Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #51123 > unrolled thread

With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-10-09 08:41 -0500
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-09 15:50 +0000
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-10-09 11:35 -0500
        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-09 19:37 +0200
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-09 21:00 +0000
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-10-10 00:28 +0200
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-10-10 02:01 +0200
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 19:54 +0200
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break elvis-85650@notatla.org.uk - 2018-10-09 21:53 +0000
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-09 14:40 -0600
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-09 23:17 +0200
        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-09 16:18 -0600
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 06:45 +0200
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 14:46 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 09:28 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 16:05 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 10:26 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:23 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2018-10-10 08:32 -0700
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:17 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 13:52 -0400
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 18:15 +0000
                        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 15:01 -0400
                          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 19:49 +0000
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 18:02 +0200
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:26 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 18:11 +0000
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 20:12 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:42 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-10-11 10:23 +0000
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-11 19:03 +0200
                        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-11 17:33 +0000
                          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-11 22:00 +0200
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-10-10 16:22 -0400
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:46 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 21:14 +0000
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-10-11 15:40 -0400
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@blackhole.io> - 2018-10-11 15:08 -0500
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-11 20:56 +0000
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 08:55 -0400
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 16:10 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 10:31 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:49 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-11 07:32 +0100
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-10 08:45 -0600
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 14:06 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-10 13:44 -0600
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-11 07:30 +0100
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-11 09:24 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-11 19:02 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-11 14:12 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-12 01:01 +0200
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Chuck Rhode <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> - 2018-10-12 20:30 -0500
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-12 22:05 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Chuck Rhode <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> - 2018-10-13 07:41 -0500
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-13 09:59 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2018-10-15 19:14 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#51147

On 10/10/2018 14.55, Mayayana wrote:

> 
>   Last night I visited a site I found in a Michael
> Pollan book: csp.org. Council on Spiritual Practices.
> They're some kind of clearing house for ideas about
> psychedelic drugs and religious experience. Sounded
> interesting. It's people who want to experience life
> more fully, deeply and joyfully. And they think there
> might be a correlation between what chemicals like
> psilocybin do and what advanced meditation
> techniques do. A bit of a 60s, consumer-goes-
> shopping-for-spirituality-on-sale rehash. But I was
> curious what they're up to. Ironically, their webpage
> was entirely broken. Entirely unnecessarily. And they
> don't care about your privacy.
> 
>    They pull in a 4.4 MB js file just to do basic things
> like load pages from an anchor tag. The internal
> links don't work without script! The script is coming
> from Cloudfront. They also have Google-Analytics code.
> So both Google and Amazon would be tracking me if
> I allowed script.

Is it not possible that those scripts are placed there by some web
designer tool kit out there? You just place the visual things and you
get all the crap besides?

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51149

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| >    They pull in a 4.4 MB js file just to do basic things
| > like load pages from an anchor tag. The internal
| > links don't work without script! The script is coming
| > from Cloudfront. They also have Google-Analytics code.
| > So both Google and Amazon would be tracking me if
| > I allowed script.
|
| Is it not possible that those scripts are placed there by some web
| designer tool kit out there? You just place the visual things and you
| get all the crap besides?
|

  Might be. But it's deeply integrated. Either way:
A webmaster with a WYSIWYG toolkit or a webmaster
collecting js libraries and code snippets because it's
trendy. So many sites now are broken with script
and load several MBs worth of that stuff. I think a
lot of it is "widgets" that only require simple coding
but must have the "library" loaded to use that code.
In other words, webmasters who don't actually know
how to code what they want.

