install an addon (obviously ABP) when I loaded that site although I didn't ask for it. I wonder if that's not worse or more questionable than what Giorgio does on his site.
     
  4. Giorgio Maone

    Giorgio Maone Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Posts:
    27
    Not Easylist, ABP. The "new and improved" list will be very likely offered as the default, with the option to use a different one (come on, how many people deviate form the default in a "first run" wizard?), in order "to improve the state of the web (which is the main goal of the Adblock Plus project)". You seem the only one who's unable to draw this simple conclusion. Ask Hubird (list maintainer) and others who're right now threatening to fork the project because of this. However, you've almost managed to convince me that your ability to understand plain English (or lack of thereof) is, in fact, no concern of mine.

    And in fact, this is not what I'm doing.
    I'm very specifically countering the very specific rules Easylist deploys against my ads.
    If a user makeS his own rule, he can block my ads and they won't be unblocked unless Easylist updates to the same rule.

    Which debacle? I'm doing just fine, thanks (except for the time which I would more productively spend on NoScript).

    Nope. I'm trying to make Easylist's maintainers life more interesting: this unavoidably makes, as a side effect, those ads slightly harder to block than average, but still not that hard. On the other hand, those ads would suddenly become the easiest to block (for any kind of users) as soon as Easylist gave up.

    I'll tell you a secret: I had already "downgraded" those ads to be easier to block for everyone after the blog post you kindly started this thread with, but as soon as I did Easylist people rebooted their crusade. I wonder why they didn't update their post, since they're currently shipping anti-noscript/flashgot filters again: go check if you don't believe me...

    Of course they have. As I said, they just need to create any element hiding filter which matches those links, as long as it is different than those used by Easylist.

    In fact I was telling the truth. The ads implementation on my sites had not been changed for two years. Then, after my post, Michael (Easylist) decided that he had a point to make. And I'm free to change my mind whenever I want, ain't I?

    Yes you are. I'm from Palermo, and here in Sicily people are of three kinds: 1) those who accept to be bullied, 2) those who don't (and risk their lives because of this), and 3) mafia. Mafia exists because, unfortunately, people of the first kind exceed people of the second (yet).
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2011
  5. tlu

    tlu Guest

    I'm not at all surprised about this statement considering your rant against Noscript and Giorgio in many threads here. But, please, note that other people have a different opinion about Noscript and regard it a valuable addon (including, e.g., Brian Krebs) and are consequently interested in Giorgio's ability to further develop his addon.

    This discussion regarding those ads is disproportionate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2011
  6. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Mr Maone, all I'm doing is asking for an explanation for your leap of logic. Merely reasserting your unproven claim is hardly an explanation. If the fact is that you have no explanation to offer, why not just say so instead of resorting to personal attacks?

    In other words, you're deliberately making it difficult to create rules to block your ads. Is it really that difficult to confess it, Mr Maone?

    Well, if you think it's helpful for your cause and/or self-esteem to portray yourself as the wronged victim under malicious attack from the EasyList maintainers, Mr Maone... feel free, I suppose.
     
  7. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,955
    Location:
    Somethingshire
    We are going in circles here. Hopefully the good sense will prevail on both side of the argument.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2011
  8. Giorgio Maone

    Giorgio Maone Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Posts:
    27
    I still believe reading the whole thread about "Acceptable advertising" should be enough, but I'll add a couple references to another thread which, despite later claims, is strictly related to the former as an experiment to check how many users are going to revolt against an opt out whitelist:
    Regarding the business plan:
    and more recently, answering ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ users and filter subscription authors:


    Talking about "personal attacks",
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2011
  9. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Personally, I dislike ads. But, I despise ads that connect to third-parties, when I visit xyz website. I don't care much about first-party ads.

    The way I see all this is as follows. On one side, we have those blocking the ads. On the other side, we have those who rely on ads, and so they do all they can to make the blocking of those ads the hardest as possible as they can.

