You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] RoundWheel 13 points -6 points (+7|-13) ago  (edited ago)

Like it or not, AdNauseam is a form of malware. To the web site's advertisers it will appear to be a malware click bot farm.

Why he cares is a different question. But the simple fact remains he didn't prevent use of the extension. He simply requires an extra step to be able to install the extension. Which is not actually the same as prohibition. But people who want to use the extension are likely to have no issue with performing the config tweak. It's very simple and straight forward. Which also means we have to ask, what other malware is now available for installation because of the opened door created by mandating the tweak? It is, after all, forcing a more permission operating model for these users. Is he actually creating a bigger issue now or down the road? I dunno.

After it's all said and done, has he actually changed anything other than lowering the threshold (protection) for allowing a broader set of undesirable applications to be installed on the platform?

Edit: Honestly, you'd have to be pretty unintelligent or biased to down vote my comment here. It accurately speaks to both sides of the issue. But I guess honesty wasn't desired, just a bitchfest and an echo chamber. If you are seriously capable of deeper thought, then you'll find I also bring up an even deeper issue of implications from the developer's actions. But I guess it's more important to suppress actual discussion.


[–] 10326602? 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

AdNauseam is a form of malware. To the web site's advertisers it will appear to be a malware click bot farm.

And? Should we just be good little products for someone else? Or should we tell them to go AND FUCK THEMSELVES.

I am no ones fucking product.


[–] RoundWheel 5 points -4 points (+1|-5) ago 

I didn't take sides. I stated fact. Which is why it's so insane that my comment was down voted. A down vote means people hate facts. Which speaks very poorly of them. One would have to be mentally impaired to suppress simple statement of fact.

I am no ones fucking product.

You are, of course, wrong. You may not want to be someone's product, but you are. So long as you continue to use services which are supported by ads, you will remain the product. That is the entire business model. This doesn't matter if you wish to participate or not. The fact you are using the service means you are participating - at least from the owner's perspective and by extension, the advertiser.

So now then, given I didn't actually take a position, you're actually trying to go in a good direction. Telling them to fuck themselves is certainly your option. I'm certainly not opposed. Yet none of that has anything directly to do with my comment. It doesn't change the fact that some people will be charged for your malevolent behavior which is enabled by the installation of the malware. As such, it is entirely appropriate to consider it a form of malware; though perhaps beauty in the eye of the beholder. It's up to you if you believe spending other's money to support your line in the sand is moral or not. Again, I didn't dictate a position one way or the other.

None of those really address the real questions. Why does he consider it his authority to regulate malware - of any kind - given his platform stance? Since it requires lowering the threshold, what is the implication for other malware (current and future) which the developer deems appropriate to censor? Since the action requires lowering the threshold, does this mean these people are now forced to be exposed to malware which actually targets the user?


[–] uniques 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Ahhh, just use a magic word - "malware", see, its just like pointing and screaming Nazi. Either way a political goal has been achieved with out the going through the inconvenience of discourse.

Equality of ideas in the free market place is just that - equality. Here, we now have a multi tier system, where some have unfettered access and others must jump through a few hoops.

The real issue now becomes, where next, who's next, how many extra hoops, who gets to decide, using what criteria, how dose the appeal process work. The path to hell is always paved with good intent.


[–] RoundWheel 6 points -5 points (+1|-6) ago 

I down voted your comment because your first paragraph is completely wrong and in no way applies to my comment and is a stretch to even apply to the actual topic. I literally explained why. You then go on to mention an issue which I too brought up. As such, you comment doesn't really contribute to discussion, it simply distracts and then attempts to rephrase my comment while attempting to make it sound like you brought it up. Again, not really contributing.

Plus, you completely ignore the more significant question I bring up, what is the implications for other "verboten" software which apparently the developer already curtails? Thus far, no one has actually attempted to answer.


[–] EIMR 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Actually, it doesn't make your browser less safe. Dangerous extensions have threat level 3, while AdNauseam has threat level 2.


[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If you have to reset your blocklist level to allow threat level 3, how does it not make your browser (at least potentially) less safe?


[–] RoundWheel 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Thank you for being the first to begin addressing the issue.


[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I was going to upvoat your comment based on its substance, but then I saw you crying about being downvoated. Take that crybaby shit to reddit.