stan: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:48:08 +0200 > "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> from what I read at https://adnauseam.io/, AdNauseam does something >> else, and its purpose has nothing to do with performance. It DOES >> download >> the ads, specifically to "click" on them. Why do you say that it >> could make >> Firefox faster? > > I can see how your interpretation fits, but I read it differently. I > read it as having ad-block functionality *plus* being able to examine > the ads and set to click them if desired. That is, that it can serve > as an ad blocker, but if desired, can download and click the ads. I > haven't looked at any code, and have nothing but my interpretation to > back that, so you could be correct. > > I noticed no difference in responsiveness when I installed adnauseum, > and I don't use an ad blocker per se. I have noscript and privacy > badger installed, though, and they block content that would come from > ad servers. So, it is possible that adnauseum functions as you think, > and I am just not seeing the effect because of these other plugins. > > In favor of my interpretation, I also run firefox nightly, right now > the future firefox 58. Because of the move to web extension plugins > from xulrunner plugins in 57 and newer, older noscript and privacy > badger plugins don't work in nightly. Adnauseum does run, yet I see no > ads, and responsiveness is excellent. > _______________________________________________ I still prefer ublock origin :) _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