    That means that those blocking ads, need to fight back. That is, create better filters to block them. If they can't... should those, who managed to make impossible for ads to be blocked, be considered bad people? Not at all. They're doing what they need to do to survive. I don't blame them.

    As an analogy... Wouldn't this be like security vendors complaining malware authors are always one (or more) step(s) ahead of them?

    What if owners of other websites start doing the same? Isn't that their right, to try to prevent their ads from being blocked?

    Unless there's some law that forbids such behavior... live with it.
     
  10. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    *

    At any rate, at the moment it would seem that the conclusion is Wladimir Palant and Giorgio Maone are more or less as shady as each other. I don't mind opting out of a gentler adblocking list as long as the choice is presented clearly to the user, but the part about having to pay to be included on the whitelist sounds quite disturbing.

    *
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2011
  11. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,337
    I have read the topics referred to fully. There seems to be a distinct desire to bring about a certain fundamental change.

    It is being discussed honestly. Opinions are being sought. Opinions are being expressed. Negative opinions are presented. Personally, I find it incongruous, if not somewhat inappropriate, that a developer of an ad blocking add-on sits in judgement of ads.

    While the NotScript developer relies on ads for revenue and has every right to combat ad blockers, there seems to be some disparity in what the developer has expressed in this thread and over at the AdBlock Plus forum.

    The use of data URIs is not worth commenting on. I don't use the add-on and it does not impact me.

    (In edit: I don't use AdBlock Plus either. I use a combination of Privoxy and Karma Blocker.)
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2011
  12. tlu

    tlu Guest

    That's the way it has to be. If Wladimir handled that matter in a different way he would lose his credibility.

    At first glance, yes. On the other hand, I think it's worth considering if
    1. those ads comply with objective criteria (which still have to be defined), and
    2. ABP users have the possibility to easily opt-out.

    Remember that Wladimir has always said that his big goal is not to generally block all ads but to make the internet better. He knows that by blocking all ads we would run into a situation where we would have to pay for most content. Thus, not blocking "acceptable" ads (whatever that is) would be a step into the right direction - if (and only if) the indiviual user has the final decision (-> opt-out possibility).

    Anyway - whatever one might think about this matter, this discussion clarifies once more that everybody has to earn for his living. That's why you are right in saying:

    And that's why I said that the discussion regarding those ads on noscript.net (or should I say: Maone-bashing) is disproportionate

    Where do you see the disparity?
     
  13. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,337
    IMO, it's there et seq but I don't think there's much to be gained by going chapter and verse into the matter.
     
  14. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    I believe this thread has simply given him the opportunity to speak up in his own defense. For my part, I'm hardly trying to bash him, whatever my personal opinion of him (a security add-on developer who is willing to put user interest aside in favor of financial benefit and personal vendettas against EasyList) may be. People are mature enough to draw their own conclusions.
     
  15. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    Oh no! Now i have to.. continue using both addons.

    @Giorgio Maone: get back to your coding! :D
     
  16. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,098
    Location:
    USA
    After reading some of the info Mr Maone has listed, I must admit that I am NOT happy that to see that ABP would somehow profit by allowing certain types of ads.

    Yes, ABP principals are discussing it in public but I have a feeling in my gut we're not hearing/seeing all that has been been decided (such as the revenue plan which, IMO, probably has been fleshed out.)

    I am willing to sit back and watch what unfolds. But strange how ABP has gone from not wanting/needing any donations (a short time ago) to this new (shocking to me!) pay-for-play (or show if you will) business model that is now somehow needed for survival.
     
  17. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I'm honestly ok with some types of ads. I would love if ABP implemented a feature where some ads where allowed based on criteria such as

    1) Being from a legit source that has a good track record of security
    2)No ridiculously loud ads or ads with a lot of movement that slow things down.

    Ads are what sites run on. I don't want to screw a web host out of their deserved money.
     
  18. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,337
    I don't know if this proposed change is related to the appearance of a sponsor some months ago.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.