Ghostery

[sechs]

Anyone here use Ghostery?

I've been taking it for a spin and liking the results so far.

 

[ddrueding]

Looks interesting. Just installed.

 

[Mercutio]

I've been using it for a couple years, maybe? Every once in a while I find a site that doesn't work properly, but even seeing how many third party scripts run on mainstream sites is enough to ensure that I'm going to keep using it.

 

[Chewy509]

I've been running it for a number of years. My now standard Firefox setup has NoScript, Ghostery, AdBlockPlus and Lightbeam installed. Pretty much blocks most crap, and lightbeam shows all the connections that are possible even with those blockers.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/lightbeam/

 

[snowhiker]

Much like Chewy I've been running NoScript and AdBlockPlus for years. I added Ghostery a few months ago. It's amazing to see how much crap runs "behind the scenes" on web sites. I allow cookies but I check Keep Until "Ask me every time" so I only allow cookies for the few sites that are legitimate and necessarily. I should install a hosts file as well but haven't done that yet.

I'll take a look at lightbeam.

 

[LunarMist]

There doesn't seem to be a version for Winos.

 

[ddrueding]

Runs fine of the Windows version of Firefox. If you are looking for something similar at the OS level I don't know of anything.

 

[LunarMist]

Runs fine of the Windows version of Firefox. If you are looking for something similar at the OS level I don't know of anything.

I mean the normal Windows browser. Isn't Firefox a 3rd party program also?

 

[Mercutio]

If there's a normal Windows browser besides Firefox or Chrome, it's not one that's worthy of consideration as normal.

 

[ddrueding]

Seconded. If you mean IE and are concerned about security/privacy enough to consider Ghostery, the first step is to ditch IE.

 

[P5-133XL]

I constantly run two browser instances (chrome is my normal browser) with two different favorite groupings. One that runs in total defensive mode -incognito with no scripting no ads no nothing that I use for general internet use. There is a second browser instance that runs normally with just ads blocked for known safe sites (places like here).

 

[snowhiker]

There doesn't seem to be a version for Winos.

Weird. Earlier today I went "Tools>add-ons" then typed "lightbeam" in the search box (upper right), found the Lightbeam add-on and installed it. No problem. Looks interesting.

But just now I did the same thing and got a dialog that says "Could not find any matching add-ons" ... weird.

Is that what you are talking about Lunar?

 

[mubs]

Installed and running Ghostery on Chrome and FF. Thanks!

 

[Handruin]

I've been running Ghostery for a couple years now also. My typical plugin setup is Ghostery and Ad Block Plus.

 

[sechs]

I've actually been looking for ways to drop Adblock Plus. It's a memory hog.

 

[Mercutio]

I've actually been looking for ways to drop Adblock Plus. It's a memory hog.

It is, but that's why we have RAM in the first place. Internet advertising is an arms race and Adblock Plus (or Edge) is really the best way to stay ahead of the bad guys.
You could do hosts file blocking or buy an adblocking appliance, but I know from experience that at least hosts file blocking isn't nearly as thorough as anything that grabs a regularly updated Easylist.

 

[ddrueding]

...or buy an adblocking appliance...

Interesting. Have you had success with these?

 

[Mercutio]

I've never tried one. I've been aware of them for a while. It was a crowdfunded project that seemed like a good idea, but a little bit too expensive for what it does.

 

[timwhit]

Seems like it could be something integrated into a router pretty easily. Especially if the router is running DD-WRT or OpenWrt.

 

[sechs]

It is, but that's why we have RAM in the first place. Internet advertising is an arms race and Adblock Plus (or Edge) is really the best way to stay ahead of the bad guys.
You could do hosts file blocking or buy an adblocking appliance, but I know from experience that at least hosts file blocking isn't nearly as thorough as anything that grabs a regularly updated Easylist.

Adblock is poorly designed. It doesn't scale well with large numbers of rules, and you basically load another copy in each tab. If we weren't limited by the amount of memory that Firefox can address, I wouldn't be problem.

And, frankly, ads aren't a problem if they aren't intrusive. We aren't bandwidth limited anymore. The bigger issue is privacy, for which Adblock is the wrong tool.

 

[Mercutio]

Ads are still a fundamental problem.

1. All ads are intrusive. Even by taking space on my screen that could be used for content, they are unwelcome.
1a. I am fully aware that some web sites need revenue to operate. As an individual, I would rather donate or pay a subscription fee than see ads. I do make such payments. I suspect any amount of money that I give is more valuable than any number of ad impressions I might've created.
2. Ads carry a risk of malware. I have no reason to think any ad delivery network applies sufficient scrutiny to assure the security of the computers that I manage.
3. "Unobtrusive" ads are frequently misleading, being tangentially related to internet searches and usually ranked ahead of legitimate search results.
4. I have no obligation as a user to look at ads, any more than I have an obligation to view television commercials. I have tools to eliminate them, and I will do so.

 

[ddrueding]

Ads are still a fundamental problem.

