EasyList hypocrisy

Everything about using Adblock Plus on Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey
User avatar
chewey
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:34 pm
Location: somewhere in Europe

Post by chewey »

The other way is to just create the probed for iframe:

Code: Select all

ifrm = document.createElement("iframe");
ifrm.setAttribute("name", "google_ads_frame");
ifrm.style.display = "none";
document.body.appendChild(ifrm);
This works e.g. via Greasemonkey.

To paraphrase you-know-who: Never piss off the adblockers. 8)

This is the same as all those "unbreakable" DRM schemes: As long as it
relies on client-side action, the client can be modified to work around it.

It will never work - it's that simple.
User avatar
rick752
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: New York USA
Contact:

Post by rick752 »

Hey .. not bad Danny :)

If you don't happen to get tired of this, or don't finally figure out that these tactics of yours are self-destructive and will not work out for you in the long run .. then think about this:

What would happen if I removed the blocks that trigger the popup from my list and changed the whole addressing thing to a client-side css solution? No problems .. no popups .. no ads. ... and you wouldn't even know the difference. You would just suddenly think that everyone uninstalled ABP (yeah like THAT's going to happen). It would also prevent you and ANYONE else using adsense to be able to tell who was and who wasn't seeing the ads because the server would see it as 'requests received'. Funny, even when I whitelist the (removed) site, I STILL see no ads.

But for now, I really don't care as I think you are really doing enough to yourself already. Oh yeah, NoScript still blocks EVERYTHING that you've done by default. It also blocks googlesyndication by default. I would say that about 70%-80% of ABP users use NoScript. Those users won't see a thing as NoScript implements BEFORE ABP does ... Most of the non-hits you see are actually coming from that. ABP will not even see those scripts after they are blocked by NoScript. I told you already that using js was stupid. So did you go over there and yell at them yet like I told you to? ps: Even when I whitelist the (removed) site, I still see no ads.

Stop killing yourself over this. Simply just ask people to whitelist your site ... it IS the best way you know. :wink:
User avatar
Adblock Plus Fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:08 am

Post by Adblock Plus Fan »

Ah rick, in the current versions of noscript googlesyndication is on the default whitelist.
But you are right, noscript by itself completely wipes clean all his ads even in its default setting lol :lol:


@chewey, I could not make your code work. Maybe I did something wrong, I put this into a txt file:

Code: Select all

// ==UserScript==
// @name           ABP anti detector 9000
// @namespace      http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12342#12342
// @description    Google iframe check workaround by chewey
// @include        http://(removed by admin).com/*
// @include        http://*.(removed by admin).com/*
// ==/UserScript==
ifrm = document.createElement("iframe");
ifrm.setAttribute("name", "google_ads_frame");
ifrm.style.display = "none";
document.body.appendChild(ifrm);
Then I named the txt file "iframe-detect.user.js" and dragged it into firefox and then greasemonkey installed it, but it did not work. Did I miss something? :P
Last edited by Adblock Plus Fan on Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
chewey
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:34 pm
Location: somewhere in Europe

Post by chewey »

This works alright most of the times for me, but I see the problem - try hitting
the back button after being redirected.

The problem is the page's slow loading: GM scripts are executed after a page
is loaded completely, and the script in this page apparently executes two
seconds after the HTML containing it arrived.

So if the two seconds are faster than the page load time, you will be redirected,
because my script to add an invisible fake AdSense iframe didn't run yet.

If you go back, the page will be displayed out of your cache, the GM script
runs - and you stay where you are :-)

I'm not a heavy GM user, so I don't know if there is a way to make the user
script run earlier. Anyone?
User avatar
Adblock Plus Fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:08 am

Post by Adblock Plus Fan »

Do you think we could use something like this: http://diveintogreasemonkey.org/patterns/innerhtml.html ?
User avatar
Adblock Plus Fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:08 am

Post by Adblock Plus Fan »

Lol he has a new code for his site inspired by my suggestion :lol:

Code: Select all

<script>
removed :P 
</script>
Last edited by Adblock Plus Fan on Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SlimShady
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:49 pm

Post by SlimShady »

especially that last line is hilarious :P.
User avatar
rick752
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: New York USA
Contact:

Post by rick752 »

Simply removing or disabling:

Code: Select all

http://pagead2.
/show_ads
... in the list and adding:

Code: Select all

#*(src*=http://pagead2.)
fixes everything. And because it is a client-side css hide and allows the js, there is no 'trigger'. Also, a webmaster would never even know there was any blocking of that .... all the stats would show full downloading of that js and any stats pertaining to the blocking of that would become worthless (a disadvantage for any webmaster). All ads would be hidden client-side ... an area where the webmaster would have no control. And if that tries to get defeated somehow I also have a "plan B". Do we really want to go "round & round" here?

