7 ms·

Random idea: Couldn't browsers have two modes of browsing, one lightweight one where only the most basic of JS features are enabled by default (this is somethin

by osoba 10y ago

Random idea: Couldn't browsers have two modes of browsing, one lightweight one where only the most basic of JS features are enabled by default (this is something that 99% of websites actually need) and the full version where everything is enabled. The lightweight one is the default state and the users can manually switch to full version. Or even better use logistic regression or a neural network to decide when a website genuinely needs advanced features and when it's just to track you. As a bonus the lightweight mode would also probably render much faster? How realistic is this? What would be the downside?

nrki 10y ago
This is why I use uMatrix.
- pragone 10y ago
  Sometimes it's frustrating to get sites working with it, but it's nice to know I can have such fine grained control over every (I think?) connection each website is making. Sometimes I'm just astonished - some sites are making network requests to dozens and dozens of other domains!
  - coldpie 10y ago
    Observe, a local newspaper website: http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png
ioulian 10y ago
These are my thoughts (as a webdeveloper): We have 5 big browsers and 3 OS's that we need to support (different rendering, different canvas rendering, not to mention 3d rendering quircks, different installed fonts), I think we don't need yet another way to make our lives difficult. I understand that privacy is a big issue, but think about "normal" web developers who just want to show a cool working website to their users, but need to display this message to them: "Thank you for looking at our website, but unfortunately your browser is in lite JavaScript mode. Please set it to full functionality again and restart your browser en go to our site once more.". I have already used dirty hacks to support the default setting of 3rd party cookies in Safari, while developing facebook apps or some apps inside an iframe that have different domains. It's there to make users feel more secure, but there are always ways around it. It would be better to add the functionality you are suggesting as an option and not by default, so people, who understand the "risks" of not viewing some sites properly in favor of more privacy, will turn it on by themselves.
- osoba 10y ago
  Good point. So maybe browsers should make the full version the default and then add the following options for more tech savvy users (and users can set the permanent default or per website setting): 1) full mode (all JS is enabled) 2) lite mode (only the bare JS is enabled, no tracking possible) 3) suggested mode (a machine learning algorithm decides what is really needed to be enabled and what is there for tracking purposes) 4) manual mode (somewhere in the settings you can tick and untick verious JS APIs that you want enabled and disabled, like websockets, WebGL etc)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Majestic121 10y ago
  I understand the view and pains of the webdeveloper, but quite frankly I think privacy issues are way more important. Not even in the same order of magnitude. Your comment feels like a restaurant saying 'Ok, I understand cleanliness is important, but as a cook washing dishes all the time is really annoying so I only wash them if customers ask for clean dishes'
  - ioulian 10y ago
    Haha, good one, but joking aside, I would rather prefer that the dishes can never get dirty, no matter what. I don't think it's in Google best interest to add anti tracking features into Chrome browser (and same with MS and Apple). So for now on we must bring our own cloth to clean out the dishes or go to another restaurant where the dishes are always clean. The problem is that it's impossible to change the current behaviour of the browsers without breaking the whole internet. It would be much easier and better to create a new browser (look at Tor Browser for example), that has a lot of anti tracking features enabled by default. People know that if they want privacy, they can use this browser. But it's still a "big" hassle to install it, not to mention my grandmother knows Chrome/Firefox, but not Tor Browser so she will never use it. We do not need to change the browsers to let them defend us, but to teach folk what privacy is and what to do if you don't want to get tracked. PS: keep in mind that browser is 1 item in the big picture of "tracking private data". IoT devices are really booming now, and everything is tracking us, our watches, refrigerators, thermostats, ... we can't just install a AdBlocker there.
zzzcpan 10y ago
> Couldn't browsers have two modes of browsing They could, they could even use click-to-play like interfaces or similar for pretty much everything that might hurt user experience or weaken their privacy, but enabling by default all of the features required to show ads is much more important for all major browsers. They are only interested in helping users as long as their backers can benefit from it, i.e. can show them ads or drmed content. Even Mozilla is like that. There is no incentive for privacy there, except for PR purposes, but PR is not something you can install on your computer. Best bet is probably to donate to privacy oriented forks and use them.
navs 10y ago
To me a typical web developer uses HTML, CSS and simple javascript limited to basic dom manipulation, maybe a sprinkle of ajax. All of which can degrade gracefully for the non-js browsing user (lite javascript maybe?) Then again, seeing what's trending and the topics of many bootcamp courses, I see that is moving towards SPAs which are all just JS (non-lite javascript) As a web developer I can see that introducing a painful troubleshooting process, lots of confused jira tickets (explaining caching is bad enough). It would be nice to simply have websites that can function within the scope of light javascript functin without it at all. For those that have the complex JS, well they get a bren experience but a browser notice that informs them why. Chrome does part of this with a whitelist JS feature. Now if only it were as noticeable as the click to play flash feature is.

