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

Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons

garron.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons

#61

Post by dfc »

lucian1900 wrote: post #57
dfc wrote: post #33

This seems like a great time to plug RequestPolicy: "ReuestPolicy is a Firefox extension that improves the privacy and security of your browsing by giving you control over when cross-site requests are allowed by webpages you visit."[1] It is even better if you pair it with NoScript.[2] Whenever I toy with the idea of switching to Chrome I am always end up sticking with iceweasel because of the lack of equivalent RP+N…

I've tried noscript and it breaks most things. Ghostery quite rarely breaks things.

There are two schools of thought for privacy enhancing technologies. The ghostery model is to try not to be disruptive and to ask as little as possible of the user. No script takes the other approach which is a "default block" and require the user to whitelist sites that she needs to work.

Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons

#62

Post by dfc »

johnpowell wrote: post #50
dfc wrote: post #33

This seems like a great time to plug RequestPolicy: "ReuestPolicy is a Firefox extension that improves the privacy and security of your browsing by giving you control over when cross-site requests are allowed by webpages you visit."[1] It is even better if you pair it with NoScript.[2] Whenever I toy with the idea of switching to Chrome I am always end up sticking with iceweasel because of the lack of equivalent RP+N…

I used to use RequestPolicy and thought it was great and did what it said it would. But it broke a lot of things like buying something on Newegg. I was afraid to allow something and try again thinking I would be charged twice. Ghostery, while not as strict seems like a nice compromise. My mom uses it and she doesn't even notice it.

I think ghostery is probably the better choice for non-tech folks. You are a better son than I am, I should install ghostery or my mother. For people with a little time and basic knowledge of how the web works I think NS+RP is the way to go.

Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons

#63

Post by lucian1900 »

dfc wrote: post #61
lucian1900 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried noscript and it breaks most things. Ghostery quite rarely breaks things.

There are two schools of thought for privacy enhancing technologies. The ghostery model is to try not to be disruptive and to ask as little as possible of the user. No script takes the other approach which is a "default block" and require the user to whitelist sites that she needs to work.

Right, and that will break a majority of websites out there, because they sniffed a fully capable desktop browser but the JS they sent as a result of the sniffing failed.

Default block doesn't work.

Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons

#64

Post by dfc »

lucian1900 wrote: post #63
dfc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two schools of thought for privacy enhancing technologies. The ghostery model is to try not to be disruptive and to ask as little as possible of the user. No script takes the other approach which is a "default block" and require the user to whitelist sites that she needs to work.

Right, and that will break a majority of websites out there, because they sniffed a fully capable desktop browser but the JS they sent as a result of the sniffing failed. Default block doesn't work.

I completey agree. Default block does not work for a userbase that does not have the time or inclination to read the documentation and configure it to meet their needs.

Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons

#65

Post by MJR »

proexploit wrote: post #40
MJR wrote: post #17

Facebook has stated that the sharer.php is deprecated. https://developers.facebook.com/bugs/252983554810810/ It appears to have an unclear lifespan. While it has been fully replaced by the Feed Dialog, it's still working now and is used all over the internet. I can see the case where it won't see any further development or features, but it's a tough call whether or not to incorporate the deprecated method or accept p…

The bug you referenced is from over a year ago and in fact the feature is no longer deprecated. The documentation page [1] used to highlight the deprecated status but has recently been updated and any mentions of deprecation have been removed. [1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/share...

Interesting, thanks for the link. When I implemented a share in an app recently, this wasn't an option. I wish there was more version information on the page. The only reference to a timestamp now is that this page was updated a week ago.
Post reply on HN