6 ms·

"I don't have the time or energy to block JavaScript and/or manually inspect each domain's requests to figure out if they use server-side tracking or not." By

"I don't have the time or energy to block JavaScript and/or manually inspect each domain's requests to figure out if they use server-side tracking or not." By default, I don't run JavaScript. I don't see blocking JS as a problem - in fact, it's a blessing as the web is blinding fast without it - and also most of the ads just simply disappear if JS is not running. On occasions when I need JS (only about 3-5% of sites) it's just a matter of toggling it on and refreshing the page. I've been working this way for at least 15 years - that's when I first realized JS was ruining my web experience. I'm now so spoilt by the advantages of the non-JS world that I don't think I could ever return. I'm always acutely reminded of the fact whenever I use someone else's machine.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> By default, I don't run JavaScript. I don't see blocking JS as a problem - in fact, it's a blessing as the web is blinding fast without it - and also most of the ads just simply disappear if JS is not running. Years ago I was on the "people who block JavaScript are crazy" bandwagon, until just loading a single news article online meant waiting for a dozen ads and autoplaying videos to load. I spent more time waiting for things to finish loading than I spent browsing the actual sites, which killed my battery life. I'd get a couple of hours of battery life with JS on, and with it off, I could work all day on a single charge. It was nice. Ever since then, I've been using NoScript without a problem. I've spent all of maybe 5 minutes, cumulative over the course of several years, clicking a single button to add domains to the whitelist. If whitelisting isn't something you want to do, you can use NoScript's blacklist mode, too. > I'm now so spoilt by the advantages of the non-JS world that I don't think I could ever return. I'm always acutely reminded of the fact whenever I use someone else's machine. I relate with this 100%.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Tried NoScript for years and it was a pain. Too many of the sites I use need so many domains full of JS. So I think this will vary widely depending on the person and their preferred/needed sites.
  - eru 5y ago
    I use NoScript with Firefox on Android (together with uBlock Origin). After I unblocked the websites I regularly use (and not the ad delivery domains), it doesn't get in the way that much.
    - pcthrowaway 5y ago
      Unblocking the sites you use removes the advantage of not being tracked by Google through tag manager though.
      - eru 5y ago
        That's probably true. Part of the reason why I still also use an ad-blocker.
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        I've had Google Tag Manager blocked for years and sites have worked fine without it.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    It has to be said: there are people who can get by without JavaScript and those who can't. You can almost predict those who can and those who can't by their personality. If you are heavy user of Google's services, Twitter and Facebook as well as many big news outlets and heavy-duty commercial sites then you're the 'JavaScript' type and stopping scripts is definitely not for you! If you are like me and don't have any Facebook, Twitter or Google accounts and deliberately avoid large commercial sites like, say, Microsoft then you can happily switch off JavaScript and experience the 'better' web. You know the type of person you are, so with this fact in mind there's no point me proselytizing the case for disabling JavaScript.
    - mehdix 5y ago
      I can relate 100%. In the past I was constantly using Twitter, Gmail, et al. I was using different hacks to bend them to the extent possible to my will. Time changed, my personality changed and the desire and need to use those services disappeared, therefore I naturally stopped using them. When people where talking about this or that service being down, I didn't notice it at all. I was also lucky enough to not rely on them on my $dayjob. I run my mail server, host my website and run my scripts. Old fashoin guy lets say. It works well for me. Moreover, JS-bloat is a red flag to stay away from certain services. Has served me well.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  > until just loading a single news article online meant waiting for a dozen ads and autoplaying videos to load. That sounds like you not only didn’t block JS, you also didn’t block ads. Which is a very different argument. I only block 3rd-party JS by default (and that already requires a lot of whitelisting for almost every site that has any interaction) and I don’t have those issues because I also block ads.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    There was a period around 2014 - 2016 where even if you used uBlock, ads would still get through. Even now, when I use computers that just have uBlock Origin installed, some ads, and especially autoplaying videos on news sites, still get through.
- unicornporn 5y ago
  > Years ago I was on the "people who block JavaScript are crazy" bandwagon, until just loading a single news article online meant waiting for a dozen ads and autoplaying videos to load. Seems like clear case of "crossing the river to collect water" (as the Swedish saying says)? This is what I use uBlock Origin (with the right blocklists) for and it happens automagically. I did use uMatrix for quite a awhile, but eventually ended up ditching it because uBlock Origin worked so well.
