5 ms·

Replying to @all What I was getting at was dead simpl,e: turn off JS and install a hostfile-based blocklist, or other. It really was that simple. I also enable

Replying to @all What I was getting at was dead simpl,e: turn off JS and install a hostfile-based blocklist, or other. It really was that simple. I also enable cookies just for HN posting. Else no cookies of any kind ever accepted. So are people doing that, because if you don't co-operate with their code, tracking you gets vastly harder. You can take back control of you machine - if you choose. It's simple and you can do it now - if you choose. @benjaminjosephw: can you give more detail? (glad you're not just all talk!) @marcus_holmes, @zdkl, @saagarjha: you may need to get together with others to unify the idea of doing your own web servers. A collective not a commercial entity which you are trying to avoid being involved in. That gives you together much more power. I think that's what @MaxBarraclough is suggesting looking at . I will to. @saagarjha: writing your own browser engine seems totally pointless - it's the web at fault, not the browser that renders it. If you don't like bits of the browser, remove the code. Don't understand what you're trying to do.

ttty 6y ago
What do you do when you need a website but it doesn't work without Js? It's a huge pain to make phone calls, or go to the store
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I use a VM for the few cases I really need to interact with a JS-ridden site, which reverts to a clean state when closed. This should be doable by most HN'ers, we're supposed to be technically savvy. But another way when you need not have to use the site to put pressure on the site by not bothering with it if it breaks without JS. Enough people do it and they will get the hint. Or actually talk to the site owners and ask them - I have done this with a small publisher. Or if someone post a link to their JS-requiring blog/site on HN, ask them politely to make it usable without (I do occasionally). If you want to fight back, you have to pay the price. It's a pretty small one for me.
bloak 6y ago
JavaScript by itself isn't evil. A static web site that uses JavaScript to let the user do everything on the client provides more privacy than an old-school web site with CGI scripts and forms. I've been playing with this idea recently. If you want to provide access to a database which is infrequently updated and no bigger than a few megabytes (like the catalogue of a library with 30 000 books), then provide the database with the web page and implement the search function in JavaScript. If you avoid using a JavaScript "framework" then you may find that the web page responds to your typing so instantaneously that you feel like you're back in the 1980s using a Z80-based machine. (You remember those Z80-based word processors that could keep up with a competent typist?)
- clarry 6y ago
  Here's one live example: https://www.tujavortaro.net/ https://www.tujavortaro.net/
  - bloak 6y ago
    That's a great example. Instantaneous response to queries even on an ancient Chromebook.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Point is, it uses JS and how do I know I can trust it? Not this site but in general. As I say elsewhere, JS is not bad, it's an issue of trust that the JS delivered will not abuse your permission to run on your machine.
    - bloak 6y ago
      That particular site: the code is properly formatted with comments, there's a link to a GitLab repo with the source, you could check your network traffic while using it, ... But in general: I suppose what we need is a flexibly configurable JavaScript engine that stops and asks permission before any suspicious operation is performed. I don't know enough about JavaScript to know whether or how that might work. I note that the way tujavortaro.net downloads a dictionary is by adding a <script> element to the head of the document (https://gitlab.com/sstangl/tuja-vortaro/-/blob/master/app.js#L98 https://gitlab.com/sstangl/tuja-vortaro/-/blob/master/app.js...). HTML+JS is naturally self-modifying, so it's hard to do a static analysis.
benjaminjosephw 6y ago
There are possible alternative futures for technology beyond the web. We've charted a particular course throughout history to get here but there are other fruitful avenues to explore that are still open to technical pioneers like many people here on HN. Brett Victor gives a great talk with a similar premise[0]. The Web started life as a means of publicly sharing documents and has turned into a network of walled gardens. Rather than trying to fix the web itself, I think the solution is to try to recreate something true to the original spirit where users are publishers and where openness is the default. What I'm working on specifically is best described as another take on Mozilla's Open Web App project[1] where applications are actually distributed to users for them to run themselves. The difference is that by adding visual programming into the mix, programs are realistically user editable and software freedoms start to take on a real significance to a whole new audience of empowered end-users. If you're interested in finding out more, I'm planning on publishing a blog post outlining the details in a couple of weeks time - watch this space. [0] - https://vimeo.com/71278954 https://vimeo.com/71278954 [1] - https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2010/10/19/prototype-of-an-open-web-app-ecosystem/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2010/10/19/prototype-of-an-ope...
saagarjha 6y ago
> you may need to get together with others to unify the idea of doing your own web servers I don't actually use my own server to serve my website, currently, but I have the infrastructure set up to do so if need be. > writing your own browser engine seems totally pointless - it's the web at fault, not the browser that renders it. If you don't like bits of the browser, remove the code. Don't understand what you're trying to do. I'm suggesting contributing to an existing web engines, not writing one from scratch (which at this point is fairly difficult to do).

