"Finally, NoScript is still blocking Ghostery through a Ghostery-specific CSS rule. This is especially vile, since Ghostery doesn’t affect NoScript’s revenue model in the slightest - it’s just the tool I use to be informed about the analytics and advertising technologies in use from site to site. The site owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is completely unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the content in the manner of my choosing."
So, wait, let me get this straight: someone who is using a plugin to circumvent the intended operation of something is complaining that it is circumventing the intended operation of something?
How do people come to the conclusion that it is their browser/computer/whatever when they intentionally install plugins and third-party code to both change the operation of said browser/computer and change how stuff is displayed on the page? Is it "mine" until I notice something I don't want to be missing is missing, at which point it switches to being "stolen" from me?
The site owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is completely unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the content in the manner of my choosing.
How is it unacceptable? First off, you give up the ability to view the content in the manner of your choosing as soon as you install a plugin that filters the content for you. It would be like complaining about SPAM filtering because it decides an important e-mail is SPAM; for every other email it was perfectly fine, but when it gets one wrong, suddenly it's stealing my email? Please.
Secondly, it is completely the plugin developer's prerogative! If Mr. NoScript doesn't like the look of the Ghostery CSS overlay and blocks it, that's his choice! Nobody is asking him why NoScript blocks pop-ups or full-page overlays or even text ads. And guess what, if people don't like it, they can remove the plugin. And maybe everybody will. But I doubt it.
If you install and enable the Ghostery extension, it is because you want the extension to do its thing.
There is no valid reason why another extension should deliberately and specifically disable this behaviour, breaking Ghostery, when it is clearly behaviour that the end user intended.
Is this a joke, or did he actually mess with yet another add on? If this is true, and wasn't fixed in the latest version, it seems like a death knell for No Script. The Adblock business was bad enough, but apologizing for one and doing nothing about the other is wrong. He obviously knows that messing with a users addons pisses them off, and has ignored that.
However, that's only if this isn't just a joke in poor taste.
It seems to me that this has nothing to do with the plugin itself. From the articles and the responses, it seems that it is only his website that blocks the CSS popups of Ghostely.
The plugin does not do any harm to ghostery. He just uses a CSS rule on his website to disable some of ghostery's functionality.
I don't think this is the "death knell" for NoScript; perhaps some users will get so angry that they won't use it but realistically what other options are available? None that I know of that offer the same experience. This is "not good", it isn't terrible IMO, and if the guy fixes it and stops doing stuff like this, then I'm fine with it.
The comments on the original user article seem to indicate that this is, in fact, not true.
"You're wrong. You've taken an emotionally charged statement from some random bystander and turned it into a conspiracy where there is in fact none. The NoScript extension is NOT blocking Ghostery behaviour.
It is in fact the noscript website, along with Giorgio Maone's other websites, that are blocking the Ghostery box, through the stylesheets. (As are mine - my website, I can style it how I like.)
Now that you've added fuel to the fire based on nothing but rumour, how are you going to fix it?"
----------------- And another --------------
"Just to clarify, the NoScript program NEVER blocked Ghostery: this would have been unacceptable as much as the ABP workaround.
But the CSS is in the website, and it doesn't prevent Ghostery from working (the status bar info is still there).
Ghostery should use a notification bar like NoScript does: trying to delivery notifications overlaying the content is never a good idea, especially if it's security or privacy related, because it's entirely in the site's rights and powers to tamper with it (hide, relocate, or even worse maliciously modifying its content to mislead users).
BTW, it was done not to hide any info from the user, but because the box covered the donation button.
Any web site can do the same, and will do it if you cover important parts of the page.
14 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 34.3 ms ] thread"Finally, NoScript is still blocking Ghostery through a Ghostery-specific CSS rule. This is especially vile, since Ghostery doesn’t affect NoScript’s revenue model in the slightest - it’s just the tool I use to be informed about the analytics and advertising technologies in use from site to site. The site owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is completely unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the content in the manner of my choosing."
How do people come to the conclusion that it is their browser/computer/whatever when they intentionally install plugins and third-party code to both change the operation of said browser/computer and change how stuff is displayed on the page? Is it "mine" until I notice something I don't want to be missing is missing, at which point it switches to being "stolen" from me?
Where's the rationale? I just don't see it.
Computers don't do anything until you install software. By installing/running software, you tell them what to do.
The site owners’ claim that he doesn’t like the look of the CSS overlay is completely unacceptable - my browser, my computer, my ability to view the content in the manner of my choosing.
How is it unacceptable? First off, you give up the ability to view the content in the manner of your choosing as soon as you install a plugin that filters the content for you. It would be like complaining about SPAM filtering because it decides an important e-mail is SPAM; for every other email it was perfectly fine, but when it gets one wrong, suddenly it's stealing my email? Please.
Secondly, it is completely the plugin developer's prerogative! If Mr. NoScript doesn't like the look of the Ghostery CSS overlay and blocks it, that's his choice! Nobody is asking him why NoScript blocks pop-ups or full-page overlays or even text ads. And guess what, if people don't like it, they can remove the plugin. And maybe everybody will. But I doubt it.
If you install and enable the Ghostery extension, it is because you want the extension to do its thing.
There is no valid reason why another extension should deliberately and specifically disable this behaviour, breaking Ghostery, when it is clearly behaviour that the end user intended.
It's not - as far as I could tell - this style is deployed on his websites, not through his plugin.
It's a nifty trick, I've just added it to my own site.
However, that's only if this isn't just a joke in poor taste.
The plugin does not do any harm to ghostery. He just uses a CSS rule on his website to disable some of ghostery's functionality.
"You're wrong. You've taken an emotionally charged statement from some random bystander and turned it into a conspiracy where there is in fact none. The NoScript extension is NOT blocking Ghostery behaviour.
It is in fact the noscript website, along with Giorgio Maone's other websites, that are blocking the Ghostery box, through the stylesheets. (As are mine - my website, I can style it how I like.)
Now that you've added fuel to the fire based on nothing but rumour, how are you going to fix it?"
----------------- And another -------------- "Just to clarify, the NoScript program NEVER blocked Ghostery: this would have been unacceptable as much as the ABP workaround.
But the CSS is in the website, and it doesn't prevent Ghostery from working (the status bar info is still there).
Ghostery should use a notification bar like NoScript does: trying to delivery notifications overlaying the content is never a good idea, especially if it's security or privacy related, because it's entirely in the site's rights and powers to tamper with it (hide, relocate, or even worse maliciously modifying its content to mislead users).
BTW, it was done not to hide any info from the user, but because the box covered the donation button. Any web site can do the same, and will do it if you cover important parts of the page.
Now could we backpedal with the FUD?"