Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

uBlock Origin Criticized for Blocking Content Security Policy

posted by Fnord666 on Monday October 23 2017, @09:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the Digital-Arms-Race dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

The popular content blocking extension uBlock Origin blocks CSP reporting on websites that make use of it if it injects neutered scripts.

CSP, Content Security Policy, can be used by web developers to whitelist code that is allowed to run on web properties. The idea behind the feature is to prevent attackers from injecting JavaScript on websites protected by CSP.

CSP reports any attempt of interfering with the site's policies in regards to scripts to the webmaster. This happens when users connect to the site, and is used by webmasters to analyze and resolve the detected issues.

[...] Raymond Hill, the developer of uBlock Origin, replied stating that this was not a bug but by design. The extension blocks the sending of CSP reports if it injects a neutered Google Analytics script.

Source: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/19/ublock-criticized-for-blocking-csp/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
uBlock Origin Criticized for Blocking Content Security Policy | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 89 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:30PM (3 children)

    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:30PM (#586837) Journal

    Would you prefer having to pay $4 for each unique domain that you visit in each month? Because in practice, that's the alternative to third-party ads and trackers for sites that aren't run as a hobby. Or if you know of a third way (other than ads or subscriptions) proven to provide enough revenue to pay writers, I'd like to read about it.

    You're utterly delusional if you think ads pay anywhere near that amount. If you're *lucky* you'll get maybe a tenth of a cent per visit; if you're unlucky it'll be a few hundredths. So how exactly is reducing the amount of content a site has to serve supposed to increase their costs by several orders of magnitude? $4 would get you a dozen page views per day, every day, for a year. It wouldn't be $4/month/domain, it'd be $4/month overall. Possibly less.

    Meanwhile I've literally invested hundreds of dollars in firewall hardware and hundreds of hours in development and administration to bring some sanity to my browsing experience, so I'd gladly pay ten times that estimate for an ad-free web...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:56PM (2 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:56PM (#586850) Journal

    You're utterly delusional if you think ads pay anywhere near that amount.

    Then WIRED is utterly delusional, as it charges that amount for a 28-day tracking blocking pass. Sites like WSJ and NYTimes charge even more.

    It wouldn't be $4/month/domain, it'd be $4/month overall.

    Who collects this $4 payment from subscribers and remits it to site operators? It can't be (say) a 50 cent transaction to each of eight site operators, as the credit card processor would eat up most of that in the swipe fee.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday October 24 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday October 24 2017, @03:01PM (#586890) Journal

      Then WIRED is utterly delusional, as it charges that amount for a 28-day tracking blocking pass. Sites like WSJ and NYTimes charge even more.

      Yeah, and a Soylent subscription starts at $4/month too. Most users don't subscribe at all and don't view ads at all, but the few who are willing to pay are able to subsidize the site for everyone else. Probably Wired/WSJ/NYT have similar business plans. Ads weren't paying enough, so they started to look for more lucrative funding from their core audience.

      Who collects this $4 payment from subscribers and remits it to site operators? It can't be (say) a 50 cent transaction to each of eight site operators, as the credit card processor would eat up most of that in the swipe fee.

      However they want to do it. I've got some sites/organizations that I pay $3/month to through Patreon, and you can do even smaller payments there then they bill it in bulk and divide it up...or there's sites that I pay maybe $10/year for an annual subscription which would be fine too. You could also avoid the card processor fees by not using the cards -- do direct bank transfers or something along those lines.

      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:56PM

        by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:56PM (#587560) Journal

        You could also avoid the card processor fees by not using the cards -- do direct bank transfers or something along those lines.

        An ACH transfer doesn't take a percentage of the total like a Visa or MC transaction does. But it still takes a fee of $0.15 to $0.95 per transaction [firstach.com]. And the first ACH payment processor I looked at charges a fee that starts at $359.40 per merchant per year [firstach.com], whether any payment happens or not, compared to $0 per year for something like PayPal.