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

Splitting the Web

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: Splitting the Web

#111

Post by UnlockedSecrets »

8chanAnon wrote: post #72
sodapopcan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using NoScript has been pretty eye-opening. I've come to learn that most of the time I'm happy unblock the primary domain. If the site doesn't work I'll look for a clearly-named CDN. If I can't identify one or, worse-yet, there is some kind of cdn.some-domain.com and unblocking that still doesn't make the site work, then I'm out.

I've stopped using NoScript because it was breaking my own apps. It was fine until Mozilla changed something in Firefox. The problem is that NoScript inserts a lot of JS into the web page and some of that JS gets broken by some sort security lockout. It may be a bug in Firefox and maybe it's been fixed but I wasn't satisfied with NoScript anyway. I'm now using uMatrix. It doesn't insert JS on every active element (ju…

Umatrix has not been maintained since 2021.

Re: Splitting the Web

#113

Post by B0073D »

8chanAnon wrote: post #72
sodapopcan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using NoScript has been pretty eye-opening. I've come to learn that most of the time I'm happy unblock the primary domain. If the site doesn't work I'll look for a clearly-named CDN. If I can't identify one or, worse-yet, there is some kind of cdn.some-domain.com and unblocking that still doesn't make the site work, then I'm out.

I've stopped using NoScript because it was breaking my own apps. It was fine until Mozilla changed something in Firefox. The problem is that NoScript inserts a lot of JS into the web page and some of that JS gets broken by some sort security lockout. It may be a bug in Firefox and maybe it's been fixed but I wasn't satisfied with NoScript anyway. I'm now using uMatrix. It doesn't insert JS on every active element (ju…

I do not understand why this injecting js to block js is a thing. Why is there no way to just tell the browser engine not to execute any js here? if the functionality isn't there in the browser engine, why not?

Re: Splitting the Web

#114

Post by 1shooner »

julianeon wrote: post #91

To me it seems dangerous to go to the author's side of the split, if you work in tech: you won't be exposed, at all, to the web that most people experience. Which is bad for you, professionally speaking - it's bad to be completely in the dark about "the web" as most people experience it. It's bad if you work in a startup which is on that web. And it's bad if you're entrepreneurial and would like to make money off tha…

I agree. But considering it an other (probably less binary) way than the author, it means you have to intentionally undertake to understand an experience purely from your users' view, if you want to do your job well. I think it's more dangerous to have the misconception that you're keeping up with the broadening diversity of users. This, to me, is the beautiful part of the universal design philosophy being adopted by web development.

Re: Splitting the Web

#115

Post by fouc »

skybrian wrote: post #28

Sometimes people complain about life sucking in very general terms. Other times they criticize specific things, one at a time. This post seems like a generic, zoomed-out sort of complaint, and that doesn’t appeal to me, because I’m not sure I learned about anything specific. I guess it’s about how it’s possible to stop using some business’s websites and interact with them in other ways? But which businesses? “Splitti…

Actually I read it as the opposite of a complaint.

They're basically saying they're able to use and enjoy the web just fine with no-JS. Even if it limits them from many sites, it also frees them to enjoy what is left.

It is a choice that automatically filters out a ton of noise, leaving them with a quieter, more peaceful, more thoughtful internet.

Re: Splitting the Web

#116

Post by damir »

B0073D wrote: post #113
8chanAnon wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stopped using NoScript because it was breaking my own apps. It was fine until Mozilla changed something in Firefox. The problem is that NoScript inserts a lot of JS into the web page and some of that JS gets broken by some sort security lockout. It may be a bug in Firefox and maybe it's been fixed but I wasn't satisfied with NoScript anyway. I'm now using uMatrix. It doesn't insert JS on every active element (ju…

I do not understand why this injecting js to block js is a thing. Why is there no way to just tell the browser engine not to execute any js here? if the functionality isn't there in the browser engine, why not?

It is - disable JS completely in the browser.

I use 2 browsers, one with JS disabled and blocking everything (like 95% of the time), and second one for say "important" stuff like banking, youtube and facebook ;)

Re: Splitting the Web

#117

Post by c22 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #104
skydhash wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m moving to Firefox as my main browser, and the amount of sites that break because of me blocking JavaScript (with ublock) is staggering. I can understand SPA being JS only, but simple blogs and other content sites, no.

You clearly haven't seen the sites that demand JavaShit just to load JPGs and PNGs that you told the browser to open directly. As in pointing the browser at a JPG or PNG and getting redirected to a page with JavaShit to load that JPG or PNG. Why? Fuck if I know, I don't live in the same universe as whoever wrote and published that literal garbage.

I recently got a CD-rom from a hospital containing X-rays of my leg to share with my doctor. Upon finding a computer with a functioning optical drive I was dismayed to discover that the CD-rom contained not 3 simple images of the bones in my leg, but almost 400 megabytes of impenetrable binary data in over 30 nested directories and an .exe called MedicalImageViewer which I was unable to run on the latest version of Windows in my posession (win7) due to missing visual basic related dlls.

I was eventually able to run the app on a friend's computer, but finding no in-built option to export the images I was forced to take screen grabs to email to my primary care provider.

Re: Splitting the Web

#118

Post by pbohun »

titzer wrote: post #88
forgetfreeman wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a them problem. 30 years ago we knew they'd be trouble if they ever adopted the web en masse and they (and the folks that prey on them) have proven that prediction right at every turn.

I couldn't really process your comment because you rounded up to 30. It got me thinking, there was such a huge gulf between 1993 and 1996, at least for me. 1993: derping DOS on a 386; 1996: Windows 95, Quake, dialup, the Web. The pace of change might seem rapid these days, but the 90s were insane fast.

Maybe it's just my perception of things, but the changes back then were exciting and usually made things better for users. Today changes makes my user experience worse, with spyware on top. I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my drift.

Re: Splitting the Web

#119

Post by zzo38computer »

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #25

> It feels like everyone is now choosing its side. You can’t stay in the middle anymore. You are either dedicating all your CPU cycles to run JavaScript tracking you or walking away from the big monopolies. You are either being paid to build huge advertising billboards on top of yet another framework or you are handcrafting HTML. This is only true because the UX of mastodon, Gemini, GrapheneOS, and other darlings of…

Gemini does not have UX, so it isn't "bad". That is better than having bad UX. Some client software might have bad UX, but that depends which client software you are using.

Re: Splitting the Web

#120

Post by strix_varius »

julianeon wrote: post #91

To me it seems dangerous to go to the author's side of the split, if you work in tech: you won't be exposed, at all, to the web that most people experience. Which is bad for you, professionally speaking - it's bad to be completely in the dark about "the web" as most people experience it. It's bad if you work in a startup which is on that web. And it's bad if you're entrepreneurial and would like to make money off tha…

I think this is a false assumption.

I run Brave with privacy features on, on a Linux laptop, and I have not had any issues with employment, at both startups and very large tech companies. Facebook, for example, didn't care that I didn't use Facebook or have an Instagram account.

Often, the most useful perspective is not the one that regresses to the mean.

Post reply on HN