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

91–100 of 135 posts

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

#91

Post by akiselev »

mcv wrote: post #86
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…

I don't think they can see the plugins themselves but any code that the plugins run in the document context will throw exceptions that can be caught by any fingerprinting code. I see a variety of uncaught exceptions with obvious plugin names on my Sentry feeds.

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

#92

Post by mcv »

DarthGhandi wrote: post #82
ohithereyou wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On the other hand, I would hope that government and banking sites don't use ads and tracking cookies.

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

#93

Post by mcv »

artificial wrote: post #63
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can server-side render React (not sure about Vue, but wouldn't be surprised if you could).

Yes, you’re right about Vue having server side rendering. It’s called Nuxt.

Nuxt is a tool that sets up your entire project including the option for server-side rendering. There are other SSR tools for Vue, and I think in Vue 3 it might be built-in. There's a lot of focus on server-side rendering lately.

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

#94

Post by mcv »

throwsprtsdy wrote: post #10
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 wish there was simply a way where ad-supported sites I visit could collect their revenue without having me submit to advertiser surveillance. I don't mind seeing ads. I hate being tracked.

Some sites handle their own advertising, and a few do it in a really cool way. For example, the Penny Arcade web comic only advertises games they like[0], and they hand-draw their own ads for it in the same style as the comics. Sounds like incredibly valuable advertising for those games, and it fits the style of the site.

[0] Or used to. I haven't checked them in years.

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

#95

Post by saagarjha »

cj wrote: post #83
saagarjha wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

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

Right, but you can use adblockers on them.

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

Fair, but as I mentioned it stops working the moment you step out, which I assume you do with your phone?

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

#96

Post by mcv »

ohithereyou wrote: post #67
throwsprtsdy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking more about investigative reporters and news outlets than buggy-whip makers.

If you're going to treat investigative reporting and news gathering as a profit making venture then you can only charge what the market is willing to pay, and for the vast majority of people, that's nothing.

Investigative reporting is in a tough spot in a capitalist democracy. In a democracy, good reporting is a vital part of the system, but in capitalism, people pay for what they want to see and hear, and that's not always the truth.

Advertisers directly or indirectly impacting the kind of news that gets reported doesn't help.

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

#97

Post by mcv »

cj wrote: post #83
saagarjha wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> "It works for your entire network (everyone in your household)"

I guess whether this is the killer feature or makes it suck depends on whether you've got a lot of devices and family members in your household that you can now easily protect with a single solution, or you're a single person with a laptop that spends half the time (or more) outside your home.

It's fantastic for the first group, useless for the second.

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

#98

Post by Bootvis »

saagarjha wrote: post #95
cj wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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)

> It blocks tracking / ads on devices where you can’t edit a hosts list (your phone) Right, but you can use adblockers on them. > It works for your entire network (everyone in your household) Fair, but as I mentioned it stops working the moment you step out, which I assume you do with your phone?

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

> Right, but you can use adblockers on them.

The iPhone doesn't support ad blocking.

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

#99

Post by saagarjha »

Bootvis wrote: post #98
saagarjha wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It blocks tracking / ads on devices where you can’t edit a hosts list (your phone) Right, but you can use adblockers on them. > It works for your entire network (everyone in your household) Fair, but as I mentioned it stops working the moment you step out, which I assume you do with your phone?

>> It blocks tracking / ads on devices where you can’t edit a hosts list (your phone) > Right, but you can use adblockers on them. The iPhone doesn't support ad blocking.

It very much does.

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

#100

Post by wtallis »

onion2k wrote: post #89
wtallis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> and unfortunately that's often hiding everything until it's ready.

These sites usually aren't successful in that goal. Sure, they may be able to prevent content from showing up until the webfont has been loaded, but in my experience it's still extremely common for content to seriously jump around as the ads continue to load, especially on smaller screens (mobile).

So using "flash of unstyled content" as an excuse just doesn't hold up: users still have to learn to give a site a few extra seconds to settle before it's safe to interact without the content reflowing under your finger to put an ad where you wanted to tap, and breaking accessibility "for the sake of preventing FOUC" is dumb when you still have FOUC.

A similar tactic I've also seen that is even more unjustifiably anti-user is when the element has "overflow: hidden" set until some heinous script that does it's own poor implementation of smooth scrolling can get up and running. These sites are universally improved by blocking such scripts and enabling native scrolling. This is one of the reasons why I believe browsers should be bundling together a large number of permissions that are off by default for every site the user has not flagged as being a web app. Google Maps has a good reason to interfere with scroll behavior; a news article does not.

Post reply on HN