addons.mozilla.org

[TableDroid12]

There is a "Sponsored extensions" zone that is not hidden here:

Code: Select all

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

[fanboy]

Seems to a self promo, happy to leave it.

Add addons.mozilla.org##.PromotedAddonsCard if you need too.

[TableDroid12]

It's not, it's promotion for third-party software, paid by those third-parties.

[fanboy]

https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/gif/firefox-ext.gif

Seems to be linking to other extensions. Still self-promo.

[TableDroid12]

Is it self-promo because it is linking to the same site (but then it would be at odds with other Easylist removals of sponsored content linking to the same site) or because those Honey, AdBlock, Linguix.com spell checker... extensions, whose third-party developers pay Mozilla to appear in a promotion area, are somehow not considered third-party because their extensions are developed for Firefox, which seems like a stretch ? I am trying to understand better the Easylist policy to avoid making inappropriate reports. Are there similar cases of third-party paid promoted content considered as self-promo, that would help me understand the do and don't ?

[GamOfCatAndOfMouse]

"Sponsored" is an ad, not a self promotion. Amazon use the same trick. Is it "legal" for adblocking rules?

[Yuki]

Is it self-promo because it is linking to the same site

Though I'm not in a responsible place to answer, I think the answer is in part yes. Paid/sponsored or not is irrelevant (some of self-promo are actually paid contents and EL doesn't generally block sponsored articles aka native ads), these are all links to Mozilla-provided addons. It's fact that EL removes some self-promo and the policy states:

Self-promotion should not be specifically removed by EasyList, although equally should not be allowed if it is blocked.

Often these are in grey-area, but everyone needs to understand what you want to remove is sometimes what others want not to remove. EL only removes what almost all ad-block user agree to be useless ads. As a contributor I fully agree that one should not be removed by EL, but it can be removed by Annoyance list - this is why there is/are Annoyance list(s) to meet as much user's needs as possible. Another example of self-promotion here: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/5866 I guess those who report self-promo as ads are so accustomed to ad-blocking that they forgot how invasive real third-party ads are. Turn off your blocker and browse various sites to remember them.

[TableDroid12]

Paid/sponsored or not is irrelevant (some of self-promo are actually paid contents and EL doesn't generally block sponsored articles aka native ads),

I read here from the Liste FR maintainer that Liste FR blocks all forms of advertising content: third-party ads, sponsored content, advertorials...

viewtopic.php?p=151216#p151216

Here Amazon sponsored products, where others paid so that they appear higher in the results, are not considered as something useful by Liste FR, and are removed:

viewtopic.php?f=91&t=18444

The Liste FR seems to block deliberately Amazon's sponsored content with amazon.fr##[class*="-sponsored-"] if I understand the filter correctly.

Are there really no similar examples of the international Easylist removing same site sponsored content deliberately ? Is it a difference in policy with Liste FR ?

I remember Ghacks having same site sponsored articles in the past, and then a filter update promptly removing them, suggesting that it was deliberately removing them, but I am not sure if that was Easylist or another list like Annoyances or some of the uBlock filters doing it. I see commits like that referencing this specific site

https://github.com/easylist/easylist/co ... 5b34721de2
https://github.com/easylist/easylist/co ... 5ce0616f4f

and a current cosmetic rule ghacks.net##.category-sponsored for this site's sponsored content too, but I am not sure if they were targeting sponsored content linking to the same site or not.

Another example of self-promotion here: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/5866

This one does not seem to be sponsored content ?

My naive interpretation of the "self-promotion" policy is that if someone visits a site that sells carpets to buy carpets, he may not mind the site telling him how wonderful his carpets are, and may find it useful to know that the site sells premium carpets too, even if he is against ads. But I do not understand how an adblocker user would find it useful (or any more useful than the usual third party ads) a sponsored article or someone else paying the site to alter the rankings of displayed products to be less relevant for the visitor and more for the payer, it looks like it brings only negative value to the adblocker using visitor. Just my two cents here, I don't know how the experienced Liste FR contributors see the problem exactly.

As a contributor I fully agree that one should not be removed by EL, but it can be removed by Annoyance list - this is why there is/are Annoyance list(s) to meet as much user's needs as possible.

The problem with the Annoyance lists is that they are less often enabled by default, and what we are talking about looks more like ads than annoyances. For example the Adguard filter policy defines annoyances as

elements on the page that are not ads but obstruct view and make it harder to see the actual content of the website. Such elements as cookie notices, third-party widgets, in-page popups, email subscription forms, banners with special offers and aggressively placed social media widgets.

[Yuki]

EL hides Amazon sponosored products and there're other examples. As I said these are grey-zone and it's well possible these are false positive for some people. Grey-zone means the decision depends heavily on the maintainer's sense of balance than a simple algorithmic logic. AdGuard don't block Rakuten RPP ads which is exactly the same scheme as Amazon sponoserd ads and the reason is:

Ads on rakuten are just the same items, but with label and at more profitable positions on the page.

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardF ... -632644028
AG also has allowlist for search ads enabled by default, and we got a FP report which they couldn't get the destination due to a DNS rule blocking an ad-server when the reporter clicked search ads. What I wanna say is people need to understand how versatile users' needs are, and it's simply impossible to meet all of them by single list. I used to complain about missed staff before started to contribute and understand reality. Annoyances lists should NOT be enabled by default, they should only be enabled by user.

[krystian3w]

Problem number "2":

1. In Firefox 60 and newer you'll also have to remove AMO domain from extensions.webextensions.restrictedDomains in about:config.
    
2. To allow access open about:config,
   • right-click the list,
   • click 'New',
   • then 'Boolean',
   • paste privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager and click OK, true, OK. page.
3. reload the addons.mozilla.org

[TableDroid12]

Discussion on uAssets:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/8114

[TableDroid12]

They declined removing the ad by default too, saying it should be in Fanboy's Annoyance List instead.