6 ms·

Recover 15–50% of web analytics data lost to ad blockers and privacy tools

nikitaeverywher 1y ago
Analytics and marketing tools used on all websites – such as Google Analytics, GTM (both client- and server-side), Facebook Pixel, and many more – are increasingly blocked by privacy tools and ad blockers. As a result, 15–50% of front-end data (conversions, attribution, referrals) never reaches dashboards. This missing data has long been accepted as the norm, to the point where front-end analytics are treated as unreliable and approximate. DataUnlocker 2.0 offers a drop-in solution: a proxy and JavaScript protection layer that shields tracking from blockers. It becomes an integral part of your web application — not only hiding analytics from generic blocking filters, but also making the code essential for the app to function. Blockers simply have no safe way to remove it. Your feedback is welcome – happy to dive deeper.
- azalemeth 1y ago
  Interesting work! I have a question -- How can I block it in umatrix?
  - nikitaeverywher 1y ago
    There's no way to block it — that's by design. The only way would be to block the entire website or disable JavaScript entirely. DataUnlocker makes the app function as a single integrated unit, so trying to cut out one piece causes the whole thing to stop working. It's a broader topic worth deeper discussion to be honest. I'll be posting more on it soon — including why I believe the internet privacy "movement" should align with this: instead of breaking tools used in web apps (while I agree if you can, you can), the focus should go on pseudo-anonymizing users (web clients) while preserving functionality – parts of it are already implemented (VPNs, one-time sessions, etc). I can honestly see both sides of the debate — it's a long-standing and nuanced topic.
    - JohnFen 1y ago
      Pseudo-anonymizing is worthless snake oil, and provides little in the way of actual privacy. This tool is just an escalation in the level of contempt being routinely shown against actual people.
      - nikitaeverywher 1y ago
        Can you explain more on why "Pseudo-anonymizing is worthless snake oil, and provides little in the way of actual privacy"? I'm sure when one uses Tor browser (an example of what I mean under pseudo-anonymizing), they are as safe from tracking as possible. They will get tracking cookies and all that, but from a random location, and all IDs the web app could have created will be destroyed right after closing the browser tab.
        JohnFen 1y ago
        Well, for starters, I don't consider the Tor browser to be anonymizing. It only offers protection against outside attackers, it offers almost no protection against the websites you may browse to (how could it?) Pseudo-anonymization is snake oil because it's not that hard to reverse. All you have to do is combine the "anonymized" data with data from other sources and you can identify people. It doesn't even take that much data from other sources. True anonymization is possible: it requires the collector to just keep general aggregate statistics and to immediately delete the individual telemetry reports. But few entities do that, and we have to just trust that the ones the claim they do are being honest and competent about it. But the track record is extremely poor so trusting in such claims is, in my opinion, very foolish.
        nikitaeverywher 1y ago
        > it offers almost no protection against the websites you may browse to (how could it?) > All you have to do is combine the "anonymized" data with data from other sources I'm struggling to understand why. Can you give a very specific example of how I, using Tor browser to browse web, can still be tracked as an individual? What are "other sources"? Each session of Tor browser has a randomized IP and user agent, and moreover if JavaScript requests for instance the "screen width" of the device, it gives some random numbers. Letterboxing, anti-fingerprinting in action: https://support.torproject.org/tbb/maximized-torbrowser-window/ https://support.torproject.org/tbb/maximized-torbrowser-wind... > True anonymization is possible: it requires the collector to just keep general aggregate statistics and to immediately delete Most businesses store all that "raw" data (pageview and other events) to process it later. It's reasonable – hard to build and unify it otherwise, but at the end of the day it gets aggregated. To add, they have their own data retention policy. So the best and minimally required one can do IMO is to use aka "incognito mode" when browsing, if it matters.
pickleglitch 1y ago
Here's my feedback: This product aims to further enable the surveillance state and erode our privacy. Go fuck yourself.