- maccard 5y ago
  uBlock Origin solves the problem you had too, without breaking multiple sites.
ajdude 5y ago
This. I use the no script addon by default, and it’s amazing how many different domains sites try to bring in. Then I hit Twitter, imgurl, quora, etc and I am left with nothing but a blank page with plain text telling me that I need JavaScript to view the site. It makes me wonder what kind of tracking they are pushing.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  All of them. If you allow everything and have Ghostery running in "don't block anything but tell me what's there" mode, it's horrifying just how many things get loaded. You can play with page load sizes in the debugger console with stuff blocked and without too - about half the downloaded material on any major news website is stuff that Ghostery will block. It's quite terrifying.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Firefox has never been slow for me over the last 15 years because NoScript makes it light years better than Chrome. Conversely, I routinely have the Android assistant lock up on me from JS bloat despite the supposed performance enhancement of AMP pages.
bentcorner 5y ago
I used to run NoScript then at some point (maybe switched browsers?) I stopped using it. You've persuaded me to re-enable it. Also - Firefox on mobile supports NoScript!
- quambene 5y ago
  Concerning noscript, is this [1] still a thing? [1] NoScript is harmful and promotes malware - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624000
  - josefx 5y ago
    Can't find any ads on NoScript.net with uBlock running and uniblue.com seems to have expired. However it is hilarious that the complaint comes from Ad block Plus, their entire business model is build around bypassing EasyList. For a generous fee they make sure that your ads are "acceptable".
    - Fnoord 5y ago
      What makes you think this comes from ABP? The article linked to is from 2016, they link to a history between NoScript and ABP. The article by ABP is from 2009 (!!). Back in the 2009, ABP was the defacto standard. There was no uBlock. There was NoScript, but no uMatrix yet. The developer issued an apology and reverted the change, and apart from a Ghostery one (who are also shady) no further controversies are documented at [1]. Perhaps the Wikipedia article is incomplete, given the one linked is from 2016? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript
- behnamoh 5y ago
  No, only FF on Android supports extensions.
  - exyi 5y ago
    Because Apple essentially does not allow Firefox...
forgotmypw17 5y ago
There's another, indirect benefit to blocking JavaScript. Over time I have noticed a strong correlation between sites which don't work right without JS and low-quality content which I regret having spent time reading. Most of the time I encounter one of these sites I now just close the tab and move on with a clear conscience.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "Over time I have noticed a strong correlation between sites which don't work right without JS and low-quality content...." Absolutely true, I can't agree with you more. I've reached the stage where if I land on a site and its main content is blocked if JavaScript is disabled then my conditioned reflex kicks in and I'm off the site within milliseconds. Rarely is this a problem with sites that I frequent (and I too don't have time to waste reading low quality content).
  - raspberry1337 5y ago
    Any tips for high quality content sites? It truly is hard to find these days
    - hilbert42 5y ago
      Yeah, read HN! There are stacks and stacks of them here on HN that are of excellent quality - I use HN as my 'quality' filter (and I reckon I'm not alone). Moreover, if one doesn't run JS like me then it's dead easy to avoid problematic sites as HN lists them (Twitter, etc. - and it doesn't take long to get to know the main offenders, thus avoid them). :-) BTW, I agree with you it is hard to find good sites these days but eventually most really good sites appear here on HN. Do what I do, when you come across them bookmark them.
      - IHLayman 5y ago
        A pedantic note that follows from this particular thread: HackerNews’s search capabilities are powered by Algolia and require JavaScript to work (turn off all JS and the HN branded Algolia page will not load). The reason I bring this up is that even good websites sometimes lean on free or free-ish services to provide extra functionality (such as calendars, discussion boards, issue tracking, or search) without realizing that such functionality may be a back door to letting JS in and any tracking/privacy-erosion that could follow from it.
scim-knox-twox 5y ago
Exactly! If something didn't work without JS, I don't use it. There are many alternatives.
minimilian 5y ago
i used to have javascript turned off for a long time, but i've given up. you can't even search hacker news without javascript (for some reason).
- 3836293648 5y ago
  Pretending as if you can search hacker news with JS turned on...
  - zelphirkalt 5y ago
    There is some truth to this though. It is sometimes hard to find that HN topic, that you remember just a few words of through the aglolia search thing.
mderazon 5y ago
I don't know which web you're viewing that only needs JS for 3-5% of websites