1. All ads are intrusive. Even by taking space on my screen that could be used for content, they are unwelcome.
1a. I am fully aware that some web sites need revenue to operate. As an individual, I would rather donate or pay a subscription fee than see ads. I do make such payments. I suspect any amount of money that I give is more valuable than any number of ad impressions I might've created.
2. Ads carry a risk of malware. I have no reason to think any ad delivery network applies sufficient scrutiny to assure the security of the computers that I manage.
3. "Unobtrusive" ads are frequently misleading, being tangentially related to internet searches and usually ranked ahead of legitimate search results.
4. I have no obligation as a user to look at ads, any more than I have an obligation to view television commercials. I have tools to eliminate them, and I will do so.

Just an FYI, I'll be stealing this verbatim for future arguments elsewhere.

 

[sechs]

1. False. There are non-intrusive ads. Web pages are, for better or worse, designed to have the ads in them. Eliminating ads often just leaves an empty space. So, nothing is gained.
1a. Irrelevant.
2. False. The Internet carries a risk of malware. You do not block the entire Internet. Ads are no more inherently dangerous than the way that they are delivered, none of which are unique to ads.
3. False. You confuse "obtrusive" with "annoying." You find all ads annoying; that doesn't make them obtrusive (or intrusive, for that matter). Ads are ads; they don't have to be related to what you're doing.
4. Irrelevant.

 

[time]

I'd like to walk both sides of the street here.

I think Sechs has some valid points. I do worry about breaking the 'free' internet content model. It's important to remember that just because Merc is prepared to donate or subscribe, that may not apply for the next 99 people. For starters, if you're poor or otherwise financially constrained, giving people money for something that is otherwise free doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Having said that, I tend to frequent websites with only limited advertising, or often none at all. Take this very forum, for example. But in general, I can easily ignore 'still' advertisements - video ads are a whole different story.

And I really, really can't stand ads in the middle of a movie or good TV drama. I'm adept at 'tuning them out' and couldn't tell you what the ads were about, but they ruin the continuity and atmosphere that makes some programs so special.

 

[Mercutio]

1. False. There are non-intrusive ads. Web pages are, for better or worse, designed to have the ads in them. Eliminating ads often just leaves an empty space. So, nothing is gained.

If nothing else, white space is gained, making the page less crowded and easier to read. I'm still willing to call that a win.

2. False. The Internet carries a risk of malware. You do not block the entire Internet. Ads are no more inherently dangerous than the way that they are delivered, none of which are unique to ads.

Advertisements presented through typical ad networks might involve as many as five parties between the person creating the content and the device on which the content is delivered. For hosted non-local, non-ad content (e.g. .ISO files from Technet), there will be direct scrutiny of the data from its provider, but in the case of ads, you're asking that I trust that someone along the line took the time to ensure that the content being sent to clients is secure. I'm willing to trust that the nice folks at, say, CNN.com aren't going to do anything to harm my computer with their code, but I can't say I have the same level of Trust for CNN's ad delivery network's advertiser's ad agency's web development team's script guy.

3. False. You confuse "obtrusive" with "annoying." You find all ads annoying; that doesn't make them obtrusive (or intrusive, for that matter). Ads are ads; they don't have to be related to what you're doing.

Visible ads separate from the content that I am viewing are most certainly obtrusive since they remove me from the thought process of scanning and comprehending that actual content. Yes, it's only a momentary distraction, but the fact that I'm being asked to deal with it at all is, by definition an unwelcome intrusion on my thought processes.

tl;dr: There needs to be a better way for supporting the web because advertisements sure as hell aren't it.

 

[sechs]

If nothing else, white space is gained, making the page less crowded and easier to read. I'm still willing to call that a win.

Frankly, a website minus the ads often looks ridiculous. There really is nothing gained, and the awkward layout is distracting.

Advertisements presented through typical ad networks might involve as many as five parties between the person creating the content and the device on which the content is delivered. For hosted non-local, non-ad content (e.g. .ISO files from Technet), there will be direct scrutiny of the data from its provider, but in the case of ads, you're asking that I trust that someone along the line took the time to ensure that the content being sent to clients is secure. I'm willing to trust that the nice folks at, say, CNN.com aren't going to do anything to harm my computer with their code, but I can't say I have the same level of Trust for CNN's ad delivery network's advertiser's ad agency's web development team's script guy.

I don't read CNN, as they're such a poor place for news; but I haven't found any large content website that doesn't use a number of external providers for services. If you trust a website not to cause you any problems, then you should trust who they trust; otherwise, you really don't trust them at all.

Visible ads separate from the content that I am viewing are most certainly obtrusive since they remove me from the thought process of scanning and comprehending that actual content. Yes, it's only a momentary distraction, but the fact that I'm being asked to deal with it at all is, by definition an unwelcome intrusion on my thought processes.

Life is full of distractions. You do not block life.

tl;dr: There needs to be a better way for supporting the web because advertisements sure as hell aren't it.

Too lazy; didn't read?

Advertizing is the best way to support sites, because people prefer to get stuff for free. The more that you try to avoid it, the more difficult they will make it for you to avoid.