Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#81

Post by 3xblah »

XCSme wrote: post #59
3xblah wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I wouldn't mind going back to a JavaScript-less experience." By not using a graphical, JavaScript-enabled browser, I have been experiencing the web this way for the last 15 years. It works just fine for the purposes I use if for, mainly informational retrieval. For me, there is no such thing as "page load time". This shifts all awareness to "server response time". This is more or less the same from one website to an…

How do you collapse comments on HackerNews?

When I started visiting HN around 2008-2009, if I am not mistaken, the website used no JavaScript. Anyway, in the browser I use, HN is "flat" threads, all posts visible and left justified, no indentation. It still looks just the same as it did in 2008-2009.

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#82

Post by DarthGhandi »

ohithereyou wrote: post #34
ghostpepper wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a similar sort of policy but I would say the number of sites I visit that display nothing but a blank page without javascript is more than half. Sites that function without it are the exception, not the rule.

A site that renders completely blank without JavaScript is a site that I don't enable JavaScript for. They don't want me to view it, and nine times out of ten I can find the information elsewhere.

A pious stance, for sure.

Yet I'm convinced you probably do enable js for various payment portals and govt/financial websites, and they often tend to go blank or loop out far more than the average site.

Apart from carefully cultivating a working noscript over years, the simplest solution may be to use a different browser for these sorts of interactions.

Reminds me to backup my whitelist. It's actually quite valuable.

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#83

Post by cj »

saagarjha wrote: post #80
BubRoss wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a DNS server that makes every ad and tracking domain route to nothing. It speeds everything up and uses an almost undetectable amount of resources. It could be done in the router with different software I'm guessing, but I use tomato firmware which isn't great for huge DNS block lists.

I mean, yes, I know what Pi-Hole does. I just fail to see why it's better than a hosts list on your computer, for example: that works wherever you are and you don't need fancy software for it. Plus it's "infinitely worse" than a normal adblocker when browsing the internet.

- It blocks tracking / ads on devices where you can’t edit a hosts list (your phone)

- It works for your entire network (everyone in your household)

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#84

Post by goatsi »

kamyarg wrote: post #57
l31g wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a sign-in with Apple-like system so tracking is limited to each site.

Best decision I have made so far is setting up a catch-all polic for my domain. any_random_address@mydomain.com is saved in a "dummy" inbox, I check it from time to time and give different emails for different services to identify who sold my email. instagram is insta@mydomain.com, netflix is nflx@mydomain.com etc. If someone needs pointers: I use webfaction for MX, setup mailboxes with catch-all policy and setup a r…

I've used migadu.com for well over a year now and been very happy with them. They let you setup multiple regex based catchalls, so I can create any address prefixed with shop and have it forwarded to one address, while ones prefixed with game get forwarded to another. If you aren't planning on sending any emails from the domain, their free single domain plan might work very well for you.

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#85

Post by mcv »

JohnFen wrote: post #28
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #3

I wouldn't mind going back to a JavaScript-less web experience. I know not all tracking is based on JS, but the browser provides so many heuristics this way: screen size, cursor location, installed plugins. Give me reasonably formatted HTML, and something a little bit more powerful than curl.

> I wouldn't mind going back to a JavaScript-less web experience. My default policy is to not allow JS to run, so my experience is already mostly Javascriptless. And, I have to say, my user experience on most web sites is actually better when I don't allow Javascript to execute.

On Mobile I've got NoScript active, but it does break a lot of sites. Most sites are easily fixed by allowing first-party javascript while blocking third-party javascript. Third-party javascript is most likely to be trackers and ads anyway.

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#86

Post by mcv »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #3

I wouldn't mind going back to a JavaScript-less web experience. I know not all tracking is based on JS, but the browser provides so many heuristics this way: screen size, cursor location, installed plugins. Give me reasonably formatted HTML, and something a little bit more powerful than curl.

> "I know not all tracking is based on JS, but the browser provides so many heuristics this way: screen size, cursor location, installed plugins."

Installed plugins? Why would javascript need to know my installed plugins? I'd like my browser to more actively restrict what javascript has access to. I get a popup when it wants access to my location (which I generally deny). Why not do the same with these other features?

"This site wants to view your installed plugins. Allow/deny?" "This site wants to set a non-login cookie" Deny, deny, deny.

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#87

Post by [deleted] »

numpad0 wrote: post #71
ghostpepper wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a similar sort of policy but I would say the number of sites I visit that display nothing but a blank page without javascript is more than half. Sites that function without it are the exception, not the rule.

What would be the ways to keep JavaScript virtually “off” but viewable? I mean, it’s all the same framework-min.js working like a modern COBOL, not like custom mathematically significant compression or advanced dynamic P2P webpage distribution, right? Feels to me like a meta rendering engine could be created so none of the functions needs to be runtime evaluated or content be fetched by it or whatnot.

[deleted]

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#88

Post by moring »

rovr138 wrote: post #58
a1369209993 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because after you hover on something, it can be an indication of intent. Yes, that's (one of the many reasons) why javascript needs to die. > Just loading an image when the webpage loads doesn't give you any insight into what the user 'interacted' with. That's what I said: regardless of whether the browser, when loading a page, does or does not include hidden images in what it fetches, that cannot possibly tell you…

> Yes, that's (one of the many reasons) why javascript needs to die. On hover can be easily done with css. selector:hover{background-image: url();} That can trigger a tracking pixel.

A browser that disables Javascript could easily circumvent this too, either pre-loading URLs in :hover rules or ignoring those rules.

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#89

Post by onion2k »

wtallis wrote: post #73
ghostpepper wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a similar sort of policy but I would say the number of sites I visit that display nothing but a blank page without javascript is more than half. Sites that function without it are the exception, not the rule.

I've found that about half of the sites that render a blank page without JS are just setting style="visibility: hidden" on the element. I cannot think of any good reason for browsers to continue to allow that CSS property to be set on that element. "Flash of unstyled content" is not a valid concern here.

"Flash of unstyled content" is not a valid concern here.

Except it really is. Most websites are attached to businesses in some way. If you see statistics that the flash of unstyled content means 10% of your traffic leaves the site after less than a second you do what you can to fix it, and unfortunately that's often hiding everything until it's ready.

Pragmatically, most businesses would give up users who don't like tracking long before they give up users who care about styling, because there are just a lot more people who care about styling. It's an unfortunate fact of web life.

Re: Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

#90

Post by moring »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #72
ficklepickle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disabling CSS :hover and :active states might break sites. Tracking pixels could be as simple as a background image set for either of those CSS states.

Browsers could disable downloading of external resources for CSS :hover and :active. When the user interacts with the interface, the CSS will still get applied but the tracking URL won't be accessed.

Alternatively, such URLs can always be pre-fetched on page load.
Post reply on HN