5 ms·

Hm this does actually sound like a usecase for using timezone info. However. I don't think that content blockers are third parties. They are part of the user a

Hm this does actually sound like a usecase for using timezone info. However. I don't think that content blockers are third parties. They are part of the user agent. The choice to use a blacklist is up to the user. It is not a third party breaking your app. It is the user themselves.

Klathmon 8y ago
But it's the user using a tool to do one thing (block ads) which someone has taken to an extreme (block all requests which could potentially be used for tracking, and treats different players differently depending on sentiment in a lot of cases). To use a more controversial phrase, the "blocklist" groups are now a cartel which gets to decide which apps work and which don't, and you have no way of appealing or even reasoning with them in a lot of cases. They get to decide that the Amazon cookie is okay, but a Google font is not, that login-with-facebook isn't allowed, but login-with-twitter is okay. That my app which uses timezone information was crossing a line, but my competitor wasn't. I'm more than happy to help work with those who want to protect their privacy. I genuinely agree with a lot of viewpoints and I work to protect my own privacy as well, but at some point things go too far and I feel a lot of these tools are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, and are even causing a false sense of security as people think they are protected from everything when really they are hurting the good actors the worst while the bad actors continue to operate just fine.
- FridgeSeal 8y ago
  > To use a more controversial phrase, the "blocklist" groups are now a cartel which gets to decide which apps work and which don't, and you have no way of appealing or even reasoning with them As I’m one of these people who aggressively controls what I let my web browser load maybe I can answer some of your questions. Facebook, Twitter, Google Analytics and tag manager are blocked outright, all the time. If your site needs several different CDN’s to load it’s assets, for seemingly no reason then I generally leave; unless I need something from that particular page, in which case I give it about 2 or 3 goes of playing “which CDN serves the information I actually care about?”. Any domain you use that isn’t obviously yours or a CDN or obviously related to what’s on the page (web stores get to load shoplift for example) is blocked because assume it’s just another advertising/analytics company. Sites that load the DOM and contents into memory, but display a blank page until I unblock a bunch of JS are my pet peeve, and I make a note to never return to them. > I feel a lot of these tools are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here The carté Blanche approache is used because it’s faster and easier for me to find the minimal set of domains and resources to load than it is to get every website out there to not stuff their site full of trackers and unnecessary JS.
  - Klathmon 8y ago
    >If your site needs several different CDN’s to load it’s assets, for seemingly no reason then I generally leave; unless I need something from that particular page, in which case I give it about 2 or 3 goes of playing “which CDN serves the information I actually care about?”. >Any domain you use that isn’t obviously yours or a CDN or obviously related to what’s on the page (web stores get to load shoplift for example) is blocked because assume it’s just another advertising/analytics company. I'll generally agree with you (for the most part). With the exception of using a CDN to serve static assets that I control (like amazon s3 for instance), I have no issues with you or anyone else blocking all requests that they don't like! (and hell, i'm fine with you even blocking first party requests, but since you are the one doing it you'll know that it is the reason the site breaks). > Sites that load the DOM and contents into memory, but display a blank page until I unblock a bunch of JS are my pet peeve, and I make a note to never return to them. But I'm talking about applications, not static web pages or documents. Complaining that an application needs a programming language is like refusing to turn on any computer that runs any code at all. The code is the application, and if you don't want to run JS, then you don't want to use the program. (outside of viewing some static assets like images, or possibly the minimal DOM put into the HTML for bootstrapping, there's literally nothing else). >The carté Blanche approache is used because it’s faster and easier for me to find the minimal set of domains and resources to load than it is to get every website out there to not stuff their site full of trackers and unnecessary JS. Again, I'm more than happy to let you block what you want, i'll even help support your use case if you want and it's possible. But when you take your approach, and you start making a large percentage of the web use it, and you auto-update their browser plugins to use your approach so that things that were once working yesterday are now broken, and users don't have any real reason or understanding why. Or even worse, you begin making wild assumptions about why I need data backed by nothing but scaremongering (displaying warnings like "this site is trying to track you" when I give the option of offering the app in multiple languages...), then we have a problem.
    - FridgeSeal 8y ago
      Well there's a strong argument to be made that there are plenty of people making web applications for information that doesn't need to be a web app. For example: your generic company website does not need to be a SPA with every conceivable JS feature thrown in. You are only presenting me some information, HTML and CSS is more than adequate, stop making things more complex than they need to be. In these case, I'm more than happy to break their stuff as it's seemingly the only way to get them to pay attention.