  But stuff like Google Analytics and Google tag manager
are separate snippets, deliberately added to the page.
The site I detailed had Google Analytics, probably
because they don't know how to process their own
server logs to track visitors. So they let Google
spy in exchange for a traffic report. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51167

On 10/10/2018 16.31, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> 
> | >    They pull in a 4.4 MB js file just to do basic things
> | > like load pages from an anchor tag. The internal
> | > links don't work without script! The script is coming
> | > from Cloudfront. They also have Google-Analytics code.
> | > So both Google and Amazon would be tracking me if
> | > I allowed script.
> |
> | Is it not possible that those scripts are placed there by some web
> | designer tool kit out there? You just place the visual things and you
> | get all the crap besides?
> |
> 
>   Might be. But it's deeply integrated. Either way:
> A webmaster with a WYSIWYG toolkit or a webmaster
> collecting js libraries and code snippets because it's
> trendy. So many sites now are broken with script
> and load several MBs worth of that stuff. I think a
> lot of it is "widgets" that only require simple coding
> but must have the "library" loaded to use that code.
> In other words, webmasters who don't actually know
> how to code what they want.
> 
>   But stuff like Google Analytics and Google tag manager
> are separate snippets, deliberately added to the page.
> The site I detailed had Google Analytics, probably
> because they don't know how to process their own
> server logs to track visitors. So they let Google
> spy in exchange for a traffic report. 

I know of small sites that simply hire the space somewhere, and it is
the hosters who puts the commercials, not the person that wrote the
site, the real content. And nowdays having commercials to make some
revenue and pay the hosting means all the google things.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51170

On 10/10/18 15:10, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 14.55, Mayayana wrote:
> 
>>
>>    Last night I visited a site I found in a Michael
>> Pollan book: csp.org. Council on Spiritual Practices.
>> They're some kind of clearing house for ideas about
>> psychedelic drugs and religious experience. Sounded
>> interesting. It's people who want to experience life
>> more fully, deeply and joyfully. And they think there
>> might be a correlation between what chemicals like
>> psilocybin do and what advanced meditation
>> techniques do. A bit of a 60s, consumer-goes-
>> shopping-for-spirituality-on-sale rehash. But I was
>> curious what they're up to. Ironically, their webpage
>> was entirely broken. Entirely unnecessarily. And they
>> don't care about your privacy.
>>
>>     They pull in a 4.4 MB js file just to do basic things
>> like load pages from an anchor tag. The internal
>> links don't work without script! The script is coming
>> from Cloudfront. They also have Google-Analytics code.
>> So both Google and Amazon would be tracking me if
>> I allowed script.
> 
> Is it not possible that those scripts are placed there by some web
> designer tool kit out there? You just place the visual things and you
> get all the crap besides?
> 
Exactly.

Wordpress, Joomla, et al. You import their shit and you build using high 
level tools that rely on low level libraries that are often not even 
hosted on your server.




-- 
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51150

On 10/10/2018 06:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> Anyone who knows enough to paste in Google tracking code has a basic 
> idea of what's going on.

I disagree.

I've seen WAY TOO MANY ""recreational webmasters (some that get paid for 
pretending to be professionals) that have zero clue what the code that 
they are copying and pasting actually does.  They just think they know 
that if they but this blob of text somewhere on their page that it will 
do something they think they want.

It's the difference between wrote memory and actual knowledge.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51157

"Grant Taylor" <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

| > Anyone who knows enough to paste in Google tracking code has a basic
| > idea of what's going on.
|
| I disagree.
|
| I've seen WAY TOO MANY ""recreational webmasters (some that get paid for
| pretending to be professionals) that have zero clue what the code that
| they are copying and pasting actually does.

  I'd agree in terms of javascript gadgets, and even
webfonts, in most cases. People don't think. They
just add it to their page. But I was talking about
things like Google analytics.

      I meant they know what's going on in terms
of privacy. J.O. said webmasters don't care about
privacy. You said you disagree -- that they just don't
know what they're doing. If they're pasting in
Google Analytics then they know that's for tracking
visitors and that they're allowing Google to do the
tracking. If they paste Google adwords code they're
trying to make money on ads. They obviously know
they're letting Google spy on you to target the ads.
That's the whole point. They're handing you off to
a spyware ad company without your knowledge or
permission.

   I would guess that if you visit 10 sites you like
right now, at least 9 will have at least some tie-in
to Google. Most will have other tracking links. They
know they're tracking. It's usually how they make money
from their site. Google tag manager's only purpose
is for use with spyware/ads. Same thing with phone
apps. They've all bought into the idea that it doesn't
matter. If we just pretend that you have no right to
privacy then everyone can make a lot more money. In
other words, many of those sites are concerned about
your security, if they want to sell you stuff, but most
prefer that you not have privacy.

