Purge site data when site identified via old tracking cookies

Post by pferde » Fri, Mar 06, 2020, 9:35 AM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #33

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.

Well, yes, how well this works depends on what sites you tend to use. The vast majority of the sites I frequent either degrade gracefully in the absence of JS, or never used it in the first place. I think there are three or four that both require Javascript and that I want to use badly enough to allow JS. When I encounter a web site that doesn't work without JS, I just move on. But I understand that others may not wa…

Post by s188 » Fri, Mar 06, 2020, 10:13 AM UTC

XCSme wrote: post #60

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.

This just made me think of something. How do the GDPR popups work if you don't have JavaScript enabled? Are the sites still GDPR compliant if they track you using cookies because you disabled the JS which should have disabled the cookies?

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Mar 06, 2020, 11:11 AM UTC

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…

Post by GoblinSlayer » Fri, Mar 06, 2020, 12:10 PM UTC

ficklepickle wrote: post #41

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By reasonably formatted, I would actually exclude onhover. To clarify, I meant a document that would be readable without any interaction. You've got me wondering if privacy-focused browsers like Brave have the ability to disable potential tracking mechanisms like onhover.

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.

Post by GoblinSlayer » Fri, Mar 06, 2020, 12:21 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #13

throwsprtsdy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the issue is verification that an ad has actually been shown to a human. Even print and TV advertisers can have companies do audits to verify ads get run as expected. Thing is, nobody ever said ad supported sites have to be viable.