by osoba 10y ago

nrki 10y ago

This is why I use uMatrix.

pragone 10y ago
Sometimes it's frustrating to get sites working with it, but it's nice to know I can have such fine grained control over every (I think?) connection each website is making. Sometimes I'm just astonished - some sites are making network requests to dozens and dozens of other domains!
- coldpie 10y ago
  Observe, a local newspaper website: http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png

ioulian 10y ago

These are my thoughts (as a webdeveloper): We have 5 big browsers and 3 OS's that we need to support (different rendering, different canvas rendering, not to mention 3d rendering quircks, different installed fonts), I think we don't need yet another way to make our lives difficult. I understand that privacy is a big issue, but think about "normal" web developers who just want to show a cool working website to their users, but need to display this message to them: "Thank you for looking at our website, but unfortunately your browser is in lite JavaScript mode. Please set it to full functionality again and restart your browser en go to our site once more.". I have already used dirty hacks to support the default setting of 3rd party cookies in Safari, while developing facebook apps or some apps inside an iframe that have different domains. It's there to make users feel more secure, but there are always ways around it. It would be better to add the functionality you are suggesting as an option and not by default, so people, who understand the "risks" of not viewing some sites properly in favor of more privacy, will turn it on by themselves.

osoba 10y ago
Good point. So maybe browsers should make the full version the default and then add the following options for more tech savvy users (and users can set the permanent default or per website setting): 1) full mode (all JS is enabled) 2) lite mode (only the bare JS is enabled, no tracking possible) 3) suggested mode (a machine learning algorithm decides what is really needed to be enabled and what is there for tracking purposes) 4) manual mode (somewhere in the settings you can tick and untick verious JS APIs that you want enabled and disabled, like websockets, WebGL etc)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Majestic121 10y ago
I understand the view and pains of the webdeveloper, but quite frankly I think privacy issues are way more important. Not even in the same order of magnitude. Your comment feels like a restaurant saying 'Ok, I understand cleanliness is important, but as a cook washing dishes all the time is really annoying so I only wash them if customers ask for clean dishes'
- ioulian 10y ago
  Haha, good one, but joking aside, I would rather prefer that the dishes can never get dirty, no matter what. I don't think it's in Google best interest to add anti tracking features into Chrome browser (and same with MS and Apple). So for now on we must bring our own cloth to clean out the dishes or go to another restaurant where the dishes are always clean. The problem is that it's impossible to change the current behaviour of the browsers without breaking the whole internet. It would be much easier and better to create a new browser (look at Tor Browser for example), that has a lot of anti tracking features enabled by default. People know that if they want privacy, they can use this browser. But it's still a "big" hassle to install it, not to mention my grandmother knows Chrome/Firefox, but not Tor Browser so she will never use it. We do not need to change the browsers to let them defend us, but to teach folk what privacy is and what to do if you don't want to get tracked. PS: keep in mind that browser is 1 item in the big picture of "tracking private data". IoT devices are really booming now, and everything is tracking us, our watches, refrigerators, thermostats, ... we can't just install a AdBlocker there.

zzzcpan 10y ago

> Couldn't browsers have two modes of browsing They could, they could even use click-to-play like interfaces or similar for pretty much everything that might hurt user experience or weaken their privacy, but enabling by default all of the features required to show ads is much more important for all major browsers. They are only interested in helping users as long as their backers can benefit from it, i.e. can show them ads or drmed content. Even Mozilla is like that. There is no incentive for privacy there, except for PR purposes, but PR is not something you can install on your computer. Best bet is probably to donate to privacy oriented forks and use them.

navs 10y ago

To me a typical web developer uses HTML, CSS and simple javascript limited to basic dom manipulation, maybe a sprinkle of ajax. All of which can degrade gracefully for the non-js browsing user (lite javascript maybe?) Then again, seeing what's trending and the topics of many bootcamp courses, I see that is moving towards SPAs which are all just JS (non-lite javascript) As a web developer I can see that introducing a painful troubleshooting process, lots of confused jira tickets (explaining caching is bad enough). It would be nice to simply have websites that can function within the scope of light javascript functin without it at all. For those that have the complex JS, well they get a bren experience but a browser notice that informs them why. Chrome does part of this with a whitelist JS feature. Now if only it were as noticeable as the click to play flash feature is.