- hilbert42 5y ago
  Read my reply to paulryanrogers about whether one's a JavaScript or a non-JavaScript type person. The 3-5% of sites I'm referring to are ones where I have to enable JS to view them. In by far the vast majority of the sites that I frequent I do not have to enable JS to view them. Also note my reply to forgotmypw17, one doesn't need JS if one avoids low quality dross.
  - mderazon 5y ago
    I will give it another shot. Unfortunately though, this does not solve the server-side GTM issue, right ? If the 3-5% of the website you use will start tracking via server-side GTM with the site's domain, you will not be able to simply use noscript to disable tracking ?
    - hilbert42 5y ago
      You're probably right, but then there are many factors involved - take Europe's GDPR, I'd reckon it'd be deemed unlawful under those regs but of course that doesn't help those of us outside Europe. It remains to be seen how Google's Tag Manager actually works and I'd be surprised if data from your machine is ignored altogether. If your machine says nothing about you then Google won't know who you are - unless you have a fixed IP address and most ordinary users don't. Sure there's browser fingerprinting (but I never bother about this as I use multiple browsers on multiple machines which screws things up a bit). When I used to worry about this more than I do now, I used to send my modem/router an automatic reboot signal during periods of inactivity, this ensured a regular change of IP address. OK, so what info can be gotten from your machine if JavaScript is disabled? Some but it's nothing like what happens when JS is active - in fact the difference is quite staggering (ages ago I actually listed the differences on HN). Presumably you could search for the post but there's an easier way. Use the EFF's test your browser site https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ and do the test with and without JS. Note specifically the parameters with the 'no JavaScript' message. Also note the stuff a website can determine about you even when JS is disabled - with this info you can start tackling the problem such as randomizing your browser's user agent, etc. My aim was never to kill evey bit of tracking, rather it was to render tracking ineffective and I've been very successful at doing that. The fact is I don't get ads let alone targeted ones just by turning off JS and having an ad blocker as backup. The only other precaution I take is to always nuke third-party cookies and to kill all standard cookies when the browser closes. I'm not too worried about Google's Tag Manager, for even if Google tracks me it still has to deliver the ads and it cannot do so with JS disabled and an ad-blocker in place. __ Edit: if you want to watch YouTube then Google insists you enable JavaScript. This is bit of a pain but it's easily solved with say the Android app NewPipe (available via F-Droid). NewPipe also has the added advantage of bypassing the ads and having the facility to download clips as well if that's your wont. Of course, there are similar apps for desktops too.
jcfrei 5y ago
How does blocking javascript in this case prevent tracking? It's done via the same cookies the website uses, as I understand it. Do you disable cookies too?
kobalsky 5y ago
> and also most of the ads just simply disappear if JS is not running. since we are talking about the future I'd like to point out that they can always serve ads from the origin domain without javascript. I mean the anti-adblock battle will evolve until each page we visit is a single image file that we have to OCR to remove ads. then we will need AI, and they will have captchas that will ask which breakfast cereal is the best. you can stay ahead of the curve but it's always moving forward.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "...they can always serve ads from the origin domain without JavaScript." But most of them don't. Yes, they can change their model and in time they likely will. As it stands now, one doesn't have to watch ads on the internet if one doesn't want to - all it takes is a little perseverance and they're gone. If one can't rise to the occasion then one has a high tolerance for ads. Even YouTube can be viewed without ads with packages such as NewPipe and similar. You're right about AI, OCR etc. and I think in time it will come to that. It seems to me people like us will always be ahead because we've the motivation to rid ourselves of ads. It reminds me of the senseless copyright debate - if I can see the image then I can copy it. No amount of hardware protection can stop me substituting a camera for my eyes. What's more, as the fidelity goes up HD, 4k etc. the better the optical transfer will be (less comparative fidelity loss). That said, the oldest technology - standard TV - is still the hardest to remove ads from. Yes, one can record a program and race though the ads later (which most of us are very adept at doing) but it's still inconvenient. What I want is a PVR/STB that figures out the ads and bypasses them. Say I want to watch TV from 7 to 11pm (4 hours) and there's a total of one hour of ads and other breaks in that time that I don't want to watch then I want my AI-aware PVR/STB to suggest that I start watching at 8pm instead of 7 as this will allow it to progressively remove ads on-the-fly across the evening. The person who makes one of these devices will make a fortune. If the industry tries to ban it (as it will) then we resort to a software version and download it into the hardware. Sooner or later it's bound happen and I'll be an early adopter.
