Including ad blocking in the browser core

Talk about code development, features, specific bugs, enhancements, patches, and similar things.
Forum rules
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific bugs, git, the repositories, etc.

This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.

Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
User avatar
BlakeyRat
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 52
Joined: 2014-02-13, 12:34
Location: Hell

Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by BlakeyRat » 2022-05-03, 00:49

Moonchild wrote:
2022-03-08, 10:46
BlakeyRat wrote:
2022-03-07, 23:17
In my opinion, it should be built into Palemoon.
No, it should not, because then you preclude anyone else from making the choice which content blocker they want to use.
Your convenience of saving a few minutes installing an extension is not an argument to reduce other people's choice of features.
Given the nature of the Internet, I consider a content blocker to be a core feature that should exist in all browsers.

Palemoon has many features that can be enabled or disabled. There is no reason why a content blocker can't be part of the browser - with the ability to disable it if you want to use something else. Just as Windows comes with a text editor and media player, but you can always use something else if you want.

It has nothing to do with convenience or trying to limit someone's choices.

We have all had the experience of installing an extension that is buggy and doesn't work properly. We have all had an extension that we really like but the author has lost interest and stopped development, and eventually it is no longer compatible with newer versions of your browser.

That is my point. If a content blocker is part of the browser then it is being tested and updated just like all the other parts of the browser, and the user doesn't have to depend on some third party who may or may not continue development of an extension.

User avatar
Mæstro
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 459
Joined: 2019-08-13, 00:30
Location: Casumia

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by Mæstro » 2022-05-03, 04:06

BlakeyRat wrote:
2022-05-03, 00:49
If a content blocker is part of the browser then it is being tested and updated just like all the other parts of the browser, and the user doesn't have to depend on some third party who may or may not continue development of an extension.
Pale Moon has not the resources for this. The team was already small before III 2022, when it suffered its biggest loss yet. Content blockers, like µBlock Origin and ηMatrix, exist and work robustly as Pale Moon advances, but the core development team cannot spare to build, test and maintain another beside these.
Browser: Pale Moon (Pusser’s repository for Debian)
Operating System: Linux Mint Debian Edition 4 (amd64)
※Receiving Debian 10 LTS security upgrades
Hardware: HP Pavilion DV6-7010 (1400 MHz, 6 GB)
Formerly user TheRealMaestro: æsc is the best letter.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-05-03, 05:37

BlakeyRat wrote:
2022-05-03, 00:49
Given the nature of the Internet, I consider a content blocker to be a core feature that should exist in all browsers.
Yes, you do. Others don't. Which is why a robust extension mechanism exists in the first place, letting each person decide whether and what addons to use or not use, and multiple choices of adblocker based on individual preferences. Pale Moon sticks to the original vision of a browser - an application that renders multimedia documents hosted across different physical servers (as opposed to being a virtual machine for shitty 'web apps' with each one running in its own process). Pre judging and blocking content no more comes under the purview than for a word processor to automatically censor foul language while viewing or editing.
BlakeyRat wrote:
2022-05-03, 00:49
...should exist in all browsers.
It has nothing to do with convenience or trying to limit someone's choices.
Pick one. The choice not to have a content blocker or other feature foisted on you when you would prefer not to have one or use something else is absent from Chromezilla land. Brave browser has its own adblocker, a pathetic, rudimentary thing with no logging of what URLs were blocked. I turn it off and use uBlock for Chrome instead. Do I have the choice to not have its components reside on my system & consume resources, be loaded with Brave when it starts or show up in the UI? Nope.
BlakeyRat wrote:
2022-05-03, 00:49
We have all had the experience of installing an extension that is buggy and doesn't work properly.
Speak for your own buggy browser profile - adblockers for Pale Moon have been functioning robustly for everybody else. And when it or any other extension doesn't work properly, contact the damn extension author, not the browser vendor!!!
BlakeyRat wrote:
2022-05-03, 00:49
That is my point. If a content blocker is part of the browser then it is being tested and updated just like all the other parts of the browser, and the user doesn't have to depend on some third party who may or may not continue development of an extension.
There is nothing to constantly test or update in the context of Pale Moon. If you're accustomed to the retarded ADHD 'move fast and break things' mindset of virtually everyone else in the software industry these days, that's different. XUL/XPCOM is mature technology, not something that gets changed every fortnight for shits and giggles, and the only update an adblocker for Pale Moon needs are its subscription lists (which they all automatically manage to do just fine).
In the last 7 years of using Pale Moon I can recall exactly one occasion when extensions (ancient ones at that) broke due to API changes - when non standard watch/unwatch functions were removed from the Javascript engine in PM 28.

