Is there an extension or some other way to prevent unrequested videos
from displaying on a website? It's very distracting to have such videos
open and play, even though they're silent, and then follow me as I
scroll down the page.

TIA
--
John C.

John C. wrote:

> Is there an extension or some other way to prevent unrequested videos
> from displaying on a website? It's very distracting to have such videos
> open and play, even though they're silent, and then follow me as I
> scroll down the page.
>
> TIA

I used to use uBlacklist extension in Chrome when I used Google as the
search engine. That would block Youtube (and other nuisance sites if you
told it too, and that's where almost all the videos came from on mine.
There is a Firefox version which I haven't tried because since switching to
DuckDuckGo with the settings I have, I don't get any videos in search
results anyway, so you might consider that as another approach. You also
lose also those unwanted "people also looked for" sections and similar - I
just get a list of text search results using Firefox and DuckDuckGo like we
used to in the "good old days." :-)

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

You know you're old when your partner says "come upstairs and make love"
and you know you can't do both.

John,

> ... to prevent unrequested videos from displaying on a website?

My (ancient) version of FF has got the setting "media.autoplay.enabled"*.
Maybe yours does too ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 10/31/23 05:30, John C. wrote:
> Is there an extension or some other way to prevent unrequested videos
> from displaying on a website? It's very distracting to have such videos
> open and play, even though they're silent, and then follow me as I
> scroll down the page.
>
> TIA

I really don't like it when pages do weird things I didn't ask for, like
those videos following the user. Also, some pages have popups triggered
by scrolling.

--
56 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are
sure of." -- Clarence Darrow

Mark,

> I really don't like it when pages do weird things I didn't ask for

Thats why I have JS disabled. And movie clips. And sounds. And have GIF and
CSS animation set to "once only".

Yep, I like static pages, why did you ask ? :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Am 31.10.23 um 11:30 schrieb John C.:
> Is there an extension or some other way to prevent unrequested videos
> from displaying on a website? It's very distracting to have such videos
> open and play, even though they're silent, and then follow me as I
> scroll down the page.

Yo need the NoScript-extension for FF:

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

It will also lift your privacy and your internet-epxerience to a new level.

HTH, Jörg

--
Alea icacta est

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 31.10.23 um 11:30 schrieb John C.:
>> Is there an extension or some other way to prevent unrequested videos
>> from displaying on a website? It's very distracting to have such videos
>> open and play, even though they're silent, and then follow me as I
>> scroll down the page.
>
> Yo need the NoScript-extension for FF:
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
>
> It will also lift your privacy and your internet-epxerience to a new level.
>

It is a bit of a pain though when using banking and shopping websites.

"Handsome Jack" <Jack@handsome.com> wrote

| > Yo need the NoScript-extension for FF:
| >
| > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
| >
| > It will also lift your privacy and your internet-epxerience to a new
level.
| >
| | It is a bit of a pain though when using banking and shopping websites.

For those situations you just enable as necessary. Personally
I don't shop online and would never bank online. But I do have
to enable script occasionally. I typically visit several news sites
where I don't enable script. But I also visit Reddit and Netflix.
At those sites I enable only their domains, blocking things like
googletagmanager.

There's also the setting in prefs, media.autoplay.enabled,
that Rudy mentioned. It's also possible to block frames and/or
iframes. Further, you can add video sources to HOSTS.
I don't see most video display at all. Not even the frozen video
image. Like Rudy, I don't like things jumping and scrolling and
moving when I'm trying to read.

I further use userContent.css. Is that still valid in FF 120+?
I don't know. I use it to stop all CSS animation, to block
fixed cookie popups, to stop CSS slideshows, and various
similar website problems.

On 31.10.23 18:14, Handsome Jack wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Am 31.10.23 um 11:30 schrieb John C.:
>>> Is there an extension or some other way to prevent unrequested videos
>>> from displaying on a website? It's very distracting to have such videos
>>> open and play, even though they're silent, and then follow me as I
>>> scroll down the page.
>>
>> Yo need the NoScript-extension for FF:
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
>>
>> It will also lift your privacy and your internet-epxerience to a new level.
>>
>
> It is a bit of a pain though when using banking and shopping websites.

I agree! NS requires a lot of finetuning before it is a real pleasure.
For shopping I use sometimes a less restricted profile without NS.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

"John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Is there an extension or some other way to prevent unrequested videos
> from displaying on a website? It's very distracting to have such videos
> open and play, even though they're silent, and then follow me as I
> scroll down the page.

about:preferences#privacy -> Permissions -> Autoplay
Clear any exceptions if you don't want any.
Set to "Block audio and video".
Be sure to click Save if you made changes.