  I suppose you could say that some webmasters have
never even thought about the idea of privacy. But
wouldn't it be safe to say they, also, don't care about
your privacy?

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51162

On 10/10/2018 12:06 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> I'd agree in terms of javascript gadgets, and even webfonts, in most 
> cases. People don't think. They just add it to their page. But I was 
> talking about things like Google analytics.

I'll concede that Google is a problem.  But they are not what I was 
thinking about.

I was thinking more about the WordPress plugin that pulls in multiple 
JavaScript libraries and all of the associated dependencies and the 
privacy implications there in.  Or someone not having their site 
configured to defend against XSS or other malicious user content that 
gets exploited via their site.

I think that most (recreational) webmasters are ignorant of those 
things.  They simply want the nifty calendar on their site, and they are 
happy to take the free one instead of paying a nominal fee for a better 
version that is more privacy friendly.

> I meant they know what's going on in terms of privacy. J.O. said 
> webmasters don't care about privacy. You said you disagree -- that they 
> just don't know what they're doing.

I think that is an apt description of what I outlined above.

> If they're pasting in Google Analytics then they know that's for tracking 
> visitors and that they're allowing Google to do the tracking. If they 
> paste Google adwords code they're trying to make money on ads. They 
> obviously know they're letting Google spy on you to target the ads. 
> That's the whole point. They're handing you off to a spyware ad company 
> without your knowledge or permission.

I agree that adding Google <anything> is enabling Google to track you. 
I don't think that (recreational) webmasters are truly cognoscente of 
what that means.

I've heard many people indicate that they want nominal statistics about 
their site.  They don't know enough to use something like Webalizer (et 
al) so they use Google Analytics.  They don't realize that they are 
enabling 3rd party tracking via GA, much less that Webalizer wouldn't 
enable such tracking.  It's not overtly malicious or privacy ignoring. 
It's naivety that enables 3rd party tracking.  At least in the circles 
that I've traveled.

> I would guess that if you visit 10 sites you like right now, at least 9 
> will have at least some tie-in to Google. Most will have other tracking 
> links. 

Agreed.  Google is one of many.  I'd rather trust Google than Facebook 
or other trackers.  (Devil that I know type of thing.)

> They know they're tracking.

I don't buy that at face value.

I think there are some webmasters that want the Facebook thumbs up, or 
the Twitter "tweet this" buttons.  I believe that many webmasters want 
the features and that they are ignorant of some ~> many of the privacy / 
tracking implications.

> It's usually how they make money from their site. Google tag manager's 
> only purpose is for use with spyware/ads.

I agree that Google Analytics (et al) are done consciously.  I'll even 
consed there is some knowledge of tracking, all be it with a purportedly 
benign purpose.

I suspect that many webmasters have no idea that thinks like Facebook's 
like button, or Twitter's Tweet button, et al, are actually tracking and 
privacy invasion technologies ~> techniques.

> Same thing with phone apps. They've all bought into the idea that it 
> doesn't matter.

I agree in some cases.  I (naively) choose to believe that there are 
some apps that are truly just trying to present a better UI / UX than 
can be had on a web page.  I know that this is not nearly the case that 
I wish it was.

> If we just pretend that you have no right to privacy then everyone can 
> make a lot more money.

I think many people choose to share information, for what ever reason, 
many of whom don't have any idea about the privacy implications of doing so.

Purportedly there is (or recently was) a study going on where people 
will trade information for coffee.  The coffee is not free.  People are 
literally paying with information, not government issued currency (or 
stand ins therefor).

> In other words, many of those sites are concerned about your security, 
> if they want to sell you stuff, but most prefer that you not have privacy.

IMHO "security" and "privacy" are two extremely distinct things.  I can 
tell you for a fact that Google does take great pains to make sure that 
information is secure.  (Google does make mistakes just like other 
companies.  I.e. recent G+ faux pas.)  Google takes the "security" of 
your information (decidedly no longer "private" to you) seriously.

There are sites at the other end of the spectrum too that take "privacy" 
very seriously, but utterly fail at "security".

> I suppose you could say that some webmasters have never even thought 
> about the idea of privacy.

Agreed.

> But wouldn't it be safe to say they, also, don't care about your privacy?

There is a difference in "ignorance" (not knowing about) and "neglect" 
(choosing to ignore) when it comes to "privacy", and "security".

IMHO "security" and "privacy" are two distinct circles in a Venn 
diagram.  There isn't a complete union between them either.  Sure, there 
is some overlap.  But there is also some mutually exclusivity.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51169

On 10/10/18 13:55, Mayayana wrote:
> Anyone who knows enough
> to paste in Google tracking code has a basic idea
> of what's going on.

No, they dont.

In genereal websites are generated by computer illiterate 'creatives' 
who just use 'frameworks' of other peoples code and bugger with it till 
it looks good enough to get paid for.

They have zero clue about code efficiency, privacy or whatever. They 
just use a template to include google shit because the customer asked 
them to because *she* gets money and stats for so doing, and SHE doesnt 
have a clue either.


-- 
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your 
oppressors."
      - George Orwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51173

"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote

| > Anyone who knows enough
| > to paste in Google tracking code has a basic idea
| > of what's going on.
|
| No, they dont.
|
| In genereal websites are generated by computer illiterate 'creatives'
| who just use 'frameworks' of other peoples code

  I think we all agree on that. As you clearly put it
above, they're pulling in vast piles of external code.
Its changing the definition of a webpage. But adding
Google Analytics is a couple of lines that one specifically
pastes in to get Google visitor reports. Pasting in
Google Tag Manager is specifically done as part of
advertising strategies. Those are not the same as
the gobs of so-called libraries used to add pizzazz
by WYSIWYG webmasters.

   In the example I gave, the page writer is using
overproduced crap from Amazon, probably for the
reason you detailed: They can make it look professional
with a WYSIWYG editor tool. But they also, separately,
added Google Analytics for tracking. That doesn't just
show up by accident because people don't know what
they're doing. It shows up because they want visitor
tracking and don't care about your privacy.

    A lot of these cases are actually corporate sites.
We were talking about it recently in another thread.
I'm periodically getting a redirect from NPR.org to a
page that insists I choose to allow them to spy on me:

"By choosing "I agree" below, you agree that NPR's sites use cookies, 
similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device 
you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user 
experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR's sponsors, 
provide social media features, and analyze NPR's traffic. This information 
is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other 
third-party service providers."

  Ironically, I can't even agree without first enabling
script. :)

   There's also a link there to more details of how much
this alleged non-profit feels they have a right to spy
on visitors and sell that info on to Facebook, advertisers
or whomever else they like. They claim to be a non-profit
news purveyor, yet they intend to customize the news
on a per-viewer basis in order to make their site more
attractive and to make money by selling your viewing
data to outside companies. Who needs Russians on
Facebook when we have NPR in the US?

   I don't really understand why so many people are so
adamant to proclaim the innocence of webmasters. If
they deliberately spy on you they don't care about your
privacy. If they add code for the likes of Google they
don't care about your privacy. If they don't even know
that Google is a privacy problem then they don't care
about your privacy and they probably also don't care
about whether they flushed the toilet or turned off the
stove burner.

   You're stressing the aspect of ignorance among web
designers. I'd agree. But that doesn't excuse them. It's
an interesting point, though. Maybe if we ever get some
kind of privacy regulation there should be rules about
not linking to 3rd-party sites internally. That's what was
originally intended, after all. Remember how a lot
of people used to think it was wrong to put someone
else's page in an iframe? Iframes and script were all but
gone -- for functionality and security reasons -- when
the "monetization" forces decided they could be twisted
into legal exploits. Now a lot of pages have hidden iframes
allowing external sites to set 1st-party cookies without
your permission.

   That extensive cross-connection to surveillance and
advertising companies is contradictory to the original design
of the Internet and to any basic idea of common decency,
but it's become the norm. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51178

On 11/10/2018 15.24, Mayayana wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
> 
> | > Anyone who knows enough
> | > to paste in Google tracking code has a basic idea
> | > of what's going on.
> |
> | No, they dont.
> |
> | In genereal websites are generated by computer illiterate 'creatives'
> | who just use 'frameworks' of other peoples code
> 
>   I think we all agree on that. As you clearly put it
> above, they're pulling in vast piles of external code.
> Its changing the definition of a webpage. But adding
> Google Analytics is a couple of lines that one specifically
> pastes in to get Google visitor reports. Pasting in
> Google Tag Manager is specifically done as part of
> advertising strategies. Those are not the same as
> the gobs of so-called libraries used to add pizzazz
> by WYSIWYG webmasters.
> 
>    In the example I gave, the page writer is using
> overproduced crap from Amazon, probably for the
> reason you detailed: They can make it look professional
> with a WYSIWYG editor tool. But they also, separately,
> added Google Analytics for tracking. That doesn't just
> show up by accident because people don't know what
> they're doing. It shows up because they want visitor
> tracking and don't care about your privacy.

Not necessarily. Maybe they think different about privacy and don't
consider it important.

Like not thinking that doing this:


> "By choosing "I agree" below, you agree that NPR's sites use cookies, 
> similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device 
> you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user 
> experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR's sponsors, 
> provide social media features, and analyze NPR's traffic. This information 
> is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other 
> third-party service providers."

... harms your privacy. After all, they are not asking for a nude photo
of you.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51182

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

|> It shows up because they want visitor
| > tracking and don't care about your privacy.
|
| Not necessarily. Maybe they think different about privacy and don't
| consider it important.
|

   Well, I guess I can't disagree with someone
who argues with me by asserting my own point.
I think you missed your calling in the field of  law. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51192

On 11/10/2018 20.12, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> 
> |> It shows up because they want visitor
> | > tracking and don't care about your privacy.
> |
> | Not necessarily. Maybe they think different about privacy and don't
> | consider it important.
> |
> 
>    Well, I guess I can't disagree with someone
> who argues with me by asserting my own point.
> I think you missed your calling in the field of  law. :)

Well, English is not my first language, maybe I misunderstood.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51243

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:24:30 -0400
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> I'm periodically getting a redirect from NPR.org to a
> page that insists I choose to allow them to spy on me.

Have you tried:

o https://thin.npr.org

It's a no-graphics, no-script, text-only version of the NPR website
that was set up for use during the hurricane season when many viewers'
Internet bandwidth was likely to be severely restricted during bad
weather and recovery from it.

- -- 
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather:  http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 38° — Wind WNW 8 mph — Sky overcast.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlvBSskACgkQYNv8YqSjllLRsQCeMle2dm/DRs8e3vkjGjYDu7sg
1q4An3+qc+i+B4tGvY3ilpEQJf2AAJD9
=djBx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51247

"Chuck Rhode" <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> wrote

|
| > I'm periodically getting a redirect from NPR.org to a
| > page that insists I choose to allow them to spy on me.
|
| Have you tried:
|
| o https://thin.npr.org
|
| It's a no-graphics, no-script, text-only version of the NPR website
| that was set up for use during the hurricane season when many viewers'
| Internet bandwidth was likely to be severely restricted during bad
| weather and recovery from it.
|

  Actually a text-only version is the option for anyone
who doesn't want to accept the spying. Your link
redirects to it: text.npr.org. There are two buttons on
their "please accept our spying" page. One, requiring
script, is to agree to spying. The other, to reject
spying, sends one to the blank page with about 8 plain
links. Each link then goes to a text-only story page.

   That's not really so bad. Most of the pictures used on
news sites are of little or no value to the story. At best,
on a major news site, a story about Trump will probably
at least have a picture of Trump. So it *seems* sort of
visual. Often it's not relevant at all. An article at a tech
site about, say, Microsoft might just have a photo of
a keyboard -- something easy and royalty-free to make it
look like the article comes with pictures. But it really
doesn't.
  And I often end up turning off CSS on sites because the
design of most has become horrendous. With 18-20px text
and triple spacing, many sites are all but unreadable without
CSS disabled.

