1. 23
  1.  

  2. 27

    Even as a web developer, I haven’t heard of this browser until now. If you visit the website with an ad blocker then you get this warning:

    We love ad blockers as much as you, but we depend on ad revenue to fund various sites and services. We use responsible ad services to keep your visit to our websites a safe and uninterrupted one. To ensure our continued operation, please disable your ad blocker for this site or support us another way.

    Why would an open-source browser use advertisements on their main website? The worst part, these ads are definitely not safe or responsible.

    http://i.imgur.com/neimpSW.png

    http://i.imgur.com/yOZyWJM.png

    1. 7

      I don’t think ads on the website is necessarily an evil way for an open source project to fund itself, but asking to disable your ad blocker under the pretence that your website has only responsible ads, only to try to trick users to install malware when they disable the ad blocker, is definitely not okay.

      Neither is blacklisting an add-on for that matter. At least you can disable the blacklist in the configuration, but the argumentation from moonchild was extremely weak, even trying to argue that the add-on in question is malware because it makes the user part of a “botnet”.

      Pale moon never really struck me as my kind of browser, but I tried it once and thought of it as a nice project which could be an alternative to Chrome if Firefox ever went down the drain. I gotta say I don’t think quite as highly of it anymore - but crucially, they at least don’t try to prevent you from disabling the blacklist.

      1. 2

        I wouldn’t say “evil” necessarily. It’s a word that is too easily thrown around by GPL supporters.

        But if you want people to support your open-source project then you have to do so in the clearest, most honest way. It’s part of the open-source culture.

        I can tell what the web devs were thinking “oh, Google is a big ad company. Of course they are going to filter out the worst ads!” And Google think so themselves which is why they have placed themselves on the good side of their initiative against sneaky ads in Chrome.

        The problem of course is that Google actually isn’t great with filtering advertisements. It’s (relatively) easy to publish something on DoubleClick which can spread malware. And that was obvious when I visited the Pale Moon site and saw two DoubleClick banners.

    2. 13

      “Your browser, Your way”

      If making a request on the web causes “direct damage”, then perhaps whoever is responding to that request should think of something, or take their broken service offline if they can’t fix it.

      It’s “invalid traffic” why? Because the people running that extension don’t purchase the advertised products? Nah, don’t serve those links if it’s not alright to click or crawl them.

      1. 3

        It’s not the target of the request that is being damaged, so they have no incentive to take their service offline.

        If I stand back and squint a bit, this extension vaguely resembles terrorism: somebody wants to disrupt a large, powerful organisation (an advertising network, a government), but they can’t target it directly, so they start causing harm to smaller, weaker organisations (customers, citizens) in the hope that the larger organisation will tear itself apart, or at least become too preoccupied to do its job well.

        I see your point that there will always be Bad Guys on the internet, and people have to secure their stuff. However, there will also always be unsecured stuff on the internet (through malpractice or ignorance or innocent mistake) and making it easy for Bad Guys to exploit that stuff doesn’t help matters.

        1. 5

          However, there will also always be unsecured stuff on the internet (through malpractice or ignorance or innocent mistake) and making it easy for Bad Guys to exploit that stuff doesn’t help matters.

          Yes, that’s wildly tangential.

          The ads are not served by accident. They’re all intentional, and extensively monitored. They’re not hooked up to a bomb or some database that leaks individuals’ credentials.

          It’s not the target of the request that is being damaged, so they have no incentive to take their service offline.

          If all the users of an ad network get “punished” for click fraud or clicks get devalued so much that people don’t want to buy these ads, the ad network will run out of customers. The ad network should have plenty of incentive to fix their service.

          But who said the damage is only supposed to go against ad networks? People might very well want to take down all the “small sites” that offer little value and lots of ads. And if there’s really no ad-supported site worth saving, there’s no collateral damage either.

      2. 7

        If it’s not ‘direct damage’ for me to click an ad and not buy anything, why is it ‘direct damage’ for my computer to do it?

        Why should users pay for ad network’s broken algorithms and business model?

        This is a bad decision underlaid by bad logic.

        1. 0

          The difference is explained in the article.

        2. 4

          If websites are taken down because adblockers are doing their job, that’s fine to me. I can live without these ad-bloated websites.

          1. 4

            Suppose you’re walking down the street, and you see a big sign that says “Ice Cream Shop” with an arrow pointing towards it.

            You feel like having some ice cream, so you actually benefit from the advertisement, because now you know where to get some. You go into the shop, give them money, and enjoy some ice cream. Life is good.

            Now apply the same idea to whatever legitimate products and services are being advertised on Google. Maybe you’re in the market for some CRM software, and happen to see some advertised. The software company gets a customer, and you get CRM software. Again, there is much rejoicing.

