4 ms·

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.
    - mderazon 5y ago
      I have advanced protection on my Google account that unfortunately doesn't let me install apps outside Play Store... I think I can still load NewPipe through usb debugging but not able to have auto updates
      - hilbert42 5y ago
        If you've advanced protection running then you're a dyed-in-wool Google user (hard core type) so I wouldn't even try. I'm the exact opposite. I root my Android machines and remove every trace of Google's crappy gumph, Gmail etc. (I don't even have a current Google account.) I occasionally use the Google playstore but I log on anonymously with the Aurora Store app (not available on the playstore). I say occasionally because that's true, instead I use F-Droid or Aurora Droid to get my guaranteed spyware free apps. It's a different world - I'm the antithesis of the happy Google user. Don't try to load NewPipe, in your case it's just not worth the effort (and Google will notice the fact).
PhantomGremlin 5y ago
HN totally usable for basic functionality w/o JS. profootballtalk.com works great if you don't want to vote or comment macrumors.com great functionality nitter.net happily takes the place of twitter.com drudgereport.com works great and I rarely turn on JS when I go to the sites he links to, usually the text on target sites is there if not as pretty as it could be individual subreddits (e.g. old.reddit.com/r/Portland/ ) are quite good w/o JS. But the "old." is probably important. I admit that there are lots of sites that don't work, e.g. /r/IdiotsInCars/ doesn't work because reddit uses JS for video. For so many sites the text is there but images and videos aren't. Also need to turn off "page style" for some recalcitrant sites. In conclusion, contrary to your JS experience, I'd say that I spend over 90% of my time browsing w/o JS and am happy with my experience. Things are lightning fast and I see few or no ads. I don't need an ad blocker since 99% of ads just don't happen w/o JS.
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  > In conclusion, contrary to your JS experience, I'd say that I spend over 90% of my time browsing w/o JS and am happy with my experience. Things are lightning fast and I see few or no ads. I don't need an ad blocker since 99% of ads just don't happen w/o JS. Well, you still have lots of tracking stuff loaded probably, unless you got something extra for blocking trackers. A tracking pixels does not need JS. A font loading from CSS does not need JS. Personally I dislike those too, so I would still recommend using a blocker for those.
  - PhantomGremlin 5y ago
    Well, you still have lots of tracking stuff loaded probably, unless you got something extra for blocking trackers. Yes I'm sure I have that stuff loaded. But I don't care because it's quite ephemeral: I exit Firefox multiple times a day, there's really no performance cost to doing that after every group of websites. E.g. if, while reading HN, I look up something on Wikipedia, or I search with Bing or Google, everything goes away together. In my settings: delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed In my settings: clear history when Firefox closes, everything goes except browsing and download history No suggestions except for bookmarks. So when I restart Firefox to then browse reddit it starts with a clean slate. Comcast insisted I purchase a DOCSIS3 modem quite a while ago. Once downloads are at 100 mpbs+, does it really matter if I repeatedly re-download a few items to cache? The only noticeable downside is when I switch to Safari to view something that needs JS, I then see ads for clothing that my wife and daughters might be interested in. I presume this is due to fallback to tracking via IP address. Of course I always clear history and empty caches in Safari. Obviously this doesn't work for someone who wants to or needs to keep 100 browser windows open at once, for months at a time. But that's not me. I don't think that way, never have. Edit: just had to add that sites like Wikipedia are better w/o JS (unless you edit?). I don't see those annoying week-long pleas for money. Do they still do those?

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.
  - mderazon 5y ago
    I have advanced protection on my Google account that unfortunately doesn't let me install apps outside Play Store... I think I can still load NewPipe through usb debugging but not able to have auto updates
    - hilbert42 5y ago
      If you've advanced protection running then you're a dyed-in-wool Google user (hard core type) so I wouldn't even try. I'm the exact opposite. I root my Android machines and remove every trace of Google's crappy gumph, Gmail etc. (I don't even have a current Google account.) I occasionally use the Google playstore but I log on anonymously with the Aurora Store app (not available on the playstore). I say occasionally because that's true, instead I use F-Droid or Aurora Droid to get my guaranteed spyware free apps. It's a different world - I'm the antithesis of the happy Google user. Don't try to load NewPipe, in your case it's just not worth the effort (and Google will notice the fact).

PhantomGremlin 5y ago

HN totally usable for basic functionality w/o JS. profootballtalk.com works great if you don't want to vote or comment macrumors.com great functionality nitter.net happily takes the place of twitter.com drudgereport.com works great and I rarely turn on JS when I go to the sites he links to, usually the text on target sites is there if not as pretty as it could be individual subreddits (e.g. old.reddit.com/r/Portland/ ) are quite good w/o JS. But the "old." is probably important. I admit that there are lots of sites that don't work, e.g. /r/IdiotsInCars/ doesn't work because reddit uses JS for video. For so many sites the text is there but images and videos aren't. Also need to turn off "page style" for some recalcitrant sites. In conclusion, contrary to your JS experience, I'd say that I spend over 90% of my time browsing w/o JS and am happy with my experience. Things are lightning fast and I see few or no ads. I don't need an ad blocker since 99% of ads just don't happen w/o JS.

zelphirkalt 5y ago
> In conclusion, contrary to your JS experience, I'd say that I spend over 90% of my time browsing w/o JS and am happy with my experience. Things are lightning fast and I see few or no ads. I don't need an ad blocker since 99% of ads just don't happen w/o JS. Well, you still have lots of tracking stuff loaded probably, unless you got something extra for blocking trackers. A tracking pixels does not need JS. A font loading from CSS does not need JS. Personally I dislike those too, so I would still recommend using a blocker for those.
- PhantomGremlin 5y ago
  Well, you still have lots of tracking stuff loaded probably, unless you got something extra for blocking trackers. Yes I'm sure I have that stuff loaded. But I don't care because it's quite ephemeral: I exit Firefox multiple times a day, there's really no performance cost to doing that after every group of websites. E.g. if, while reading HN, I look up something on Wikipedia, or I search with Bing or Google, everything goes away together. In my settings: delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed In my settings: clear history when Firefox closes, everything goes except browsing and download history No suggestions except for bookmarks. So when I restart Firefox to then browse reddit it starts with a clean slate. Comcast insisted I purchase a DOCSIS3 modem quite a while ago. Once downloads are at 100 mpbs+, does it really matter if I repeatedly re-download a few items to cache? The only noticeable downside is when I switch to Safari to view something that needs JS, I then see ads for clothing that my wife and daughters might be interested in. I presume this is due to fallback to tracking via IP address. Of course I always clear history and empty caches in Safari. Obviously this doesn't work for someone who wants to or needs to keep 100 browser windows open at once, for months at a time. But that's not me. I don't think that way, never have. Edit: just had to add that sites like Wikipedia are better w/o JS (unless you edit?). I don't see those annoying week-long pleas for money. Do they still do those?