Despite clearing all exceptions, Mozilla wants to ensure you see their
welcome video and audio, so about:welcome entries get re-added after you
clear out all exceptions. What you should see when visiting a web page
is a frame for where the video plays, but you have to click to play.

Wieser already mentioned the about:config setting of
media.autoplay.enabled. I checked for it in FF 115, but it is not
defined.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/block-autoplay

I think media.autoplay.enabled got replaced with media.autoplay.default.
The former setting was an all off/on toggle. The latter is an index to
what you selected in the autoplay settings mentioned above.

media.autoplay.default
0 = allow
1 = block audio (including audio with video)
2 = (not yet defined)
3 = (not yet defined)
4 = (not yet defined)
5 = block audio and video

Within a web session, the choice you make on a prompt becomes sticky, so
revisiting the same web page reuses your selection. I think that's
controlled by the media.autoplay.blocking_policy setting.

media.autoplay.blocking_policy
0 = sticky activation
1 = transient activation. Sticky activation until a timeout set by
dom.user_activation.transient.timeout.
2 = always require user input (mine is at 2). For example, prevents
Youtube from autoplaying next video. Breaks some sites (you may
to right-click on the video to play it). Replaces the old
media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed setting.

A failing is WebAudio won't get disabled unless:
media.autoplay.blocking_policy = 0 (sticky activation) and
media.autoplay.block-webaudio = true
For info on WebAudio, see:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API

All those Firefox settings deal with HTML audio and video. Javascripted
players do whatever the fuck they want. Some video content attempts to
use Javascript to protect the content. The video stream is encrypted.
When you visit a web page, the script delivered gets a hash code to
decrypt to content. It's crappy DRM management, but it works. Like the
Outer Limits, they control the horizontal, they control the vertical
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCcdr4O-3gE).

A problem with a lot of sites that have audio, or video with audio, is
they can't figure out the volume level for audio. You open a page, and
it autoplay is enabled, you get jarred by loud audio. If you have a
multimedia keyboard with a Mute button, you can use that, but you've
already been jarred into action by the loud audio you want to mute.
Once muted, you can adjust the volume level in the play frame, and then
unmute. Instead I use an add-on to mute sites by default.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mute-sites-by-default/
https://github.com/abba23/mute-sites-by-default

The sites might play audio, but it's muted by default, and only until I
click the audio icon at the left of the tab will audio play. I can
choose when audio plays, not the site. While muted, I can choose the
volume level, not the site. Of course, you could mute your speakers,
and quitely web surf, and decide when to unmute when you want to hear
something, and then re-mute so other visited sites don't jar you.

I sure wish web browsers would add an audio normalizer option to attempt
to use an audio volume level you choose. In Firefox about:config, there
is the media.default_volume setting (I have it at 2); however, that only
applies to HTML <video> audio content. Javascripted players don't obey
that setting.

If you grant, and keep, permission for a site to use your camera or
microphone, autoplay is allowed despite your settings. For example,
disabling autoplay would interfere with video conferences.

Is your brain scrambled yet?

Oh, the mini-video that scrolls down a page is a "feature" of that web
site, or an add-on (e.g., Enhancer For Youtube, which I use with its
mini-player option). If you disable Javascript, you won't get the mini
player (but then Youtube, and other sites, won't play anything).

Drink more coffee. Your eyes are glazing over.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:28:56 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
> My (ancient) version of FF has got the setting "media.autoplay.enabled"*.
>

Unless things have changed recently, that does not prevent the video
from playing automatically, but simply mutes it.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan,

> Unless things have changed recently, that does not prevent the
> video from playing automatically, but simply mutes it.

As I said, "My (ancient) version of FF has got the setting
"media.autoplay.enabled". Notice the word "ancient". I have no idea if
that still works, or if its replaced (or even gone).

If it is replaced than at least its a good phrase to start searching with.
I just did and found some info for a less ancient version of FF :
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1238033

Than again, thats still info for an old version, who knows what has changed
in between then and ... whatever the version the OP is running.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote
| | I think media.autoplay.enabled got replaced with media.autoplay.default.
| The former setting was an all off/on toggle. The latter is an index to
| what you selected in the autoplay settings mentioned above.
| | media.autoplay.default
| 0 = allow
| 1 = block audio (including audio with video)
| 2 = (not yet defined)
| 3 = (not yet defined)
| 4 = (not yet defined)
| 5 = block audio and video
|

This is incredibly messed up. The policies.json file
as ovf v. 66 only allowed to control by domain. The
leatest version docs I have, from Feb, say there are
these options in the policies.json file. So it's been
hadned over to admin authority.