Klathmon 8y ago

But it's the user using a tool to do one thing (block ads) which someone has taken to an extreme (block all requests which could potentially be used for tracking, and treats different players differently depending on sentiment in a lot of cases). To use a more controversial phrase, the "blocklist" groups are now a cartel which gets to decide which apps work and which don't, and you have no way of appealing or even reasoning with them in a lot of cases. They get to decide that the Amazon cookie is okay, but a Google font is not, that login-with-facebook isn't allowed, but login-with-twitter is okay. That my app which uses timezone information was crossing a line, but my competitor wasn't. I'm more than happy to help work with those who want to protect their privacy. I genuinely agree with a lot of viewpoints and I work to protect my own privacy as well, but at some point things go too far and I feel a lot of these tools are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, and are even causing a false sense of security as people think they are protected from everything when really they are hurting the good actors the worst while the bad actors continue to operate just fine.

FridgeSeal 8y ago
> To use a more controversial phrase, the "blocklist" groups are now a cartel which gets to decide which apps work and which don't, and you have no way of appealing or even reasoning with them As I’m one of these people who aggressively controls what I let my web browser load maybe I can answer some of your questions. Facebook, Twitter, Google Analytics and tag manager are blocked outright, all the time. If your site needs several different CDN’s to load it’s assets, for seemingly no reason then I generally leave; unless I need something from that particular page, in which case I give it about 2 or 3 goes of playing “which CDN serves the information I actually care about?”. Any domain you use that isn’t obviously yours or a CDN or obviously related to what’s on the page (web stores get to load shoplift for example) is blocked because assume it’s just another advertising/analytics company. Sites that load the DOM and contents into memory, but display a blank page until I unblock a bunch of JS are my pet peeve, and I make a note to never return to them. > I feel a lot of these tools are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here The carté Blanche approache is used because it’s faster and easier for me to find the minimal set of domains and resources to load than it is to get every website out there to not stuff their site full of trackers and unnecessary JS.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  >If your site needs several different CDN’s to load it’s assets, for seemingly no reason then I generally leave; unless I need something from that particular page, in which case I give it about 2 or 3 goes of playing “which CDN serves the information I actually care about?”. >Any domain you use that isn’t obviously yours or a CDN or obviously related to what’s on the page (web stores get to load shoplift for example) is blocked because assume it’s just another advertising/analytics company. I'll generally agree with you (for the most part). With the exception of using a CDN to serve static assets that I control (like amazon s3 for instance), I have no issues with you or anyone else blocking all requests that they don't like! (and hell, i'm fine with you even blocking first party requests, but since you are the one doing it you'll know that it is the reason the site breaks). > Sites that load the DOM and contents into memory, but display a blank page until I unblock a bunch of JS are my pet peeve, and I make a note to never return to them. But I'm talking about applications, not static web pages or documents. Complaining that an application needs a programming language is like refusing to turn on any computer that runs any code at all. The code is the application, and if you don't want to run JS, then you don't want to use the program. (outside of viewing some static assets like images, or possibly the minimal DOM put into the HTML for bootstrapping, there's literally nothing else). >The carté Blanche approache is used because it’s faster and easier for me to find the minimal set of domains and resources to load than it is to get every website out there to not stuff their site full of trackers and unnecessary JS. Again, I'm more than happy to let you block what you want, i'll even help support your use case if you want and it's possible. But when you take your approach, and you start making a large percentage of the web use it, and you auto-update their browser plugins to use your approach so that things that were once working yesterday are now broken, and users don't have any real reason or understanding why. Or even worse, you begin making wild assumptions about why I need data backed by nothing but scaremongering (displaying warnings like "this site is trying to track you" when I give the option of offering the app in multiple languages...), then we have a problem.
  - FridgeSeal 8y ago
    Well there's a strong argument to be made that there are plenty of people making web applications for information that doesn't need to be a web app. For example: your generic company website does not need to be a SPA with every conceivable JS feature thrown in. You are only presenting me some information, HTML and CSS is more than adequate, stop making things more complex than they need to be. In these case, I'm more than happy to break their stuff as it's seemingly the only way to get them to pay attention.