4 ms·

> Bit of an unrealistic comment For other sites agreed, but a bank that can’t coexist with an adblocker you really have to ask yourself wtf said bank is doing.

by Havoc 2y ago

> Bit of an unrealistic comment For other sites agreed, but a bank that can’t coexist with an adblocker you really have to ask yourself wtf said bank is doing. Everything on that site should come from ad free reputable domains. Also wouldn’t hurt if said bank tested their site with common browser configurations like ublock

LVB 2y ago
Aren't banks sort of the poster children for legacy practices though? Only works with this or that browser, here are some weird password rules, yes I have an SVGA monitor, no I can't search older than 90 days, etc. I'm used to turning off my modern expectations and just getting into the 20 years-old flow for the time I'm logged into the average bank. No, I don't want to switch banks (where my mortgage and dozens of ACH linkages are set up) to have better ad blocker compatibility.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Thankfully legacy practices didn't include advertisements in paid sites, i.e. where you are the customer. If you value your finances at all, you won't allow advertisers into the connection.
  - Terretta 2y ago
    They aren't using advertisers. They're incorrectly* using user behavior instrumentation for diagnostics and anti-fraud, especially blocking on login if tracking is disabled as they are trying to prevent credential stuffing bots. * Bug, or feature, many fail if the tracking is blocked, due to other code that assumes it's there or depends on it. They fail closed instead of fail open.
_boffin_ 2y ago
Sorry, but I laughed at your comment. Didn’t mean to be disrespectful, but it is laughable. Banks and other financial institutions have a duty to prevent fraud and their malicious actors. Could they do better, yes. They still have a duty nonetheless. Adblockers do more than just domain blocking, such as anti-fingerprinting, bot detection—which includes a lot of, sadly, invasive checks against the browser. UBlock has annoyance lists, tracking lists, and others and others… From what you’re telling me, you’re wanting a bank that’s protecting their clients or at least attempting to. Ooookay

by Havoc 2y ago

LVB 2y ago

Aren't banks sort of the poster children for legacy practices though? Only works with this or that browser, here are some weird password rules, yes I have an SVGA monitor, no I can't search older than 90 days, etc. I'm used to turning off my modern expectations and just getting into the 20 years-old flow for the time I'm logged into the average bank. No, I don't want to switch banks (where my mortgage and dozens of ACH linkages are set up) to have better ad blocker compatibility.

mixmastamyk 2y ago
Thankfully legacy practices didn't include advertisements in paid sites, i.e. where you are the customer. If you value your finances at all, you won't allow advertisers into the connection.
- Terretta 2y ago
  They aren't using advertisers. They're incorrectly* using user behavior instrumentation for diagnostics and anti-fraud, especially blocking on login if tracking is disabled as they are trying to prevent credential stuffing bots. * Bug, or feature, many fail if the tracking is blocked, due to other code that assumes it's there or depends on it. They fail closed instead of fail open.

_boffin_ 2y ago

Sorry, but I laughed at your comment. Didn’t mean to be disrespectful, but it is laughable. Banks and other financial institutions have a duty to prevent fraud and their malicious actors. Could they do better, yes. They still have a duty nonetheless. Adblockers do more than just domain blocking, such as anti-fingerprinting, bot detection—which includes a lot of, sadly, invasive checks against the browser. UBlock has annoyance lists, tracking lists, and others and others… From what you’re telling me, you’re wanting a bank that’s protecting their clients or at least attempting to. Ooookay