4 ms·

If that's going on then what on earth have I done to offend Google?

by hanoz 7y ago

Avamander 7y ago
Are you blocking their tracking and fingerprinting? Do you sit behind a massive CG-NAT?
chillfox 7y ago
Adblock? I ended up switching mine off just to make the internet usable.
Tenoke 7y ago
Not using Chrome?
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  Is it just me or has the web's compatibility with Firefox taken a nosedive recently? It used to just be my employer's HR software that was chrome-only, but in the last year my power utility website, apartment complex website, and even major websites like https://www.deviantart.com/ https://www.deviantart.com/ (which I was trying to visit just 10 minutes ago) have broken in Firefox but not chrome. Badly, too. These aren't "the layout is different in FF and nobody noticed" bugs, they're "site infinitely redirects" bugs or "login button doesn't submit" bugs. Debug steps: turn off bitwarden, my only extension. Never helps. Ctrl+Shift+Del cookies. Never helps. Sigh, open chrome. Works first time. Is it just me or did the web up and dump firefox just when it started to get good? :(
  - 1_player 7y ago
    Some tech demo sites are Chrome only but I’ve yet to encounter a broken site on Firefox. The only issues I have are mostly due to adblock or my Pi Hole. I haven’t used Chrome in years.
  - JoshuaDavid 7y ago
    I've noticed some of this lately - in a significant fraction of cases, it comes from Firefox honoring X-FRAME- OPTIONS while chrome ignores them, so e.g. payments work on chrome on sites that don't work on FF.
  - chrisweekly 7y ago
    I've unexpectedly had precisely the opposite experience; as of recent changes to cookie handling and 3rd party content in Chrome, several sites / webapps have either stopped working at all in chrome, or have serious issues -- while rendering and performing just fine in FF.
  - zo1 7y ago
    We recently had some "FE devs" make a spiffy new SPA for some internal product. When I got to testing it on Firefox cause that's my main browser, I got a blank white page. I asked them and they're like "yeah, it only works on chrome-based browsers". Or something to that effect. It's not like some CSS was wonky, or a bug somewhere... No, the default process of them building the SPA somehow yielded a completely non-functioning app for Firefox.
  - ornornor 7y ago
    At my current employer, the web apps are only ever tested on chrome. If it works on chrome, it ships. I think I’m the only one using Firefox and making sure it works there before chrome.
    - jjoonathan 7y ago
      Thanks for fighting the good fight.
  - laktak 7y ago
    Have you tried turning off ublock/etc. first? For me it's usually extensions.
  - kubanczyk 7y ago
    Consider submitting a bug ticket. You are the customer after all.
  - lemax 7y ago
    Services with absent engineers should be breaking left and right this month due to changes to SameSite attributes on cookies that hit browsers in early Feb. The intention of the change is to provide some long overdue changes to defaults on cookies with better privacy. This is a change that’s been underway for years but came as a surprise when it actually shipped. I coordinated updates to ~40 packages owned by 5 different teams at my company, and had to put aside a good amount of other critical product work for about a week to ensure we didn’t encounter any customer issues. The crux of the issue for maintainers is that Auth flows that require cookies to be sent around different origins (e.g. OAuth with form_post) will no longer work unless they update the cookies to explicitly be SameSite=none and Secure=true. Chrome led the pack on shipping the changes to browsers, but also implemented a special timeout rule that temporarily allows cookies that don’t meet the new spec to be set anyway to try to ensure auth flows don’t break. Eventually they will lift this timeout. Firefox has shipped support but has not implemented such a timeout.
  - bootsbootsboots 7y ago
    At one place i was at, people were completely aware but firefox issues were always deprioritized because the analytics showed low percentage of users affected. I wouldnt be surprised if a higher proportion of users with firefox also have adblock which further skew these usage stats
- kempbellt 7y ago
  > Not using Chrome? A truly deplorable act... I also added about 30 seconds of latency to every page I visit, but for completely different reasons as op. Switching to Brave and blocking all cookies and JS by default made me have to manually enable it for nearly every site that I actually wanted to use. About a week later, Chrome was reinstalled. Maybe I'll try it again once I level up my willpower.
  - david-s 7y ago
    i find blacklisting sites that abuse JS works better for me than the whitelist approach
  - aabbcc1241 7y ago
    I'm using nextdns.io and no-script with firefox, it works quite smooth when you accumulate the settings. You can export/import the no-script settings and merge with meld to keep the setting in sync between your PCs and laptops
    - aabbcc1241 7y ago
      Also "Privacy Badger" which smartly block scripts by checking cross site cookie, preset whitelist and custom whitelist/blocklist
  - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
    I have 15 whitelisted sites. I think it took negligible effort to add them, you whitelist a site once and it stays there from there on.
heartbeats 7y ago
You haven't opted in. For the modern web, using it without JavaScript and the requisite accounts isn't a supported option.
baq 7y ago
you use a vpn and have anti tracking features enabled in a browser. actually it's sometimes impossible to win the puzzle, they just keep serving you new ones to keep you busy. maybe it's effective against 3rd world click farms.
- Hitton 7y ago
  Just having anti-tracking features without vpn is enough. I suffer from it all the time.
- cascom 7y ago
  Yup - it’s a great way to lose real customers - but I suspect it’s a trade off they’re ok with
stewartm 7y ago
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9407661B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9407661B2/en

If that's going on then what on earth have I done to offend Google?

by hanoz 7y ago

If that's going on then what on earth have I done to offend Google?