"Autoplay": {
"Allow": ["https://example.org"],
"Block": ["https://example.edu"],
"Default": "allow-audio-video" | "block-audio" |
"block-audio-video",
}

The explanation of support for this:

Compatibility: Firefox 62, Firefox ESR 60.2 (Autoplay added in Firefox 74,
Firefox ESR 68.6, Autoplay Default/Locked added in Firefox 76, Firefox ESR
68.8, VirtualReality added in Firefox 80, Firefox ESR 78.2)

https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/

So for those who don't know, you need to make a folder in the
Firefox program folder named "distribution". In that folder create a text
file called policies.json

In that file add:

"Autoplay": {
"Default": "block-audio-video"
}

Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Yo need the NoScript-extension for FF:
>>>
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
>>>
>>> It will also lift your privacy and your internet-epxerience to a new level.
>>>
>> It is a bit of a pain though when using banking and shopping websites.
> I agree! NS requires a lot of finetuning before it is a real pleasure.
> For shopping I use sometimes a less restricted profile without NS.

That's the approach I use, where I have a less restricted profile.

For the Original Poster, one way that he could go with NoScript would be
to whitelist pretty much everything, with the exception of youtube.com
and googlevideo.com that can be then temporarily whitelisted, if needed.

I haven't really checked sites that deliver embedded videos from
YouTube, but I know if you go to YouTube proper, both of those need to
be enabled to run any content there.

Smith

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:28:56 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>John,
>
>> ... to prevent unrequested videos from displaying on a website?
>
>My (ancient) version of FF has got the setting "media.autoplay.enabled"*.
>Maybe yours does too ?
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

For me on Win 11/Ffox119.0... these config settings kill anything
auto:

<https://postimg.cc/jCSNjcFf>

John C. wrote:
> Is there an extension or some other way to prevent unrequested videos
> from displaying on a website? It's very distracting to have such videos
> open and play, even though they're silent, and then follow me as I
> scroll down the page.
>
> TIA

My thanks to everybody who replied. I will check out all suggestions.

To VanguardLH, thanks very much for your detailed reply, and yes, I'll
drink some coffee. That is, when all the sugar from the left over
Halloween candy wears off. 80)>

--
John C.

On 10/31/23 10:52, R.Wieser wrote:
> Mark,
>
>> I really don't like it when pages do weird things I didn't ask for
>
> Thats why I have JS disabled. And movie clips. And sounds. And have GIF and
> CSS animation set to "once only".
>
> Yep, I like static pages, why did you ask ? :-)
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>

I'd recommend the browser "dillo" then. It's basically lynx + GUI and
images.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07,

>> Thats why I have JS disabled. And movie clips. And sounds. And have GIF
>> and CSS animation set to "once only".

> I'd recommend the browser "dillo" then. It's basically lynx + GUI and
> images.

After having spend all this time taming my browser* ? Nahhh, I think I'll
keep it for a while.

* turning it pretty-much static, and silenced most of its "phone home"
connections at boot time. Still can't find how to get rid of its
"tiles.services.mozilla.com" connection attempts though.

As for Lynx, doesn't that still display text only, or has the GUI version
added images ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 11/1/23 13:12, R.Wieser wrote:
> candycanearter07,
>
>>> Thats why I have JS disabled. And movie clips. And sounds. And have GIF
>>> and CSS animation set to "once only".
>
>> I'd recommend the browser "dillo" then. It's basically lynx + GUI and
>> images.
>
> After having spend all this time taming my browser* ? Nahhh, I think I'll
> keep it for a while.
>
> * turning it pretty-much static, and silenced most of its "phone home"
> connections at boot time. Still can't find how to get rid of its
> "tiles.services.mozilla.com" connection attempts though.
>
> As for Lynx, doesn't that still display text only, or has the GUI version
> added images ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>

I said lynx because its only renders plain text and images. I'm not sure
how linked to lynx it actually is?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07,

>> As for Lynx, doesn't that still display text only, or has the GUI version
>> added images ?

> I said lynx because its only renders plain text and images. I'm not sure
> how linked to lynx it actually is?

