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

Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#71

Post by rpdillon »

Thiez wrote: post #57
tannhaeuser wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a joke at all. A user clicking on a link usually wants to view a page, not getting sent 100's of tracking scripts (or miners, fishers, or whatever), and it's not clear at all the user has given consent or is even aware. Search engines flagging ad- and script-heavy sites would be cool, too.

Wouldn't it be much easier to pass laws that would prohibit all these tracking scripts (e.g. GDPR) rather than writing custom Javascript for every individual website out there?

Yes, it's much easier to pass laws, but enforcement becomes a real challenge...this has been an issue for the GDPR specifically[0]:

> This means that at the time of writing this report, over a year and a half after the complaints were launched, a decision on the complaints is still far off and it is unclear when such a decision could be expected. Meanwhile, Google continues to spy on the comings and goings of millions of European consumers. Moreover, since the complaints were launched, the company has even carried out a (misleading) public PR campaign to portray itself as company that respects privacy and highlight that users are in control of their personal data.

[0]: https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2020-074_two_years_o...

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#72

Post by musingsole »

XCSme wrote: post #67
matheusmoreira wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it should shut down.

But in that case the user loses value, as he wanted what the site was offering.

That's begging the question. Advertising and tracking are not the sole business models of the web nor the ones I have any impulse to protect or cater to.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#73

Post by pwdisswordfish0 »

jiehong wrote: post #60
pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing LibreJS, referred to in the opening line of the article as GNU's "first response to the problem of nonfree JS code".

No, I'm speaking about a W3C standard, and not about a web browser extension. I want a website to say in the html, so any browser can use it, and let the user decide. LibreJS is just a allow-list extension on a per-website basis.

I understand what you're talking about. The conflict here is that you don't understand the thing that I'm talking about (and rather than going to check it out, you're doubling down).

> LibreJS is just a allow-list extension on a per-website basis

No, it's not. Now you're making things up.

> say in the html

Like LibreJS.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#74

Post by elastolin »

andrewmd5 wrote: post #56
elastolin wrote: post #24

The article was out of touch and ridiculous enough in itself, but the author also had to use gender-neutral pronouns.

A lot of languages don’t have gendered pronouns. They/them is grammatically correct.

We both know there's about a 100% chance that whoever reads gnu.org and writes a browser extension to block JavaScript on a specific site is a male, so "he/him" is better in this case.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#75

Post by [deleted] »

elastolin wrote: post #74
andrewmd5 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of languages don’t have gendered pronouns. They/them is grammatically correct.

We both know there's about a 100% chance that whoever reads gnu.org and writes a browser extension to block JavaScript on a specific site is a male, so "he/him" is better in this case.

[deleted]

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#76

Post by anoncake »

elastolin wrote: post #74
andrewmd5 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of languages don’t have gendered pronouns. They/them is grammatically correct.

We both know there's about a 100% chance that whoever reads gnu.org and writes a browser extension to block JavaScript on a specific site is a male, so "he/him" is better in this case.

We all know that the chance is not 100%. Maybe it's 90%, maybe it's 99.9999%, it doesn't matter: It isn't 100% so he and him are plain wrong.

I do think neopronouns are silly when used like this but silly is better than wrong.

Re: Write site-specific extensions to replace sites' JavaScript code

#77

Post by apatheticonion »

I actually write private extensions to enhance websites that suck.

As an example, I have added folders/category tags to my YouTube subscriptions.

While it's a security issue, I would love the ability to inject content scripts via bookmarks or URLs so I could use these enhancements on my mobile devices. Perhaps making certain websites installable web apps and enhancing their UI to fit better on mobile browsers.

Post reply on HN