            The AdNauseam extension is fucking over legitimate businesses with its fake clicks, because those businesses have to pay Google for every single click. Getting new customers actually costs them real money, and the more it costs, the more difficult it is to keep the businesses running and potentially employing people, and so on.

            It’s easy to virtue-signal about supposedly fighting mass-surveillance and evil ad networks and so on, but the biggest victims here are legitimate, small businesses.

            And if Google decides to tell those same virtue-signallers that using AdNauseam will get them banned from GMail and YouTube and other “free” services that are part of the mass-surveillance they’re supposedly fighting, they’ll disable it right away.

            1. 17

              Suppose you’re walking down the street, and you see a big sign that says “Ice Cream Shop” with an arrow pointing towards it. You feel like having some ice cream

              That might or might not have happened (I don’t like ice cream). That’s potentially a very relevant, highly localized ad.

              Now apply the same idea to whatever legitimate products and services are being advertised on Google.

              Imagine you had a unicorn…

              That never happened. Sorry, literally all of the ads I see online are just completely irrelevant. There are almost-want-to-be-exceptions, but they are exceptions because they’re actually trying to be somewhat relevant and localized: I might buy an advertised product that turns up in a search when I’m actively looking to purchase something. That’s why I don’t mind the sponsored product placements on Amazon. Caveat: I never purchased such a product, because these ads were never relevant enough. “What other users bought” turns out to be much more relevant in practice.

              There’s also a big difference between directions and spam. Again, I consider practically all advertising online to be spam. But there are times when I actually look for some shop. Where can I go buy wood for my next project? Show me a map with all the shops that sell wood. That same map could show me the nearest ice cream shop, if I wanted ice cream.

              Unfortunately the map from the biggest ad company I know (hi Google) does a terrible job of it. Many of the local shops aren’t on map, or you have to zoom in so much that scanning all the relevant shops in town would take hundreds of screenfuls of map. It doesn’t have a good search; I can’t ask for wood and expect to get a listing of all the places where I can buy wood. And the map just shows me company names, which might not tell me anything about what they sell.

              If Amazon and Google can’t show me relevant ads for things I explicitly search for, how do you suppose spamming random ads is ever going to be relevant?

              So if I’m looking for a CRM, sure, tell me all about all the CRMs. Otherwise these ads can just be gone.

              But nobody does that, so in the meanwhile I just wish for them all to be gone.

              The AdNauseam extension is fucking over legitimate businesses with its fake clicks, because those businesses have to pay Google for every single click.

              Well these “legitimate businesses” apparently made a fucking terrible deal. Especially so if the company they’re dealing with can’t even filter out these so-called fake clicks. If that puts them out of business, maybe they’re not fit to run a business. Or maybe their business just isn’t so very useful. I could gamble away my money too, do you defend my stupidity? But if it’s so hard, then maybe all these companies will indeed go out of business. Then who’s paying Google for clicks? Aha, maybe Google will go out of business too. Ha!

              Maybe disrupting such a shitty business model will eventually lead to one that isn’t so prone to being fucked with?

              I am very tired of all the bullshit that goes with advertising. No no, don’t block ads, you’re stealing! Yes please look at this free* (*contains malware) virus scanner! Oh but looking isn’t enough because we don’t get money for that. So click it! But don’t click it because clicking is click fraud! But click it still because we want monies! Oh no you fucker you clicked it, now some poor horse is going to go out of business because they couldn’t put a cap on their advertising budget!

              Seriously, it can all go away. I really don’t care who goes out of business with it.

              1. 1

                Sorry, literally all of the ads I see online are just completely irrelevant.

                Yes, there’s a lot of bullshit out there.

                There are almost-want-to-be-exceptions, but they are exceptions because they’re actually trying to be somewhat relevant and localized: I might buy an advertised product that turns up in a search when I’m actively looking to purchase something.

                Indeed. If you search for “CRM software”, you’ll see paid ads for CRM software, which is basically what you want to happen.

                But those companies pay for every single click, and only maybe two out of a hundred clicks results in a new customer. At $2 per click, that’s $200 to acquire two new customers. Will their “lifetime value” be high enough to keep the business afloat?

                -It’s much more unlikely if an AdNauseam “botnet” adds a few hundred paid-but-fake clicks into the equation!

                Well these “legitimate businesses” apparently made a fucking terrible deal. Especially so if the company they’re dealing with can’t even filter out these so-called fake clicks. If that puts them out of business, maybe they’re not fit to run a business. Or maybe their business just isn’t so very useful.

                Running a business is very difficult and takes a shit-ton of work. Fake clicks from a botnet of self-righteous “socialists” that have never even thought of running a business makes it much more difficult, and that’s not the businessmen’s fault.