Forgot to add - there already are a few extensions here maintained by Moonchild - from Pale Moon Commander to Suspender - making use of the same existing extension mechanism without burdening the browser core. Firefox did the opposite - got rid of XUL extensions and started bloating the browser with features that should've been extensions (and they used to have their own extensions pre 2015 as well).
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
back2themoon
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2358
Joined: 2012-08-19, 20:32

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by back2themoon » 2022-05-03, 06:31

BlakeyRat wrote:
2022-05-03, 00:49
Given the nature of the Internet, I consider a content blocker to be a core feature that should exist in all browsers.
By default, you are supposed to browse the Internet, not block it.

User avatar
daemonspudguy
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 121
Joined: 2020-04-22, 18:47
Location: Marietta, Ohio, USA, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by daemonspudguy » 2022-05-03, 10:47

moonbat wrote:
2022-05-03, 05:37
There is nothing to constantly test or update in the context of Pale Moon. If you're accustomed to the retarded ADHD 'move fast and break things' mindset of virtually everyone else in the software industry these days, that's different.
If you could not use a slur used against disabled people, I'd appreciate it.

User avatar
ron_1
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2851
Joined: 2012-06-28, 01:20

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by ron_1 » 2022-05-03, 13:42

This is getting way off topic (and probably should be locked), but here's my .02¢ . . . I have Vivaldi as a secondary browser, and it has its own add blocker. I keep it off, and use uBlock Origin on it, so the one built in the browser is useless for me and doing nothing but taking up (digital) space. I suspect the same thing would happen for a lot of Pale Moon users if there were a built in add blocker in it.

User avatar
R3n_001
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 60
Joined: 2019-05-25, 20:39
Contact:

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by R3n_001 » 2022-05-03, 14:04

I have to say that I don't like the idea of having a built in adblocker. I use uBlock Origin in all of my browsers, Pale Moon, Waterfox Classic, Firefox Developer Edition, etc, and I like it that way. I don't want a worse adblocker added to the browser that takes up CPU cycles and RAM even if it's disabled.

coffeebreak
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2986
Joined: 2015-09-26, 04:51
Location: U.S.

Re: A change of direction for Pale Moon in 2022

Unread post by coffeebreak » 2022-05-03, 14:21

ron_1 wrote:
2022-05-03, 13:42
This is getting way off topic...
Well... BlakeyRat's request has ZERO to do with the topic of this thread.
Maybe it's possible for it to get moved to a more appropriate board,,,?
Off-topic:
Would suggest that he (or anyone) read this interesting discussion, and give some thought to Moonchild's post there.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35403
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-05-03, 15:29

BlakeyRat wrote:
2022-05-03, 00:49
It has nothing to do with convenience or trying to limit someone's choices.
I beg to differ.

If blocking functionality becomes part of the browser core, then that will always be part of the browser, regardless if you decide to disable it through some means. It does relate to convenience in that an embedded blocker will not require a user to find a blocking extension. It also biases the choice of which solution to use very strongly in favour of what would be supplied with the browser. Also, what if there is a conflict with the blocking core feature and a blocking extension? Doesn't that limit user's choice?

Short of re-posting my PoV that I already posted before on this forum, I'll just quote a most relevant part of the thread helpfully pointed out by coffeebreak:
Moonchild wrote:A browser is an enabling application - at its heart it is a remote document viewer. The many extensions that only a relatively small (but vocal) percentage of users insist on to limit or restrict this enabling capacity are exactly that: they extend the browser to work more specifically in a way you would possibly want, which is not necessarily shared with the majority. That does, of course, mean that you must place additional trust in the developers of such extensions; or write your own if you decide not to trust anyone else.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9341#p63172

Also, as already pointed out we don't have (and never had) the capacity to maintain a full-fledged blocking feature in the browser. The scope of that and its required daily maintenance keeps teams much larger than our group busy enough to be their own entire companies/organisations. Not to mention how regionally sensitive all of this is, as well. How do you think we'd be able to provide something that is relevant in comparison? And why would we want to invest in something clearly less usable/useful than what already exists in the form of extensions?
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
andyprough
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 688
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by andyprough » 2022-05-03, 16:26

We don't need a built-in ad blocker, what we need is for Pale Moon to switch protocols to only browsing gemini space. Boom - no more ads, ever. Problem solved. :coffee:

User avatar
mseliger
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 114
Joined: 2016-02-17, 10:53
Contact:

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by mseliger » 2022-05-03, 17:13

