I think at this point I'm ready to give up on Reddit, most of my questions are already answered by LLM.
And the discussions quality on Reddit are abysmal, its filled with bots.
So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
191–200 of 681 posts
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#192[deleted]
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#193I think at this point I'm ready to give up on Reddit, most of my questions are already answered by LLM. And the discussions quality on Reddit are abysmal, its filled with bots.
At least the sheer stupidity of bots is understandable. It's arguably the real users that are worse...
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#194I noticed they logged me out when I happened on a link recently. I don't think this change will make me log back in. The value of the site has already crashed, now the only question is which site will manage to capture the mainstream link/image discussion next. > This is because appending site: reddit.com to a search query is basically a surefire way to find results written by genuine humans. This hasn't been true fo…
> The value of the site has already crashed
Reddit, the site whose CEO edited the comments of other users, autobans people for saying "fuck spez" (it's fun, try it), and claims the right to all content posted by users and sells it for AI training?
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#195Meta has spent $2B on verification lobbying. Very successfully it seems. In 1-2 years, you won't be able to browse the internet without scanning a body part and providing a ID for your ass. https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...
I would view a website that requires users to go through a lengthy verification process. Given all the astroturfing from companies and governments, this would give a bit of trust.
[dead]
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#196Politics aside, this is a sensible position, there was a major client revision, they can put security measures in the new version that are not present in the older one, this happens in many many industries.
To be specific, the defensive measures probably rely on javascript, captchas and captchaless bot detection measures (probably javascript), like measuring mouse movement and stuff like that. So sending a client with javascript that loads content if some security checks pass, is harder to abuse than a plain html site that sends all content in the first request.
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#197I read the author's post and many of the comments and decided that I was finished with reddit, finally. I have always used old reddit to surf the subs and have never used new reddit. I did my normal morning routine of checking 8-10 subs that still have interesting content and did not see any nag screen for logins at all. Everything worked on my end just as it always has worked. I read comments and post titles with no…
>I wonder if the login nags only happen on mobile devices.
Nope, I surf exclusively on a desktop using Firefox and yesterday I got hit with the login prompt for old.reddit. Don't have an account and don't plan on making one, so much for reddit!
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#198I think at this point I'm ready to give up on Reddit, most of my questions are already answered by LLM. And the discussions quality on Reddit are abysmal, its filled with bots.
I gave up on it years ago when they killed off 3rd party clients, I have to say it doesn't seem like I've been missing much. The rare occasion I do need to see something on it, it's just full of deleted accounts and comments. I do also love how VPNs get blocked but accessing it over tor is allowed (genuinely I think allowing access over tor is great, but it seems so antithetical to everything else they've done recently)
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#199Politics aside, this is a sensible position, there was a major client revision, they can put security measures in the new version that are not present in the older one, this happens in many many industries.
To be specific, the defensive measures probably rely on javascript, captchas and captchaless bot detection measures (probably javascript), like measuring mouse movement and stuff like that. So sending a client with javascript that loads content if some security checks pass, is harder to abuse than a plain html site that sends all content in the first request.
Besides scraping, this probably has implications for posting as well. Do you like reading comments from humans and not from other bots? Well, in that case a system that uses plain html will be easier to automate with bots than a javascript clusterfuck.
You can't have the cake of web 1.0 and the eat-it of a botless experience too.
Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe
#200If you were using old.reddit.com then presumably you were viewing popular by default? In which case you have some alternatives:
https://lemmy.today/?dataType=Post&listingType=All&sort=TopD...
OR
https://old.lemmy.world/?listingType=All&sort=TopDay
https://piefed.social/ (more or less the same as above)