13

[Whatever] Stack Exchange requires external JavaScript from another domain, which is blocked or failed to load.

I am now getting this 'banner warning' when I visit any Stack Exchange site using Firefox. However, everything seems to work fine in Chrome. I use Firefox because IMO they are not quite as bad as Google is, so please - let's not have any suggestions to switch to Chrome. I looked into what settings in Firefox need be changed to allow this ("cross domain scripting"), but I got a tidal wave of documentation which I can't (won't) read & wouldn't understand without a massive investment of my time.

Also, this question has been asked (and sometimes answered) many times here. I would call it a "chronic problem". But it seems that there's not one answer - except that "it depends", which is not particularly helpful. "The answer" it seems, could be one or more of many things - which you will see if you spend an hour reading through the "Similar questions" list as I just have. My firewall blocks nothing when I enter URL ajax.googleapis.com in Firefox, it goes here:

I'd be willing to make an exception for cross domain scripting from Stack Exchange (which may not even be the problem). But I don't feel it's in anyone's best interests to allow "cross domain scripting" from all sites.

Is there a "prescription" for this ailment in Firefox that doesn't require 'shields down'?

  • 1
    @Rob: I don't think so. My firewall blocks nothing, tho' I do use an ad-blocker to keep my sanity. Hmmm... I've just discovered something: whitelisting stackexchange.com makes the 'banner warning' disappear. I guess I'll write this up as "Yet Another Answer" to this plague inflicted on us by Google. Thanks for yr cmt - it helped! – Seamus Jan 23 at 18:28
  • 1
    @Rob: Is there an existing answer that covers the ad blocker? – Seamus Jan 23 at 18:37
  • 1
    Seamus, an exact duplicate here isn't jumping out right away; but throughout the network this seems like a common complaint: stackexchange.com/search?q=banner+domain+javascript but this answer might be the most helpful: meta.mathoverflow.net/a/4382/122794 (an "ate the wrong cookies" due to connectivity type of solution). I can set aside some time in the next few hours but I suspect other assistance will arrive sooner. – Rob Jan 23 at 19:03
  • 1
    Related (has information about required domains for JavaScript content): Which browsers are officially supported, and what else do I need? – Peter Mortensen Jan 24 at 21:36
  • 1
    Using NoScript is the way to go (even if Steve Gibson became too lazy to continue using it). – Peter Mortensen Jan 24 at 21:50
6

Rob's comment (above) triggered "more thinking", and I quickly found the culprit: I use an 'add-on' in Firefox called AdBlockPlus. I've used it for years, and never had a problem with Stack Exchange sites. However, when I added stackexchange.com to its whitelist, the 'banner warning' disappeared.

So - question in an answer:

What changed? What switch was flipped, who flipped it and why isn't the privacy of my personal data or my time considered by these "switch flippers"?

With that out of the way, there are a couple of other things I'd like to add to this answer:

  1. I make it a rule to avoid sites that block visitors who run adblockers. My whitelist included only four other URLs before adding stackexchange.com. I'll stick my neck out, and risk being called a Luddite or a crank, by saying that I do not believe anyone has the right to spray annoying ads and all of the other crap we see just because we choose to visit their website. I also feel the tracking and ads practices (mostly promulgated by Google) have gotten out of hand.

  2. With respect to adblockers: This has turned into a war of escalation! Google has recently made changes that block the adblockers!. So yeah - Google is manipulative and will move heaven and earth to get the data that feeds the monkey - our personal data.

  • 1
    As much as tracking and all is debatable, what you're saying about ads is : "no one should ask me to pay anything when I want to read something". All in all, if you're dissatisfied with a site, no one force you to visit it neither. – Tensibai Jan 25 at 9:37
  • 2
    @Tensibai: I feel your comment is misleading. First: You can never know exactly where you're going, or what you'll see, when you click a link. Second, once you get there, the cookies have been deposited, and the "visit" has become part of your "permanent record". And so, my "satisfaction" is negative, I choose never to visit again, but the visit has been recorded, and the record is sold to whoever will pay Google's price. Finally, I'm happy to "pay", but I feel I should know what the "price" is beforehand. That's fundamental to free markets. – Seamus Jan 25 at 16:25
  • That's not my point, you're clearly stating no one should use ads when you visit a site: quoting you "I do not believe anyone has the right to spray annoying ads", which is the same as saying: "I do not believe I should have to pay for a book" – Tensibai Jan 26 at 11:06
  • @Tensibai: That is a completely preposterous conclusion. Have you always struggled with logic, or are you deliberately being thick? – Seamus Jan 26 at 20:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .