←back to thread

All extensions disabled due to expiration of intermediate signing cert

(bugzilla.mozilla.org)
1318 points xvector | 6 comments | 04 May 19 01:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.68s | source | bottom
Show context
Chirael ◴[04 May 19 03:19 UTC] No.19824201[source]▶
Just discovered the same message in the Tor browser, and it seems that NoScript got disabled. So people running Tor are a lot more vulnerable right now.

Also, wow, the web has a ton of ads. I've been running uBlock origin so long I forgot how bad it had gotten :(

replies(9): >>19824208 #>>19824291 #>>19824333 #>>19824345 #>>19824397 #>>19825657 #>>19826085 #>>19826417 #>>19827286 #
mrep ◴[04 May 19 04:13 UTC] No.19824397[source]▶
> Also, wow, the web has a ton of ads. I've been running uBlock origin so long I forgot how bad it had gotten :(

Try turning it off. I got rid of ublock after arstechnica complained about a lot of their users blocking ads years ago and it honestly isn't that bad. Every once in a while I do back out of a page for maxing out one of my cpu cores but otherwise, nothing ever bad happens. With ads: either it takes me half a second to tell I'm not interested in an ad, or I actually am interested and i follow the ad because I am interested and I want to support the website.

The alternative is websites charging insane amounts of money with paywalls (Wall street journal has their "best" price for 12 months at $360 a year). That is horrible because it means only rich people can pay for high quality news as ads are one of the most progressive forms of payment (rich people ads are way more valuable than poor peoples and yet everyone gets the same quality services/news with the ad model despite their income/net worth).

replies(6): >>19824449 #>>19824487 #>>19824562 #>>19825635 #>>19825859 #>>19852034 #
hnaccy ◴[04 May 19 04:38 UTC] No.19824487[source]▶
>nothing ever bad happens. With ads: either it takes me half a second to tell I'm not interested in an ad, or I actually am interested and i follow the ad because I am interested and I want to support the website.

You just described something bad.

replies(2): >>19824518 #>>19824533 #
mrep ◴[04 May 19 04:46 UTC] No.19824518[source]▶
Assuming you mean that half second looking at the ad: Name a better alternative for funding the internet. Paywalls at every website?
replies(3): >>19824581 #>>19825276 #>>19825868 #
Nicksil ◴[04 May 19 05:09 UTC] No.19824581[source]▶
>Assuming you mean that half second looking at the ad: Name a better alternative for funding the internet. Paywalls at every website?

Funding the Internet? What you're talking about (ads) is a revenue stream for what amounts to a handful of websites. google.com, amazon.com, ycombinator.com, reddit.com, thefacebook.com, tweeter.com, etc. could all go offline right now and the Internet would still be here.

replies(1): >>19824737 #
1. gugagore ◴[04 May 19 06:02 UTC] No.19824737[source]▶
That doesn't sound right. What about all the other websites with ads, like recipe sites, guitar chords, porn, diy, etc.? or apps on the Google play store with ads?
replies(2): >>19824827 #>>19824904 #
2. luckylion ◴[04 May 19 06:37 UTC] No.19824827[source]▶
I run sites that don't have ads. I don't make any money off of them. I still run them. Seems like a lot of people in software development think similarly.
replies(2): >>19825833 #>>19844817 #
3. Nicksil ◴[04 May 19 06:59 UTC] No.19824904[source]▶
I don't understand your question; what about them? The websites are just nodes of the Internet. And I don't understand at all why you brought up Google app store apps, so I'll refrain from commenting on that until I better understand your point.
replies(1): >>19824982 #
4. gugagore ◴[04 May 19 07:22 UTC] No.19824982[source]▶
It doesn't feel like a handful of websites. It feels like the dominant experience of the internet for most people. Ads are a source of revenue for many more websites than just a handful. They are also a source of revenue for more than a handful of apps. I
5. sleavey ◴[04 May 19 11:36 UTC] No.19825833[source]▶
This is the web that I like. Hobbyists and volunteers running low-fi websites for common interests. I'm not against commercial sites like Netflix but don't think every last blog should be monetised.
6. ajoy39 ◴[06 May 19 23:04 UTC] No.19844817[source]▶
How do you pay your bills? If running those websites were your full time job, would you still be okay not making any money off of them? Or have you just decided that only people who have other income should have websites?