It would be fine, if PaleMoon would support the gemini-protocol too - but not only. A browser who support both is e. g. Kristall.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Greetings
Maria
---
Ich bin ein Westfale, und zwar ein Stockwestfale, nämlich ein Münsterländer – Gott sei Dank! füge ich hinzu ...
Annette von Droste zu Hülshoff, Bei uns zu Lande auf dem Lande

User avatar
Pentium4User
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1104
Joined: 2019-04-24, 09:38

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by Pentium4User » 2022-05-03, 17:41

Gopher would also be nice :-)
The profile picture shows my Maico EC30 E ceiling fan.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35403
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-05-03, 17:45

gemini is very gopher-like and could be implemented as an extension.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35403
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-05-03, 17:45

Pentium4User wrote:
2022-05-03, 17:41
Gopher would also be nice :-)
see: overbite extension
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
pale guru
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 61
Joined: 2021-11-06, 11:10
Location: Tyskland

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by pale guru » 2022-05-04, 01:25

If a larger percentage of web users would use ${protocol}, the ad industry would spare no effort to engage in that field, I suppose.

However, there is a reason content blocking was part of addons: Addons can adjust to new ways and means in the neverending 'race' of blocking and blocking-circumvention than any browser could do.
… tanning in dimmed LCD light. – Evry 1′s a beginner, baby, that's the truth…

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-05-05, 06:41

pale guru wrote:
2022-05-04, 01:25
If a larger percentage of web users would use ${protocol}, the ad industry would spare no effort to engage in that field, I suppose.
The web won out over everything else (NNTP for forums, IRC for chat, proper POP3/IMAP/SMTP for mail, gopher as a directory search) for exactly that reason - not being a text only format, you can mix images and videos with it and thus use advertising. All the rest are plain text protocols that evolved long before GUIs were the norm.
daemonspudguy wrote:
2022-05-03, 10:47
If you could not use a slur used against disabled people, I'd appreciate it.
If you remove the giant rod up your fundament that prevents you from understanding context and nuance for the sake of political correctness, you'll appreciate it even more.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
ron_1
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2851
Joined: 2012-06-28, 01:20

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by ron_1 » 2022-05-05, 13:13

moonbat wrote:
2022-05-05, 06:41
If you remove the giant rod up your fundament that prevents you from understanding context and nuance for the sake of political correctness, you'll appreciate it even more.
I don't like all this "political correctness" either. But maybe, just maybe, he, or someone he knows, suffers from one of the issues you mentioned. I can see someone in that position not liking comments like that. Just saying.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-05-05, 13:20

Unless English isn't his native tongue, which seems to be unlikely, it should be quite obvious that I am not referring to people with actual disabilities. This is exactly what political correctness is all about - fuck nuance or context and just blindly visually challenged-ly get offended at the use of words.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
Mæstro
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 459
Joined: 2019-08-13, 00:30
Location: Casumia

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by Mæstro » 2022-05-05, 14:38

Returning to the topic, Epiphany blocks adverts through EasyList and EasyPrivacy's blacklists by default, but these cannot be broadened. It needs this because it supports no extensions, and while I can tolerate it, it is worse than µBlock Origin’s default settings. Pale Moon is modular: one can adapt it to be as strict as one chooses. Users vary in how much Web breakage or privacy leaking they can tolerate. Blocking to plug the gap by default means confused newbies crowding this forum (think of NoScript). A more generous blocker, like Epiphany’s, fails at its job for skilled users. Meeting everybody’s needs by default is hopeless, and besides, our goal has been your browser, your way.
Browser: Pale Moon (Pusser’s repository for Debian)
Operating System: Linux Mint Debian Edition 4 (amd64)
※Receiving Debian 10 LTS security upgrades
Hardware: HP Pavilion DV6-7010 (1400 MHz, 6 GB)
Formerly user TheRealMaestro: æsc is the best letter.

User avatar
daemonspudguy
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 121
Joined: 2020-04-22, 18:47
Location: Marietta, Ohio, USA, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Including ad blocking in the browser core

Unread post by daemonspudguy » 2022-05-05, 17:10

ron_1 wrote:
2022-05-05, 13:13
moonbat wrote:
2022-05-05, 06:41
If you remove the giant rod up your fundament that prevents you from understanding context and nuance for the sake of political correctness, you'll appreciate it even more.
I don't like all this "political correctness" either. But maybe, just maybe, he, or someone he knows, suffers from one of the issues you mentioned. I can see someone in that position not liking comments like that. Just saying.
I do suffer from those issues. Also, please use they/them pronouns when referring to me.

Locked