The first is a simple solution that is very effective. But at this point, I am not going to bother with doing that. Let him do what he feels he needs to do ... I will not interfere. I want to go outside and then watch the nascar race this afternoon. I don't need to get tied up in some kind of an adblocking "p*ssing contest".

If you want to try to keep getting around these, Danny, you will NEVER get any other work done. Let me repeat this, I will do NOTHING about any of this right now. I will leave things alone as they are for the time being. I just posted this to show you that the blocking can easily be defeated if need be.

I'm am very sorry about the things that have happened in your life and I really wish you would just ask your viewers simply to whitelist your site(s) ... that is the way most site owners do it, and many have great success with it. Regular readers WANT to help support a site. You would be amazed! So just try asking them to whitelist.

You can catch more flies with honey ....

I really have nothing personal against you, but you must understand that we cannot simply go around allowing ads on sites simply because owners asked us to, THAT would be hypocrisy! We also cannot allow the slander of our name and the name-calling of us and our users . Calling us and our users names and going off on some 'nutsy', name-calling rampage is NOT the right way to gain favor with us or our users. And I will do what I have to do to protect our product's name and our users rights.

I also find your blocking page MUCH more acceptable in its wording, Danny, even though it it seems to somehow violate the 'spirit' of what I wanted you to do ... and that was to keep telling everyone that they were 'thieves'. But oh well.
Last edited by rick752 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:31 pm, edited 19 times in total.
User avatar
Adblock Plus Fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:08 am

Post by Adblock Plus Fan »

I cannot understand why he would want us to resort to element hiding either. :P

I mean every time each of us block (Sorry, removed, don't want to advertise his site)
we actually save him 1.718 bytes in bandwidth, WE ARE HELPING PEOPLE SAVE MONEY HERE!
Talk about being ungrateful :twisted:
Removed site: Don't want to give free advertising wrote:You are using Adblock Plus, which takes resources
look at the nonsense he is dishing out, this is what you get for trying to help him :lol:
And he even call us liars, cheater and thieves... we just want to help him with bandwidth costs :mrgreen:
IceDogg
Posts: 909
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:22 pm

Post by IceDogg »

I removed all reference to this site..and I think we should not mention the site again here. His ad revenue my very well have doubled, but not because of forcing people to view his site. It's because we all visited it to test or see what was going on. I don't know if this is what WP would want me to do or not. But I felt it was the right thing to do. Please don't link to or post non linking mentions of his site until Wladimir Palant has a say on this. Thank you.
User avatar
rick752
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: New York USA
Contact:

Post by rick752 »

IceDogg wrote:His ad revenue my very well have doubled, but not because of forcing people to view his site. It's because we all visited it to test or see what was going on. I don't know if this is what WP would want me to do or not. But I felt it was the right thing to do. Please don't link to or post non linking mentions of his site until Wladimir Palant has a say on this. Thank you.
I agree. But I may start losing my patience with him soon and resort to the filter change. I actually find it might be a fitting change anyways simply because those are text ads and would probably be better off in the EasyElement filter. Don't you guys think?
Alan
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Post by Alan »

rick752 wrote:But I may start losing my patience with him soon and resort to the filter change. I actually find it might be a fitting change anyways simply because those are text ads and would probably be better off in the EasyElement filter. Don't you guys think?
I think: don't give DC any special treatment one way or another. If his site denies access to browsers that don't display his ads, then so be it. I don't want a war and its potential for giving us Adblock Plus supporters a black eye. Let's take the high road here. Be patient, please.

P.S. I never saw any of that stuff anyhow. I refuse to allow his sites to run JavaScript.
P.P.S. IMHO, the content on his site sucks. He's doing people a favor by not letting them view it.
User avatar
rick752
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: New York USA
Contact:

Post by rick752 »

Alan wrote:Let's take the high road here. Be patient, please.
I am.
User avatar
rick752
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: New York USA
Contact:

Post by rick752 »

Because of Danny's ending paragraph and link on the jacklewis net blog today, I have implemented Plan "B". I also already have a Plan "C" AND a Plan "D". EasyList & EasyElement now also have a redundancy which makes one able to be whitelisted .. the other not. But no whitelisting was necessary. This is not an attack .. simply a logical readjustment.

New filters are now in effect: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Upload the "Easy-Trio" first so you can easily go there.
(EasyList PVT)
Post Reply