wreegab
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
Nowwhere did I say pages with the x-adblock-key were not respecting the "Acceptable ads" setting.
I said that there are more whitelisted sites than just what is presented as the only list in the section titled "How can I see what you are allowing?" on ABP's reference page regarding "acceptable ads" [1].
But I also have one problem regarding Adblock Plus' "acceptable ads" openness.
When I read about their "acceptable ads" approach, I am led to believe the "acceptable ads" list contains all the sites which are whitelisted for purpose of "acceptable ads". I am invited to consult the list to see for myself which sites qualify.[1]
Problem is, many web sites are not whitelisted through that publicly available list, but through the x-adblock-key HTTP header (which is not something disclosed up front to users).
So in fact there is really a public list and a private list it appears (through the x-adblock-key header), while the public list is presented as all there is to "acceptable ads".
When I read this, my thoughts went to all the smart people who created something awesome while employed at a company and were never personally credited.
6. Because this doesn't leave the interlocutor time (as in hours, days) to ponder and reflect carefully.
Email is my favorite way of communicating because it's how I can think carefully.
To me, your reasoning reads as "accountability solves nothing".
Boycotting Dropbox because of Ms. Rice empowers people to bring symbolic accountability on powerful individuals who have been shielded from being held properly accountable for their actions. So many examples of individuals threatened with decades in jail for really not much, while powerful elites are shielded against being held fully accountable for their roles in infinitely worst.
Edit: On Chromium, "https://" or "http://" I get served HTML5.
So, could it be that Firefox somehow doesn't provide the proper cookie value telling the site to use HTML5 when using "https://" (I did set HTML5 pref with "https://")?
Edit: A cookie named "GED_PLAYLIST_ACTIVITY", used for "[e]ncrypted connections only", is used on Firefox only. I don't see this cookie on Chromium on an encrypted connection. So, there might be a link with the presence of this cookie and the serving of Flash-based videos.
A law to enforce one very specific business model is a terrible idea.
If only I could tip $2 the author for that video I watched and liked (like say, 10,000 other viewers) with as little overhead as possible... No donations, no subscriptions, just a tip with no further obligations. You think ad brokers would welcome this business model?