Avamander 7y ago

Are you blocking their tracking and fingerprinting? Do you sit behind a massive CG-NAT?

chillfox 7y ago

Adblock? I ended up switching mine off just to make the internet usable.

Tenoke 7y ago

Not using Chrome?

jjoonathan 7y ago
Is it just me or has the web's compatibility with Firefox taken a nosedive recently? It used to just be my employer's HR software that was chrome-only, but in the last year my power utility website, apartment complex website, and even major websites like https://www.deviantart.com/ https://www.deviantart.com/ (which I was trying to visit just 10 minutes ago) have broken in Firefox but not chrome. Badly, too. These aren't "the layout is different in FF and nobody noticed" bugs, they're "site infinitely redirects" bugs or "login button doesn't submit" bugs. Debug steps: turn off bitwarden, my only extension. Never helps. Ctrl+Shift+Del cookies. Never helps. Sigh, open chrome. Works first time. Is it just me or did the web up and dump firefox just when it started to get good? :(
- 1_player 7y ago
  Some tech demo sites are Chrome only but I’ve yet to encounter a broken site on Firefox. The only issues I have are mostly due to adblock or my Pi Hole. I haven’t used Chrome in years.
- JoshuaDavid 7y ago
  I've noticed some of this lately - in a significant fraction of cases, it comes from Firefox honoring X-FRAME- OPTIONS while chrome ignores them, so e.g. payments work on chrome on sites that don't work on FF.
- chrisweekly 7y ago
  I've unexpectedly had precisely the opposite experience; as of recent changes to cookie handling and 3rd party content in Chrome, several sites / webapps have either stopped working at all in chrome, or have serious issues -- while rendering and performing just fine in FF.
- zo1 7y ago
  We recently had some "FE devs" make a spiffy new SPA for some internal product. When I got to testing it on Firefox cause that's my main browser, I got a blank white page. I asked them and they're like "yeah, it only works on chrome-based browsers". Or something to that effect. It's not like some CSS was wonky, or a bug somewhere... No, the default process of them building the SPA somehow yielded a completely non-functioning app for Firefox.
- ornornor 7y ago
  At my current employer, the web apps are only ever tested on chrome. If it works on chrome, it ships. I think I’m the only one using Firefox and making sure it works there before chrome.
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    Thanks for fighting the good fight.
- laktak 7y ago
  Have you tried turning off ublock/etc. first? For me it's usually extensions.
- kubanczyk 7y ago
  Consider submitting a bug ticket. You are the customer after all.
- lemax 7y ago
  Services with absent engineers should be breaking left and right this month due to changes to SameSite attributes on cookies that hit browsers in early Feb. The intention of the change is to provide some long overdue changes to defaults on cookies with better privacy. This is a change that’s been underway for years but came as a surprise when it actually shipped. I coordinated updates to ~40 packages owned by 5 different teams at my company, and had to put aside a good amount of other critical product work for about a week to ensure we didn’t encounter any customer issues. The crux of the issue for maintainers is that Auth flows that require cookies to be sent around different origins (e.g. OAuth with form_post) will no longer work unless they update the cookies to explicitly be SameSite=none and Secure=true. Chrome led the pack on shipping the changes to browsers, but also implemented a special timeout rule that temporarily allows cookies that don’t meet the new spec to be set anyway to try to ensure auth flows don’t break. Eventually they will lift this timeout. Firefox has shipped support but has not implemented such a timeout.
- bootsbootsboots 7y ago
  At one place i was at, people were completely aware but firefox issues were always deprioritized because the analytics showed low percentage of users affected. I wouldnt be surprised if a higher proportion of users with firefox also have adblock which further skew these usage stats
kempbellt 7y ago
> Not using Chrome? A truly deplorable act... I also added about 30 seconds of latency to every page I visit, but for completely different reasons as op. Switching to Brave and blocking all cookies and JS by default made me have to manually enable it for nearly every site that I actually wanted to use. About a week later, Chrome was reinstalled. Maybe I'll try it again once I level up my willpower.
- david-s 7y ago
  i find blacklisting sites that abuse JS works better for me than the whitelist approach
- aabbcc1241 7y ago
  I'm using nextdns.io and no-script with firefox, it works quite smooth when you accumulate the settings. You can export/import the no-script settings and merge with meld to keep the setting in sync between your PCs and laptops
  - aabbcc1241 7y ago
    Also "Privacy Badger" which smartly block scripts by checking cross site cookie, preset whitelist and custom whitelist/blocklist
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  I have 15 whitelisted sites. I think it took negligible effort to add them, you whitelist a site once and it stays there from there on.

heartbeats 7y ago

You haven't opted in. For the modern web, using it without JavaScript and the requisite accounts isn't a supported option.

baq 7y ago

you use a vpn and have anti tracking features enabled in a browser. actually it's sometimes impossible to win the puzzle, they just keep serving you new ones to keep you busy. maybe it's effective against 3rd world click farms.

Hitton 7y ago
Just having anti-tracking features without vpn is enough. I suffer from it all the time.
cascom 7y ago
Yup - it’s a great way to lose real customers - but I suspect it’s a trade off they’re ok with

stewartm 7y ago

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9407661B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9407661B2/en