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

A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”

developers.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 532 posts

Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”

#21

Post by throwaway81523 »

CableNinja wrote: post #2

Frustrating it took this long for something to be done about this, but glad its now got something being done.

> When a user clicks the "back" button in the browser, they have a clear expectation: they want to return to the previous page. Back button hijacking breaks this fundamental expectation.

It seems pretty stupid. Instead of expanding the SEO policy bureaucracy to address a situation where a spammer hijacks the back button, the browser should have been designed in the first place to never allow that hijacking to happen. Second best approach is modify it now. While they're at it, they should also make it impossible to hijack the mode one.... oh yes, Google itself does that.

Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”

#24

Post by not_your_vase »

bschwindHN wrote: post #5

Cool, now maybe let's do something about all the shit I have to clear out out my face before I can read a simple web page. For example, on this very article I had to click "No thanks" for cookies and then "No thanks" for a survey or something. And then there was an ad at the top for some app that I also closed. It's like walking into some room and having to swat away a bunch of cobwebs before doing whatever it is you…

Haha, we had a solution for that, called pop-up blockers. Then when they became very usable, everyone switched to overlays injected with javascript, so they became unblockable.

But thinking of this at this moment, this could be a good use for a locally ran LLM, to get rid of all this crap dynamically. I wonder why Firefox didn't use this as a usecase when they bolted AI on top of Firefox. Maybe it is time for me to check what api FF has for this

Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”

#25

Post by ryandrake »

pottertheotter wrote: post #20
chongli wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really comes down to JavaScript. The web was fine when sites were static HTML, images, and forms with server-side rendering (allowing for forums and blogs).

Did you use the web back in 1995? It was fun, but it also sucked compared to what we have now. Nothing is ever perfect, but I wouldn’t want to go back.

I’d go back in a heartbeat. Making the web a software SDK was the worst thing to happen to it.

Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”

#26

Post by collabs »

ryandrake wrote: post #25
pottertheotter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you use the web back in 1995? It was fun, but it also sucked compared to what we have now. Nothing is ever perfect, but I wouldn’t want to go back.

I’d go back in a heartbeat. Making the web a software SDK was the worst thing to happen to it.

You talk about 1995 but I wouldn't even go back to 1999. Dialup was so painful. It advertised 56 know but in practice I never even say 48...

Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”

#27

Post by 93po »

bschwindHN wrote: post #5

Cool, now maybe let's do something about all the shit I have to clear out out my face before I can read a simple web page. For example, on this very article I had to click "No thanks" for cookies and then "No thanks" for a survey or something. And then there was an ad at the top for some app that I also closed. It's like walking into some room and having to swat away a bunch of cobwebs before doing whatever it is you…

ublock origin with annoyance filters on solves 95% of this

Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”

#28

Post by SuperNinKenDo »

al_borland wrote: post #3

Some Microsoft sites have been very guilty of this. They are the ones that stick in my head in recent memory.

Happened to me yesterday through a link off here. I was already expecting it given the domain, but usually mashing back fast enough does the trick eventually. Not this time. Had to kill the tab.
Post reply on HN