SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's being reported on HackerNews that the Pale Moon Browser is blocking the AdNauseum extension, an ad blocking extension designed to obfuscate browsing data and protect users from tracking by advertising networks.
The main story link is to the Pale Moon Forum which summarises the issue as follows:
After investigating the AdNauseam extension's behavior and the results for web publishers, the extension has been added to the Pale Moon blocklist with a severity level of 2 (meaning you won't be able to enable it unless you increase the blocking level in about:config to 3). For those unfamiliar with this extension: it generates false ad "clicks" to ad servers in an attempt to generate "noise" for the ad networks in a protest against the advertising network system as a whole.
While the premise behind this is similar to poisoning trackers with false fingerprints (which we are proponents of, ourselves), and we normally let users decide for themselves what they want to do with their browser, we are strictly against allowing extensions that cause direct damage (including damage to third parties). There is a subtle but important difference between blocking content and generating fake user interaction.
[...] Because this extension causes direct and indirect economic damage to website owners, it is classified as malware, and as such blocked.
From the forum threads this decision has been slightly controversial with some users.
If you're not familiar with Pale Moon, it is an Open Source web browser, forked from a mature Mozilla code release, and has been covered on SN before.
[Update: Added text re: blocking level; bolded text that was bold in the original posting. --martyb]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:37AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:08PM
A US court decision is only binding upon lower courts. Weev was convicted in federal court and the conviction was subsequently vacated on appeal in the third circuit (due to improper venue). The only binding precedent here is in the third circuit, as set by the third circuit court of appeal, applying to the issue of venue. This is normal -- the appeals court generally won't make any ruling on the merits of the case when the decision can be established on something more basic, such as improper venue.
However, a federal court looking at a similar case would also find that the third circuit court of appeal did not have a high opinion of the merits of the prosecution's case, either.
Nevertheless, the CFAA has to go.