morriswalters wrote:On the main point we agree. On Brave we don't.
Fair enough. And I'm not promoting the brave browser; I just think it's an interesting alternative worthy of discussion. So... where do you disagree with brave, that would not violate my main points?
morriswalters wrote: I also question your ability to fight back in any meaningful way, short of disconnecting.
Yes, it's hard. But that doesn't mean we should capitulate. At the very least, make it harder for them. I don't run ad blockers, but I run noscript, and have it pretty tight. It protects me from most ads, and also protects me from abusive websites. Unfortunately, it also protects me from good websites, so when I come to a site whose content I want badly enough, I "temporarily allow" scripts from... well, I start with the original domain (it's domain by domain, all or nothing within a domain). Then I try to guess which secondary domains are not harmful. Each time the page reloads, and the new scripts invite their
friends (which noscript blocks) and I have to decide about those domains. This repeats several levels. Sometimes allowing all of them involves hundreds of domains running unidentified and unidentifiable software on my computer. At some point I either get what I want from the site, or walk away.
I also have my browser set to block third party cookies, and "tracking sites", and never touch social networks (other than xkcd, which really isn't one). That's too bad, because social networks do a lot of good things but the cost is essentially total surrender to the hoards of highway robbers and spies that are constantly trying to get into my personal info to steal and sell. There's a lot of stuff that I don't know about happening behind the scenes also. It's a seaish amount to keep up with, and I suspect most people don't even have a clue as to what's going on under the hood. So, I applaud any and all efforts to fight against it.
Tyndmyr wrote:Literally everyone has said that deceptive bullshit advertising like transparent windows, pop over ads, etc, are bullshit, and it's fine to block things for that, or for security reasons.
It's not a point of contention.
So, I'm confused why you keep returning to that well whenever asked to justify literally anything else.
Well, the well deserved reputation ad networks have for this makes me not trust them. They have not earned my trust, and they have
earned my distrust. This is sufficient. And I will also ask whether you consider the data harvesting that ad networks do to be "deceptive bullshit" (and worthy of blocking) or not. Because that's a big part of it, but I notice that you don't list it. It's a big deal
. It's what drives the industry.
If that can be killed with fire, and advertising were totally anonymous, totally transparent, and there were a firm wall between content and advertising, then we would be in an artificial world in which we could discuss the other things. I'm happy to do that, but in the real world, tracking and deception are the order of the day. Advertising itself
is a form of deception - it's not just about giving me information. It's about attempting to induce behavior
, at any cost. Because of this it is intrusive
. Because it needs to be intrusive, it occupies my resources (CPU time, memory, screen real estate, loading time, etc) in an attempt to get me to do something I don't want to do.
of advertising isn't inherently evil; but the practice
of it on the net is nearly 100% evil. That is why.
So, it comes down to two things:
1: The intrusiveness
of the message (which I don't want to hear in the first place). This has nothing necessarily to do with security, but due to the fact that it's using my resources, can quite negatively impact my experience.
2: The personal information theft, analysis, and resale
that occurs via ad networks. This has nothing to do with computer security, but is more akin to personal security.
3: The computer security
issues mentioned above. Uh... that's three, sir!
Now let me ask you - why do you insist that I have an obligation to run every program, display every ad, download every typeface, and do every ch*rpin' thing
that an HTTP response suggests to my computer? Why do you think I have an obligation to surrender my computer to every website I visit? Why do I have to support their
business model when they have freely put their content on the open and public internet, available via HTTP request with no restriction except a suggestion that I might want to display this other content also?
Tyndmyr wrote:...to explain your "manifesto" of being able to do whatever the hell you want.
That's not my manifesto. And you know this.
However, in the context of an HTTP stream, I do claim the right to be able to not display
whatever I want to not display. That's pretty much the gist of it.