Ah. I assumed Dillo was a fork of Lynx. Thanks for the heads up. I might
even take a look. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>
> I said lynx because its only renders plain text and images. I'm not sure
> how linked to lynx it actually is?

You must be thinking of Links, not Lynx. Lynx only works in the
terminal - no images. Links defaults to a similar mode, but if you
start it with the "-g" command-line option, it works graphically
and supports most image formats, although it still uses text-based
page rendering.

Neither support CSS at all, which means that many websites are
getting increasingly hard to navigate in them, although one does
get used to it. Modern-style websites won't look the same as in
Firefox with scripts disabled, although sometimes this is an
advantage where the CSS hides content when scripts are blocked.

W3m is another text-mode + images type browser, but I expect it
would be tricky to make that work in Windows.

Dillo works purely in graphics mode, with images and outdated CSS
support. It also supports tabs, unlike the others. It's the browser
that I use most (including more than Firefox), but I suspect that
the dated Windows builds might have trouble with modern HTTPS.

Netsurf is another fully graphical lightweight web browser and
technically the most feature-complete. However many modern websites
are so tuned to use all the features of Chrome/Firefox that I find
that sites which aren't usable in Dillo aren't usable in Netsurf
either. So I stick to Dillo because it's more lightweight, and fall
back on Firefox.

Those are all independent projects, and then there are the various
forks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_browsers

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 11/1/23 16:07, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>
>> I said lynx because its only renders plain text and images. I'm not sure
>> how linked to lynx it actually is?
>
> You must be thinking of Links, not Lynx. Lynx only works in the
> terminal - no images. Links defaults to a similar mode, but if you
> start it with the "-g" command-line option, it works graphically
> and supports most image formats, although it still uses text-based
> page rendering.

I had no idea links had a graphics mode, awesome!

> Neither support CSS at all, which means that many websites are
> getting increasingly hard to navigate in them, although one does
> get used to it. Modern-style websites won't look the same as in
> Firefox with scripts disabled, although sometimes this is an
> advantage where the CSS hides content when scripts are blocked.

Yeah, I recently installed NoScript in Firefox, was surprised just how
broken some websites became. I had to manually enable GitHub because I
use it a lot.

> Dillo works purely in graphics mode, with images and outdated CSS
> support. It also supports tabs, unlike the others. It's the browser
> that I use most (including more than Firefox), but I suspect that
> the dated Windows builds might have trouble with modern HTTPS.

Probably. Dillo does have one frustrating thing though, the search
button defaults to Google, which is completely broken. Clicking on
results just leads to a blank page.

> Netsurf is another fully graphical lightweight web browser and
> technically the most feature-complete. However many modern websites
> are so tuned to use all the features of Chrome/Firefox that I find
> that sites which aren't usable in Dillo aren't usable in Netsurf
> either. So I stick to Dillo because it's more lightweight, and fall
> back on Firefox.

NS sounds pretty neat, I'll check it out.

> Those are all independent projects, and then there are the various
> forks.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_browsers
>

Or I'll take a look at this list :D
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
> On 11/1/23 16:07, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Dillo works purely in graphics mode, with images and outdated CSS
>> support. It also supports tabs, unlike the others. It's the browser
>> that I use most (including more than Firefox), but I suspect that
>> the dated Windows builds might have trouble with modern HTTPS.
>
> Probably. Dillo does have one frustrating thing though, the search
> button defaults to Google, which is completely broken. Clicking on
> results just leads to a blank page.

The search options can be changed in dillorc of course. I've got
the default set to DuckDuckGo:
search_url="DuckDuckGo https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite/?kd=-1&kp=-1&kaf=1&k1=-1&q=%s"

This is a fork of Dillo with more recent development:
https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus

This probably isn't the right group to discuss Dillo in though. :)

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:

>>. . .

>Yeah, I recently installed NoScript in Firefox, was surprised just how
>broken some websites became. I had to manually enable GitHub because I
>use it a lot.

That's the whole point of NoScript! You enable just enough js to get the
Web site to work and you don't enable any more. Then you revoke
permissions.

On 11/1/23 22:46, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> Yeah, I recently installed NoScript in Firefox, was surprised just how
>> broken some websites became. I had to manually enable GitHub because I
>> use it a lot.
>
> That's the whole point of NoScript! You enable just enough js to get the
> Web site to work and you don't enable any more. Then you revoke
> permissions.

Right, so far the only other website I've had to whitelist was neocities.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom