"VanguardLH" <***@nguard.LH> wrote
| : generally don't enable.) That seems like poetic justice: They need
| : whether you're letting them spy. :)
| No, you have a connection to them so your IP address is known during
| your session with the site. If your client refuses to get their ad
| content using that IP address during your session with them, they can
| detect your client is not retrieving all content and only some of it.
| The site will cooperate with the off-domain site (theirs or someone
| else's) to see if you went there to get that content. They can do that
In theory. But that's unlikely. Sending data requests
back and forth to 3rd parties with every page request
would put a significant load on their traffic and processing.
It makes much more sense to just write script that puts
all the load on the visitor. Something like a heavily obfuscated
"Go to xyz, send them this data, and load the ad from
xyz.com. If that fails then show a nasty message."
I said, I've never had a site show me with a message
about blocking ads. I know you hate to have your
beliefs contradicted by other peoples' experience.
You find your beliefs so devilishly delicious. Second
only to your opinions in their ability to transfix you
with pleasure. But thems the facts.
Think about what you're claiming. I visit a site. They
contact their 6 ad servers and spyware partners to
see if I'm loading the ads. But I can only load ads
after I've loaded the page. Without script, how are
they going to block the page they just gave me while
they wait 3 seconds for the other servers to respond?
And who's going to wait 3 seconds for a page to load
these days? (The webmaster rule of thumb is that if your
page takes more than 1/4 second, people will start
I guess they could track me to take revenge on
the next page. But I've also never seen a blank
page that says, "AHA! Caught ya! You script-blocking,
ad-evading son of a gun!"
This contradicts your original farfetched claim
that websites will get around my disabling script
by contacting the ad server from the backend
and asking whether they see my IP address. This
article is talking about adblock blocking scripts.
(This is hilarious. There's adblock, anti-adblock,
| that: the page is empty or nearly worthless.
Now you're off on another of your huffy
pronouncements and not paying attention to
my original statement: I don't get blocked for
blocking ads because I don't enable script.
It's all in the script.
You live in a world of escalating arms war, using
ublock origin. I just use a HOSTS file. You may
insist that's not possible, but I'm doing it. I just
visited blockadblock.com and downloaded their
adblock blocker script. (The compound obfuscation
is stunning.) They're using script to block ad
blockers but it's all dependent on CSS. Without
CSS their pages are perfectly functional. You may
not want to view pages with No Style, but I
increasingly find it's often better.
Some examples of my browsing:
WashPo, npr.org, TheRegister, Slashdot, Wired,
alternet.org, infoworld, duckduckgo, Google,
stackoverflow and most other online programming
They all currently work fine without script.
Theatlantic.com is a mess. Headlines on top
of each other. But it's fine with no style.
Similarly, Ars Technica redesigned their site
and I only see 2-3 headlines unless I disable
CSS. But then it's fine.
Some sites I visit are blank. Then I disable CSS.
That makes for a plain page, but actually I
find that I'm increasingly disabling CSS even
when I don't need to. Example: I go to WashPo
and see a normal homepage, with article links.
I click a link and see a normal article. But there's
one problem. The font is serif, 18px high, with triple
line spacing! It's like reading a billboard from
6 feet away. Why? I don't know. Maybe they're
catering to phones? In any case, I often find it
easier to switch to no style and read the article
in simple, 12px verdana.
A few sites are actually completely broken. I used
to sometimes read business articles at forbes.com.
Their site is now broken. The webpage content itself
is embedded in script! But Forbes was never a great
news source, anyway. Nothing lost there. WSJ takes
another approach. They let you read a teaser, maybe
2 paragraphs. Then they want you to sign up. So I
don't go to WSJ.
What this boils down to is that they're refusing to
allow access to their website unless you allow them
to run a rather large software program on your computer.
It's an end-run version of a push webpage. I'm not
going to allow push webpages. Good riddance to them.
It's one thing to pay for a newspaper. It's another thing
entirely to be recorded while you read the paper and
to have the article dynamically change in order to
get me to look at ads. Why would anyone put up with
that once they realize it's happening? (Well, OK,
millions of Facebookie addicts put up with it. :)
| Sites have moved to
| dynamic page content which replies on scripting to decide what the page
| will contain.
Bingo. So they decide what news you'll read, what
price you'll pay when you shop, what search results
you'll see.... Apparently you don't care if their page
is bullshit as long as you don't have to see ads? I do
care, and I'm not accepting this push-webpage
sleight of hand. I suggest that anyone who doesn't
want to live on a push-based, spyware Web might
want to consciously consider what their response
If you allow script then you're handing your browser
(and security, and privacy) over to the sites you
visit, along with "every Tom, Dick and Harry"
business partner they have.