I wouldn't mind going back to a JavaScript-less web experience. I know not all tracking is based on JS, but the browser provides so many heuristics this way: screen size, cursor location, installed plugins. Give me reasonably formatted HTML, and something a little bit more powerful than curl.
> I wouldn't mind going back to a JavaScript-less web experience.
My default policy is to not allow JS to run, so my experience is already mostly Javascriptless. And, I have to say, my user experience on most web sites is actually better when I don't allow Javascript to execute.
Completely agree. I default to JS-disabled, and will sometimes enable it. More often, though I just move on. Of course if you want to use FB or other surveillance sites, this won't work well for you.
What methods are there to exert more control over the JS engine in Firefox? Screw performance, I'd have a lot of fun writing my own hooks/wrappers to overload certain method calls.
Nothing stopping you from doing this on your next / current project. I've been 100% committed on getting the web back to as lightweight as possible for the last couple years worth of development.
I wish there was simply a way where ad-supported sites I visit could collect their revenue without having me submit to advertiser surveillance. I don't mind seeing ads. I hate being tracked.
Perhaps create a new and separate Web, that's designed from the ground up to take into account the lessons of the past 25 years, and provide a more mellow experience?
It would be an eternal niche, but it might be a nice, cozy little niche.
> "I know not all tracking is based on JS, but the browser provides so many heuristics this way: screen size, cursor location, installed plugins."
Installed plugins? Why would javascript need to know my installed plugins? I'd like my browser to more actively restrict what javascript has access to. I get a popup when it wants access to my location (which I generally deny). Why not do the same with these other features?
"This site wants to view your installed plugins. Allow/deny?" "This site wants to set a non-login cookie" Deny, deny, deny.
"I wouldn't mind going back to a JavaScript-less experience."
By not using a graphical, JavaScript-enabled browser, I have been experiencing the web this way for the last 15 years. It works just fine for the purposes I use if for, mainly informational retrieval. For me, there is no such thing as "page load time". This shifts all awareness to "server response time". This is more or less the same from one website to another and therefore differences are not noticeable, unless a server is misconfigured or has some problem.
I've moved my blog long time ago to static pages. I've removed Google Analytics long time ago too. Now I have a slickest web experience and the reports of searchs and server usage is increasing.
Alternatively since nojs breaks a bunch of things, also try uMatrix, really locks things down and shows you what kind of nonsense is going down in a nice (blockable) grid.
How do the GDPR popups work if you don't have JavaScript enabled? Are the sites still GDPR compliant if they track you using cookies because you disabled the JS which should have disabled the cookies?
The relevant code comment from the bug-linked changes is:
> This loops through all cookies saved in the database and checks if they are a tracking cookie, if it is it checks that they have an interaction permission which is still valid. If the Permission is not valid we delete all data associated with the site that owns that cookie.
Try Baitblock https://baitblock.app
Baitblock has tracking resistance that also deletes first party cookies/other tracking mechanisms when it detects that you're not logged into a website.
Nah. The adtech people are already talking about persistent identification mechanisms to allow the same identification in the absence of third party cookies.
If you're privacy-minded, it's worth keeping an eye on these efforts, as some of them involve getting publishers to require a login and an email address or phone number from their users, then using that as the persistent identifier.
If that idea takes root, then we'll probably want to cancel accounts and avoid making new ones.
[+] [-] JMTQp8lwXL|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
My default policy is to not allow JS to run, so my experience is already mostly Javascriptless. And, I have to say, my user experience on most web sites is actually better when I don't allow Javascript to execute.
[+] [-] reificator|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _jal|6 years ago|reply
What methods are there to exert more control over the JS engine in Firefox? Screw performance, I'd have a lot of fun writing my own hooks/wrappers to overload certain method calls.
[+] [-] overcast|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwsprtsdy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mumblemumble|6 years ago|reply
It would be an eternal niche, but it might be a nice, cozy little niche.
[+] [-] mcv|6 years ago|reply
Installed plugins? Why would javascript need to know my installed plugins? I'd like my browser to more actively restrict what javascript has access to. I get a popup when it wants access to my location (which I generally deny). Why not do the same with these other features?
"This site wants to view your installed plugins. Allow/deny?" "This site wants to set a non-login cookie" Deny, deny, deny.
[+] [-] 3xblah|6 years ago|reply
By not using a graphical, JavaScript-enabled browser, I have been experiencing the web this way for the last 15 years. It works just fine for the purposes I use if for, mainly informational retrieval. For me, there is no such thing as "page load time". This shifts all awareness to "server response time". This is more or less the same from one website to another and therefore differences are not noticeable, unless a server is misconfigured or has some problem.
[+] [-] meerita|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] XCSme|6 years ago|reply
How do the GDPR popups work if you don't have JavaScript enabled? Are the sites still GDPR compliant if they track you using cookies because you disabled the JS which should have disabled the cookies?
[+] [-] jimbob45|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] floatingatoll|6 years ago|reply
> This loops through all cookies saved in the database and checks if they are a tracking cookie, if it is it checks that they have an interaction permission which is still valid. If the Permission is not valid we delete all data associated with the site that owns that cookie.
[+] [-] majkinetor|6 years ago|reply
Somebody please point me to the portal...
[+] [-] BubRoss|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BaitBlock|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foo_in_bar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgbmtl|6 years ago|reply
From my limited understanding: it purges cookies and localStorage, if the storage access API permission was not granted?
[+] [-] tinus_hn|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
If you're privacy-minded, it's worth keeping an eye on these efforts, as some of them involve getting publishers to require a login and an email address or phone number from their users, then using that as the persistent identifier.
If that idea takes root, then we'll probably want to cancel accounts and avoid making new ones.
[+] [-] xenator|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackjeff|6 years ago|reply
These tracking sites would not be able to show me ads anyway because I have “uBlock origin”
And finally “I don’t care about cookies” to automatically dismiss these stupid GDPR “we’re going to use cookies” prompts.
Without these the Internet feels broken.
[+] [-] gruez|6 years ago|reply
Not really. It doesn't delete indexeddb for instance.