                When you look at advertising as a whole, you need to differentiate between scumbags and productive people. The former need to die in a fire, but the latter get shafted by the add-on.

                1. 2

                  But those companies pay for every single click, and only maybe two out of a hundred clicks results in a new customer. At $2 per click, that’s $200 to acquire two new customers. Will their “lifetime value” be high enough to keep the business afloat?

                  Why should I fucking care? I’m not their manager. I’m not their investor. I don’t care whether they stay afloat. They can stop paying for clicks if the ROI isn’t good enough. They can find a different model (which do exist). If the entire business is reliant on $2 clicks and they can’t think of anything else, then I really do not care – yet another poorly managed business goes bankrupt. Good riddance. The world most likely didn’t need them.

                  Fake clicks from a botnet of self-righteous “socialists” that have never even thought of running a business makes it much more difficult, and that’s not the businessmen’s fault.

                  Loser businessmen who can’t think of a business whose success doesn’t depend on $2 clicks can stop running businesses. Or keep doing it and burn their money while complaining that the world around them doesn’t work the way they want it to work. Too fucking bad.

                  When you look at advertising as a whole, you need to differentiate between scumbags and productive people.

                  I can’t. Spam is spam. I don’t know who’s scumbag or who’s productive, and my life is too short to investigate them all. Besides, it’s not my job. There are ways to reach me. Spam isn’t a good way. So don’t spam. Still keep spamming? I might click, or my computer might click. Can’t afford it? Then just fucking stop. I might be looking for just the product that is being spammed, and click, and turn back because it wasn’t what I wanted. Makes them go bankrupt? Not my problem. They can stop.

                  The former need to die in a fire, but the latter get shafted by the add-on.

                  If the business is productive, then by definition they’re not getting shafted. If they get shafted by some clicks, they’re not productive. They’re just busy burning money. They can die in a fire too.

                  This complaint sound much like “our old business model is no longer effective! the world is wrong and needs to be changed back to accommodate us!”

                  1. 1

                    Why should I fucking care? I’m not their manager. I’m not their investor. I don’t care whether they stay afloat.

                    It’s not that businesses are using an “obsolete” way of advertising. It’s that the way of advertising is being sabotaged.

                    Sabotage is Bad, mmmm’kay?

                  2. 2

                    Fake clicks from a botnet of self-righteous “socialists”

                    I can’t find any connection mentioned between the AdNauseum extension and socialism. What are you quoting here?

                2. 4

                  The small business can put their ads on an ad network without insane tracking.

                  1. 1

                    Really? And still reach enough potential customers at a low enough cost to stay in business?

                    Google is almost the only game in town.. as fucked up as that is.

                3. [Comment removed by author]

                  1. 1

                    Pale Moon is a Firefox fork.

                  2. 1

                    Christ, people. They just don’t want to be held responsible for the shit that would go down if this extension were used. Requiring their users to go to about:config is just their way of legally divorcing themselves from the consequences of using this extension. Otherwise people wouldn’t get any warning about the detriments of using the extension, and the blame would go straight to PaleMoon.

                    Any browser that wants to stay in business would do the same thing; saying PaleMoon is making the same “mistake” as Firefox did is like saying “I used to like you because you’re indie, but now you’re popular”. If you were managing the project, you would have a much more nuanced opinion than “you restricted a thing, restrictions are bad”.

                    Edit: Please don’t use the downvote button to express disagreement. It has a stated purpose, it’s not just for catharsis.

                    1. 8

                      Note that AdNauseam is not banned by Mozilla and installs without any warning on Firefox. Firefox stays in business so far.

                      1. 3

                        Ah, interesting. I may have been wrong: maybe this is a greater priority for small browsers than for big ones. In any case, I do think they would’ve been better off putting a clause in their terms that hints at this type of extension being unwanted on their site.

                      2. 6

                        I just downvoted you, not to express a disagreement but because the example you are using to justify your argument is factually wrong.

                        Any browser that wants to stay in business would do the same thing;

                        Firefox and Opera are both still in business and yet are both making ad-nauseam available via their official addon system.

                        1. 2

                          Fair. But I repeat my revised argument above that small browsers like PaleMoon might have more to worry about: because their user-base is already quite niche—pre-selected to be the type of users who seek out very specific software—they may fear ending up with a majority of users installing web-breaking extensions, which might lead to their essentially being hardcoded as an untrusted browser by most websites. I value pragmatism over optimism; self-preservation is something you can’t criticize from the outside, since by definition you’re not the “self” being referred to.

                          1. 3

                            [Edited] Useless flamewar starter

                            1. 1

                              Looks like I was too late to kindle it :/