  - kobalsky 5y ago
    > What I want is a PVR/STB that figures out the ads and bypasses them. Say I want to watch TV from 7 to 11pm (4 hours) and there's a total of one hour of ads and other breaks in that time that I don't want to watch then I want my AI-aware PVR/STB to suggest that I start watching at 8pm instead of 7 as this will allow it to progressively remove ads on-the-fly across the evening. I wonder if something like sponsorblock for youtube (which is a must have) could be done for TV? it's a crowsourced effort and works flawlessly for popular channels.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> By default, I don't run JavaScript. I don't see blocking JS as a problem - in fact, it's a blessing as the web is blinding fast without it - and also most of the ads just simply disappear if JS is not running. Years ago I was on the "people who block JavaScript are crazy" bandwagon, until just loading a single news article online meant waiting for a dozen ads and autoplaying videos to load. I spent more time waiting for things to finish loading than I spent browsing the actual sites, which killed my battery life. I'd get a couple of hours of battery life with JS on, and with it off, I could work all day on a single charge. It was nice. Ever since then, I've been using NoScript without a problem. I've spent all of maybe 5 minutes, cumulative over the course of several years, clicking a single button to add domains to the whitelist. If whitelisting isn't something you want to do, you can use NoScript's blacklist mode, too. > I'm now so spoilt by the advantages of the non-JS world that I don't think I could ever return. I'm always acutely reminded of the fact whenever I use someone else's machine. I relate with this 100%.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Tried NoScript for years and it was a pain. Too many of the sites I use need so many domains full of JS. So I think this will vary widely depending on the person and their preferred/needed sites.
- eru 5y ago
  I use NoScript with Firefox on Android (together with uBlock Origin). After I unblocked the websites I regularly use (and not the ad delivery domains), it doesn't get in the way that much.
  - pcthrowaway 5y ago
    Unblocking the sites you use removes the advantage of not being tracked by Google through tag manager though.
    - eru 5y ago
      That's probably true. Part of the reason why I still also use an ad-blocker.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      I've had Google Tag Manager blocked for years and sites have worked fine without it.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  It has to be said: there are people who can get by without JavaScript and those who can't. You can almost predict those who can and those who can't by their personality. If you are heavy user of Google's services, Twitter and Facebook as well as many big news outlets and heavy-duty commercial sites then you're the 'JavaScript' type and stopping scripts is definitely not for you! If you are like me and don't have any Facebook, Twitter or Google accounts and deliberately avoid large commercial sites like, say, Microsoft then you can happily switch off JavaScript and experience the 'better' web. You know the type of person you are, so with this fact in mind there's no point me proselytizing the case for disabling JavaScript.
  - mehdix 5y ago
    I can relate 100%. In the past I was constantly using Twitter, Gmail, et al. I was using different hacks to bend them to the extent possible to my will. Time changed, my personality changed and the desire and need to use those services disappeared, therefore I naturally stopped using them. When people where talking about this or that service being down, I didn't notice it at all. I was also lucky enough to not rely on them on my $dayjob. I run my mail server, host my website and run my scripts. Old fashoin guy lets say. It works well for me. Moreover, JS-bloat is a red flag to stay away from certain services. Has served me well.
Semaphor 5y ago
> until just loading a single news article online meant waiting for a dozen ads and autoplaying videos to load. That sounds like you not only didn’t block JS, you also didn’t block ads. Which is a very different argument. I only block 3rd-party JS by default (and that already requires a lot of whitelisting for almost every site that has any interaction) and I don’t have those issues because I also block ads.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  There was a period around 2014 - 2016 where even if you used uBlock, ads would still get through. Even now, when I use computers that just have uBlock Origin installed, some ads, and especially autoplaying videos on news sites, still get through.
unicornporn 5y ago
> Years ago I was on the "people who block JavaScript are crazy" bandwagon, until just loading a single news article online meant waiting for a dozen ads and autoplaying videos to load. Seems like clear case of "crossing the river to collect water" (as the Swedish saying says)? This is what I use uBlock Origin (with the right blocklists) for and it happens automagically. I did use uMatrix for quite a awhile, but eventually ended up ditching it because uBlock Origin worked so well.
maccard 5y ago
uBlock Origin solves the problem you had too, without breaking multiple sites.

