[Antisocial] Twitter image blocked

[Marijo]

Hi Hubird!

This image

Code: Select all

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/topics/368-twitter.jpg

is blocked by this filter

Code: Select all

-twitter.$domain=~twitter.com

on this page
http://www.ibtimes.com/sections/tech/

If you follow the link of the blocked image (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/368/twitter/), you can see that Antisocial blocks even more images with "twitter" or "facebook" in their URL.

On the Adversity homepage Antisocial is defined as

...subscription aims to block social integration from third-party sites, saving you some bandwidth and in turn speeding up page load times.

If resources are coming from a first-party server, then why are they being filtered? Is Antisocial's goal to wipe out social networking from the IntarWeb or just block third-party access to prevent tracking and wasting bandwidth? I think right now it's something in between...


Regards,
Marijo

[Hubird]

I've added a domain exception to the twitter rule, I could not see anything else being blocked that shouldn't be


The problem is that I don't want to have to resort to endless site specific rules (for the sake of my free time and to make the list as effective as possible on unknown pages). To that end I have made the list fairly general, unfortunately the amount of sites which seem to use a similar naming convention for "legit" content is higher than I originally anticipated.

Any of those little social icons are obviously fair game (first or third-party), as are social feeds. Obviously I would like to have Facebook, Twitter etc home pages all work fine. I've also seen sites use Facebook for comments, this sort of thing should not be blocked.

If you have some suggestion I'd like to hear them

[Marijo]

I've added a domain exception to the twitter rule, I could not see anything else being blocked that shouldn't be

Thanks!

If you have some suggestion I'd like to hear them

It is difficult for me to make suggestions because I lack the experience of creating/maintaining a filter list but in order to reduce the amount of "false positives" how about only blocking third-party requests? For example:
- example.com loads social network-related resources from Facebook/Twitter/etc. --> Antisocial blocks third-party requests which prevents tracking and wasting bandwidth. That's what it's already doing right now with great success!
- example.com loads social network-related resources from from its own (sub-)domain --> Antisocial should do nothing. Currently, Antisocial removes these resources too.

IMHO Antisocial is a bit too aggressive. It should focus more on the tracking/bandwidth aspect of filtering content. I "think" this would make it easier for you to maintain it in the long run (less false positives and thus less whitelisting).

To that end I have made the list fairly general, unfortunately the amount of sites which seem to use a similar naming convention for "legit" content is higher than I originally anticipated.

That's the whole point of my "complaint". I can report to you pretty much every day about websites with missing pictures, sometimes even leading to broken page layout. If Antisocial would be a bit less "trigger-happy", it could almost maintain itself!

[Marijo]

Well, I've done some testing: All filters are disabled except the "$third-party" ones (including all ||).
2 things I've noticed:
- The current filter list is really thorough. It fully deserves to be called "Antisocial"! Nothing gets past it!
- With my reduced version, icons slip through but that's about it. Still no unnecessary third-party requests and the whitelist can be reduced to a bare minimum.

[joebloggs26]

IMHO Antisocial is a bit too aggressive. It should focus more on the tracking/bandwidth aspect of filtering content. I "think" this would make it easier for you to maintain it in the long run (less false positives and thus less whitelisting).

I tend to agree. In my case, it was blocking the "printable version" links on a number of news sites, including The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, Forbes, Reuters, The Register, Time and Newsweek. The blocking rule in effect was different in each case, making it difficult to identify and disable.

In the end, I gave up and disabled the whole list. It's a shame, because I don't use any of the so-called social services and hate seeing their icons everywhere, littering web pages like bird droppings.

[Marijo]

joebloggs26, I just checked out all pages you listed here, and printing works in all of them except csmonitor.com:

Code: Select all

http://cache.addthiscdn.com/icons/v1/thumbs/32x32/print.png

is blocked by

Code: Select all

||addthiscdn.com^$domain=~addthis.com

and hidden by

Code: Select all

##.addthis_toolbox

[reepicheep]

Is Antisocial's goal to wipe out social networking from the IntarWeb or just block third-party access to prevent tracking and wasting bandwidth? I think right now it's something in between...

Whether or not Hubird's Antisocial list is predicated on wiping out social networking sites that it can remove most of the idiotic phallanx of icons leading to those site is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. That it prevents tracking is an equal reason for using it.

[Hubird]

joebloggs26, I just checked out all pages you listed here, and printing works in all of them except csmonitor.com:

csmonitor.com been fixed by adding a domain exception to the hiding rules and using a generic whitelist which with any luck will help prevent this sort of print button bring blocked in the future.

I would like to continue blocking those pesky social buttons but I am willing to consider removing rules that are overly problematic. I can also try to make future a little more specific.

At the moment site specific rules are not added to the Antisocial subscription, perhaps this is something I should reconsider.

[Marijo]

I would like to continue blocking those pesky social buttons but I am willing to consider removing rules that are overly problematic.

I agree. If a rule is a repeated offender (-->false positives) and those buttons are first-party, then I'd too just remove it.

At the moment site specific rules are not added to the Antisocial subscription, perhaps this is something I should reconsider.

I'm not sure what's better in the long run but for a pretty generic filter list, Antisocial is doing a great job!