ttty 6y ago

What do you do when you need a website but it doesn't work without Js? It's a huge pain to make phone calls, or go to the store

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
I use a VM for the few cases I really need to interact with a JS-ridden site, which reverts to a clean state when closed. This should be doable by most HN'ers, we're supposed to be technically savvy. But another way when you need not have to use the site to put pressure on the site by not bothering with it if it breaks without JS. Enough people do it and they will get the hint. Or actually talk to the site owners and ask them - I have done this with a small publisher. Or if someone post a link to their JS-requiring blog/site on HN, ask them politely to make it usable without (I do occasionally). If you want to fight back, you have to pay the price. It's a pretty small one for me.

bloak 6y ago

JavaScript by itself isn't evil. A static web site that uses JavaScript to let the user do everything on the client provides more privacy than an old-school web site with CGI scripts and forms. I've been playing with this idea recently. If you want to provide access to a database which is infrequently updated and no bigger than a few megabytes (like the catalogue of a library with 30 000 books), then provide the database with the web page and implement the search function in JavaScript. If you avoid using a JavaScript "framework" then you may find that the web page responds to your typing so instantaneously that you feel like you're back in the 1980s using a Z80-based machine. (You remember those Z80-based word processors that could keep up with a competent typist?)

clarry 6y ago
Here's one live example: https://www.tujavortaro.net/ https://www.tujavortaro.net/
- bloak 6y ago
  That's a great example. Instantaneous response to queries even on an ancient Chromebook.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Point is, it uses JS and how do I know I can trust it? Not this site but in general. As I say elsewhere, JS is not bad, it's an issue of trust that the JS delivered will not abuse your permission to run on your machine.
  - bloak 6y ago
    That particular site: the code is properly formatted with comments, there's a link to a GitLab repo with the source, you could check your network traffic while using it, ... But in general: I suppose what we need is a flexibly configurable JavaScript engine that stops and asks permission before any suspicious operation is performed. I don't know enough about JavaScript to know whether or how that might work. I note that the way tujavortaro.net downloads a dictionary is by adding a <script> element to the head of the document (https://gitlab.com/sstangl/tuja-vortaro/-/blob/master/app.js#L98 https://gitlab.com/sstangl/tuja-vortaro/-/blob/master/app.js...). HTML+JS is naturally self-modifying, so it's hard to do a static analysis.

benjaminjosephw 6y ago

There are possible alternative futures for technology beyond the web. We've charted a particular course throughout history to get here but there are other fruitful avenues to explore that are still open to technical pioneers like many people here on HN. Brett Victor gives a great talk with a similar premise[0]. The Web started life as a means of publicly sharing documents and has turned into a network of walled gardens. Rather than trying to fix the web itself, I think the solution is to try to recreate something true to the original spirit where users are publishers and where openness is the default. What I'm working on specifically is best described as another take on Mozilla's Open Web App project[1] where applications are actually distributed to users for them to run themselves. The difference is that by adding visual programming into the mix, programs are realistically user editable and software freedoms start to take on a real significance to a whole new audience of empowered end-users. If you're interested in finding out more, I'm planning on publishing a blog post outlining the details in a couple of weeks time - watch this space. [0] - https://vimeo.com/71278954 https://vimeo.com/71278954 [1] - https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2010/10/19/prototype-of-an-open-web-app-ecosystem/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2010/10/19/prototype-of-an-ope...

saagarjha 6y ago

> you may need to get together with others to unify the idea of doing your own web servers I don't actually use my own server to serve my website, currently, but I have the infrastructure set up to do so if need be. > writing your own browser engine seems totally pointless - it's the web at fault, not the browser that renders it. If you don't like bits of the browser, remove the code. Don't understand what you're trying to do. I'm suggesting contributing to an existing web engines, not writing one from scratch (which at this point is fairly difficult to do).