ajdude 5y ago

This. I use the no script addon by default, and it’s amazing how many different domains sites try to bring in. Then I hit Twitter, imgurl, quora, etc and I am left with nothing but a blank page with plain text telling me that I need JavaScript to view the site. It makes me wonder what kind of tracking they are pushing.

Syonyk 5y ago
All of them. If you allow everything and have Ghostery running in "don't block anything but tell me what's there" mode, it's horrifying just how many things get loaded. You can play with page load sizes in the debugger console with stuff blocked and without too - about half the downloaded material on any major news website is stuff that Ghostery will block. It's quite terrifying.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

Firefox has never been slow for me over the last 15 years because NoScript makes it light years better than Chrome. Conversely, I routinely have the Android assistant lock up on me from JS bloat despite the supposed performance enhancement of AMP pages.

bentcorner 5y ago

I used to run NoScript then at some point (maybe switched browsers?) I stopped using it. You've persuaded me to re-enable it. Also - Firefox on mobile supports NoScript!

quambene 5y ago
Concerning noscript, is this [1] still a thing? [1] NoScript is harmful and promotes malware - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12624000
- josefx 5y ago
  Can't find any ads on NoScript.net with uBlock running and uniblue.com seems to have expired. However it is hilarious that the complaint comes from Ad block Plus, their entire business model is build around bypassing EasyList. For a generous fee they make sure that your ads are "acceptable".
  - Fnoord 5y ago
    What makes you think this comes from ABP? The article linked to is from 2016, they link to a history between NoScript and ABP. The article by ABP is from 2009 (!!). Back in the 2009, ABP was the defacto standard. There was no uBlock. There was NoScript, but no uMatrix yet. The developer issued an apology and reverted the change, and apart from a Ghostery one (who are also shady) no further controversies are documented at [1]. Perhaps the Wikipedia article is incomplete, given the one linked is from 2016? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript
behnamoh 5y ago
No, only FF on Android supports extensions.
- exyi 5y ago
  Because Apple essentially does not allow Firefox...

forgotmypw17 5y ago

There's another, indirect benefit to blocking JavaScript. Over time I have noticed a strong correlation between sites which don't work right without JS and low-quality content which I regret having spent time reading. Most of the time I encounter one of these sites I now just close the tab and move on with a clear conscience.

hilbert42 5y ago
"Over time I have noticed a strong correlation between sites which don't work right without JS and low-quality content...." Absolutely true, I can't agree with you more. I've reached the stage where if I land on a site and its main content is blocked if JavaScript is disabled then my conditioned reflex kicks in and I'm off the site within milliseconds. Rarely is this a problem with sites that I frequent (and I too don't have time to waste reading low quality content).
- raspberry1337 5y ago
  Any tips for high quality content sites? It truly is hard to find these days
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    Yeah, read HN! There are stacks and stacks of them here on HN that are of excellent quality - I use HN as my 'quality' filter (and I reckon I'm not alone). Moreover, if one doesn't run JS like me then it's dead easy to avoid problematic sites as HN lists them (Twitter, etc. - and it doesn't take long to get to know the main offenders, thus avoid them). :-) BTW, I agree with you it is hard to find good sites these days but eventually most really good sites appear here on HN. Do what I do, when you come across them bookmark them.
    - IHLayman 5y ago
      A pedantic note that follows from this particular thread: HackerNews’s search capabilities are powered by Algolia and require JavaScript to work (turn off all JS and the HN branded Algolia page will not load). The reason I bring this up is that even good websites sometimes lean on free or free-ish services to provide extra functionality (such as calendars, discussion boards, issue tracking, or search) without realizing that such functionality may be a back door to letting JS in and any tracking/privacy-erosion that could follow from it.

scim-knox-twox 5y ago

Exactly! If something didn't work without JS, I don't use it. There are many alternatives.

minimilian 5y ago

i used to have javascript turned off for a long time, but i've given up. you can't even search hacker news without javascript (for some reason).

3836293648 5y ago
Pretending as if you can search hacker news with JS turned on...
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  There is some truth to this though. It is sometimes hard to find that HN topic, that you remember just a few words of through the aglolia search thing.