   But still, NPR's dual option feels like a bit of a tantrum
on their part:
  "Oh, you don't like spying? OK, wiseguy. See how you like
this stripped down version!" Apparently they hope people
will relent and decide they'd rather allow spying than to
be cast into the dreary graphical world of Internet circa
1996. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51258

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 22:05:55 -0400
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> the dreary graphical world of Internet circa 1996.

Hah!  I was surprised how good Navigator looked compared to
green-screen terminals.  I still am.

We ought to remember where we've been and offer a little tribute to
our forebearers from time to time.  After all, *html* was the basis
for all that has come along since.  Somebody needs to close the circle
and make plain gray backgrounds fashionable again.

- -- 
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather:  http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 28° — Wind SSW 3 mph

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlvB5+QACgkQYNv8YqSjllIcygCdGY76MxF8iI7wplU4+zEPwQOr
BVkAnirIJE56sgq6mgT4gztfnaZnCwEL
=1X7g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51263

"Chuck Rhode" <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> wrote
|
| > the dreary graphical world of Internet circa 1996.
|
| Hah!  I was surprised how good Navigator looked compared to
| green-screen terminals.  I still am.
|
| We ought to remember where we've been and offer a little tribute to
| our forebearers from time to time.  After all, *html* was the basis
| for all that has come along since.  Somebody needs to close the circle
| and make plain gray backgrounds fashionable again.
|

  Yes. I wouldn't mind a bit if no-nonsense design
became fashionable. But no-nonsense design doesn't
have to be bad design, or lack of it. Actually, I see
very little in terms of design these days. It's more
like a sales flyer meets Miracle Mile: Lots of white
space, imprudent font properties, pages that break
without script, and *lots* of flashing lights and
jumping around if script is enabled.

   I've even had to block a lot of CSS just to stop
pointless movement while I'm trying to read. I've
got all this in my userContent.css file for Firefox
and Pale Moon:

/* stop CSS animation */

* {transform: none !important;
-moz-transform: none !important;
transition-property: none !important;
-moz-transition-property: none !important;
-moz-transition-duration: none !important;
animation: none !important;
-moz-animation: none !important;
-webkit-animation: none !important;}

:before {display: none !important;}
:after {display: none !important;}

   The top section was mostly to stop forced
slideshows. The latter two lines are to stop
clever inventions like jiggling, chartreuse ooze
wrapping text characters.

   But with their text-only page NPR have gone out
of their way to make it unattractive. There's no CSS
at all, link lines are jammed up next to each other
vertically, and unlike the normal page, there's no
blurb describing each link. None of that needs to be
left out for a text-only version. A 1 KB page can afford
to be 2 KB. If someone on a slow connection can load
a 100 KB article they can certainly handle 1 KB of
formatting and descriptions on the homepage. It's just
spiteful on the part of NPR. And probably deliberately
misleading -- hoping that people will be fooled into
believing that what they're presenting is the inevitable
result of eliminating "modern technologies" like script,
cookies and spying. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51327

In comp.os.linux.misc, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Chuck Rhode" <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> wrote
> | Have you tried:
> | o https://thin.npr.org
>   Actually a text-only version is the option for anyone
> who doesn't want to accept the spying. Your link
> redirects to it: text.npr.org. There are two buttons on
> their "please accept our spying" page. One, requiring
> script, is to agree to spying. The other, to reject
> spying, sends one to the blank page with about 8 plain
> links. Each link then goes to a text-only story page.

If you use "links are numbered" in lynx, you can see exactly how many
links there are on the page. text.npr.org works great in lynx, but it
appears to be limited to listing today's stories only. I haven't tried
saving a link to see if older stories are still available, just not
listed, or if they expire off. I'm betting "still available, just not
listed".

>    But still, NPR's dual option feels like a bit of a tantrum
> on their part:
>   "Oh, you don't like spying? OK, wiseguy. See how you like
> this stripped down version!" Apparently they hope people
> will relent and decide they'd rather allow spying than to
> be cast into the dreary graphical world of Internet circa
> 1996. 

I don't know. I prefer the stripped down version.

Elijah
------
still makes web pages without any <img> tags

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web