Hacker News Reader

Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

It's a dangerous precedent. Think about adblock. You're just choosing to render the data websites give to you differently.

What if you design a web browser that just ignores most blobs of CSS/Javascript and renders content in a very different way. Are you now breaking copyright? Because you're rendering the data differently than the W3C standard or blocking certain elements?

I realize this is specifically about DRM content, but I feel like it won't be a stretch to try to apply these laws to common content.

Lets all start running Gopher servers again... Fuck the modern web.

View on HN

Pretty soon web traffic will be decrypted and rendered via site specific web assembly blobs that will do everything in their power to defeat custom rendering. The modern web has just begun, and the powers that be are still grappling with its control. So we're still living in a comparative wild-west, but you can see the writing on the wall in every direction you look online right now.

We ahould be doing exactly this in opposite:

Anti ad exit node proxies.

Basically an ecryoted proxy connection to a powerful ad stripping instance that will randomize and pipe all that shit to dev null, and reply to trackers with addesses of their competing ad systems.

So that every ad for “microsoft” appears as though its being used by apple users...

Ah yes, but then who controls those servers? A lot of people think that US Government agents own enough TOR nodes to de-anonymize.

To be fair, in my experience there seem to be a lot more people frustrated with ads than scared of the government.

Someone who wants privacy/anonymity is likely to not want ads, but I think those who don't want ads is actually a larger group.

Why would a browser or extension client side not be better? Adding an intermediary would add latency needlessly...

It's not always possible to even modify the client, think of the embedded browsers in "smart" devices as well as the increasingly-locked-down mobile platforms. But as long as installing your own certificates still works, you can continue to MITM your traffic and modify it before it gets to the client(s).

Because blocking at the cloent edge node already has had the bandwidth consumed from the carriers end provided, no?

This is why we need to build a JavaScript-free web. Just plain old HTML and CSS. With no cookies either. And a search engine that only indexes pages that conform to these rules.

This is what pisses me off aboit ads and data consumption pay rates: if i am paying for “1GB” of data, then i should have full control over how that data gets consumed by the content i am accessing over that paid pipe. Period.

That's why I use Brave Browser, it blocks everything by default. Doesn't even download them.

Doesn't uBlock Origin in Firefox do the same by intercepting network requests? I really don't know...

uBlock Origin supports[0] both network filtering where requests to an ad cdn or domain are blocked before the network connection is ever made, and it also supports cosmetic filtering where elements can be hidden after the fact - but this is mostly for blocking intrusive popups or dialogue boxes and the like rather than for blocking ads. The vast majority of filter lists that come with uBlock Origin are network filters where ad domains are blocked outright. As uBlock Origin uses the Adblock Plus filter syntax it's not difficult to use ABP filters or to port hostfile filters over.

[0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Does-uBlock-block-ads...

I have the same thing in my Safari with 1Blocker. Also built-in on system level and doesn't even download blocked stuff.

No, you don't suddenly own that film you are streaming. What a ridiculous idea.

but you do have full control... if you don't want to see ads, don't visit sites that use ads to support their business model.

I'll bite. How do you propose I know which sites not to visit without visiting them?

good question. I don't have an answer.

though at this point it is kinda predictable - all news sites, except the ones with paywalls (and if you haven't bought the subscription, then its pointless visiting them). All information sources, except a few notable exceptions (usually aggregators like HN/Reddit, but also Medium).

Everything else divides into SaaS products, personal blogs and random shit. Random shit is usually ad-supported, the rest are usually fine.

it's all sort of moot anyway - the ads model is crap and getting worse, and businesses are going to have to move to something else soon. I don't think we'll have this problem long.

How do you know a site will have content you want? Surely there's room for a bit of uncertainty.

> How do you know a site will have content you want?

I'm often told in advance, by virtue of it coming up in a search result, promoted link, friends post, etc.

"This site contains adverts that perform obtrusive tracking" is seldom mentioned before or during the visit, the only way to know is by trying to block all such things and seeing the site fail if it tries to block the blocking.

Sometimes the advance information of content relevance is deceptive of course, and this often coincides with darkest patterns in the advertising/tracking.

when a site identifies my ad blocker and specifically asks that i disable it, then i have to decide either to momentarily disable my ad blocker and view the content, or leave the site. the Big Media people don't want to be so upfront about their restrictions. "if they don't know about the restrictions, they won't get angry."

It is not the ads I/we dislike. It is the tracking. If we go to <insert name of IT news website> and we would see a laptop as on a laptop related article, that would be ok. But if we then to to Winter-ski.xyz and still see the same laptop as, then we no like!

You don't know if the website has ads in the first place so your argument is invalid.

You make me want to reach through my screen...

Ajit pai.

> What if you design a web browser that just ignores most blobs of CSS/Javascript and renders content in a very different way.

that describes every command line / terminal web browser.

Ignoring what you don't understand is arguably valid, dark mode would be illegal..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com