mderazon 5y ago

I don't know which web you're viewing that only needs JS for 3-5% of websites

hilbert42 5y ago
Read my reply to paulryanrogers about whether one's a JavaScript or a non-JavaScript type person. The 3-5% of sites I'm referring to are ones where I have to enable JS to view them. In by far the vast majority of the sites that I frequent I do not have to enable JS to view them. Also note my reply to forgotmypw17, one doesn't need JS if one avoids low quality dross.
- mderazon 5y ago
  I will give it another shot. Unfortunately though, this does not solve the server-side GTM issue, right ? If the 3-5% of the website you use will start tracking via server-side GTM with the site's domain, you will not be able to simply use noscript to disable tracking ?
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    You're probably right, but then there are many factors involved - take Europe's GDPR, I'd reckon it'd be deemed unlawful under those regs but of course that doesn't help those of us outside Europe. It remains to be seen how Google's Tag Manager actually works and I'd be surprised if data from your machine is ignored altogether. If your machine says nothing about you then Google won't know who you are - unless you have a fixed IP address and most ordinary users don't. Sure there's browser fingerprinting (but I never bother about this as I use multiple browsers on multiple machines which screws things up a bit). When I used to worry about this more than I do now, I used to send my modem/router an automatic reboot signal during periods of inactivity, this ensured a regular change of IP address. OK, so what info can be gotten from your machine if JavaScript is disabled? Some but it's nothing like what happens when JS is active - in fact the difference is quite staggering (ages ago I actually listed the differences on HN). Presumably you could search for the post but there's an easier way. Use the EFF's test your browser site https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ and do the test with and without JS. Note specifically the parameters with the 'no JavaScript' message. Also note the stuff a website can determine about you even when JS is disabled - with this info you can start tackling the problem such as randomizing your browser's user agent, etc. My aim was never to kill evey bit of tracking, rather it was to render tracking ineffective and I've been very successful at doing that. The fact is I don't get ads let alone targeted ones just by turning off JS and having an ad blocker as backup. The only other precaution I take is to always nuke third-party cookies and to kill all standard cookies when the browser closes. I'm not too worried about Google's Tag Manager, for even if Google tracks me it still has to deliver the ads and it cannot do so with JS disabled and an ad-blocker in place. __ Edit: if you want to watch YouTube then Google insists you enable JavaScript. This is bit of a pain but it's easily solved with say the Android app NewPipe (available via F-Droid). NewPipe also has the added advantage of bypassing the ads and having the facility to download clips as well if that's your wont. Of course, there are similar apps for desktops too.

jcfrei 5y ago

How does blocking javascript in this case prevent tracking? It's done via the same cookies the website uses, as I understand it. Do you disable cookies too?

kobalsky 5y ago

> and also most of the ads just simply disappear if JS is not running. since we are talking about the future I'd like to point out that they can always serve ads from the origin domain without javascript. I mean the anti-adblock battle will evolve until each page we visit is a single image file that we have to OCR to remove ads. then we will need AI, and they will have captchas that will ask which breakfast cereal is the best. you can stay ahead of the curve but it's always moving forward.

hilbert42 5y ago
"...they can always serve ads from the origin domain without JavaScript." But most of them don't. Yes, they can change their model and in time they likely will. As it stands now, one doesn't have to watch ads on the internet if one doesn't want to - all it takes is a little perseverance and they're gone. If one can't rise to the occasion then one has a high tolerance for ads. Even YouTube can be viewed without ads with packages such as NewPipe and similar. You're right about AI, OCR etc. and I think in time it will come to that. It seems to me people like us will always be ahead because we've the motivation to rid ourselves of ads. It reminds me of the senseless copyright debate - if I can see the image then I can copy it. No amount of hardware protection can stop me substituting a camera for my eyes. What's more, as the fidelity goes up HD, 4k etc. the better the optical transfer will be (less comparative fidelity loss). That said, the oldest technology - standard TV - is still the hardest to remove ads from. Yes, one can record a program and race though the ads later (which most of us are very adept at doing) but it's still inconvenient. What I want is a PVR/STB that figures out the ads and bypasses them. Say I want to watch TV from 7 to 11pm (4 hours) and there's a total of one hour of ads and other breaks in that time that I don't want to watch then I want my AI-aware PVR/STB to suggest that I start watching at 8pm instead of 7 as this will allow it to progressively remove ads on-the-fly across the evening. The person who makes one of these devices will make a fortune. If the industry tries to ban it (as it will) then we resort to a software version and download it into the hardware. Sooner or later it's bound happen and I'll be an early adopter.
- kobalsky 5y ago
  > What I want is a PVR/STB that figures out the ads and bypasses them. Say I want to watch TV from 7 to 11pm (4 hours) and there's a total of one hour of ads and other breaks in that time that I don't want to watch then I want my AI-aware PVR/STB to suggest that I start watching at 8pm instead of 7 as this will allow it to progressively remove ads on-the-fly across the evening. I wonder if something like sponsorblock for youtube (which is a must have) could be done for TV? it's a crowsourced effort and works flawlessly for popular channels.