- nikitaeverywher 1y ago
  I'm prepared for this kind of feedback, but please – no need to be rude. Let me give you more context. DataUnlocker has a long history and comes from years of hard work, mainly to help developers and product teams deal with missing data. If you’re in tech or marketing, you know how critical accurate metrics are – attribution, conversion rates, traffic volumes. The goal isn't to track individuals – it's to ensure these metrics aren't broken. I’d ask you to consider this perspective: - People who want to stay anonymous, will stay anonymous. DataUnlocker doesn’t interfere with that at all! - It fixes just the technical accounting of data. Things like location masking, anti-fingerprinting, VPN use, etc., – all still apply and protect your privacy (and moreover I can confirm there's no way around them). Hence, even on websites which don't respect your privacy (there are not many, to be completely honest) and try to misuse tracking, blocker users would still appear as anonymous, ID-less visitors. That’s by design, here to stay – and I can assure this from my experience. DataUnlocker just. Fixes. Tech. (think of it like DataUnlocker making web apps behave more like mobile apps — hard to tamper with)
  - pickleglitch 1y ago
    Sorry, not sorry. Spin it however you want to help yourself sleep at night, but this product exists to capture data that users don't want captured, and I find that to be rude. Even if the data is "anonymous", it's still fed into algorithms and LLMs built explicitly for mass manipulation. And even anonymized data can be de-anonymized if you have enough points of cross reference. Accurate metrics may be useful, but business got along just fine without all this data for centuries, so to say they are critical is a joke. Targeted advertising might make a lot of money for a very small number of people, but it has been a disaster for society at large.
    - nikitaeverywher 1y ago
JohnFen 1y ago
This sort of garbage is why I only rarely allow websites to use client-side scripting. It's just too risky.
- nikitaeverywher 1y ago
  What's your main risk?
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    In this context, the main risk is the exfiltration of data about me or my use of my machines to others without my active informed consent. This tool is designed and proudly intended to allow exactly that. After all, someone taking actions to prevent data collection is unambiguously signalling that they do not consent to being spied on, and this tool intentionally subverts their wishes.
    - nikitaeverywher 1y ago
      I see your point – it's valid, but perhaps a bit overgeneralized. Let me explain. You don't wear a balaclava to walk down the street just to avoid being seen – you still share some minimal data with the world, like your appearance. Similarly, on the Internet, some minimal metadata is inevitably shared, even if you're privacy-conscious. So a genuine question is: what do you consider acceptable "minimal data" to share with websites? None?
      - JohnFen 1y ago
        "Minimal data" would be my IP address, as that's necessary in order for traffic to be exchanged. Everything else should only be collected with my informed consent. If I've consented, then whatever I've consented to is acceptable. There is absolutely a gray area, though, where data collection may be unobjectionable. The reason I consider it a "gray area" is because it requires trusting whoever is collecting the data, and history has very clearly shown that trust is misplaced. I'm talking about things like: just counting, in the aggregate, how many times users have clicked a button is OK, but recording entire sessions is not (even if that recording is "anonymized"). But as an end user, it's impossible for me to tell who is being well-behaved and who isn't, so I have to assume that everyone is ill-behaved.
reify 1y ago
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://icecatbrowser.org/ https://icecatbrowser.org/ Jshelter will block that shit https://jshelter.org/ https://jshelter.org/ Detects and blocks nonfree and potentially dangerous JavaScript. I am sure Ublocks gorhill will be on this
- nikitaeverywher 1y ago
  They'd need to block all JavaScript – essentially disabling interactivity — or develop custom workarounds for every single website, ensuring they don't break any logic (like checkout flows). That’s an utterly extreme complexity solution (believe me, DataUnlocker is, too). I hope to publish an article soon outlining a more cooperative path forward, where blockers and websites don't have to be at odds. Part of that will include DataUnlocker's internal rules, just like cookie consent mechanisms – but thoughtfully introduced over time. Here's the bigger picture, from my point of view: The web is shifting toward consent-based tracking – and rightly so. Cookie and data collection consents are now standard (and even legally required in the EU). DataUnlocker is fully compatible with this. When implemented on the website, it activates only after user consent – just like any compliant tracking setup. The tech to do that wasn't trivial a few years ago, and it still catches up. https://support.google.com/tagmanager/answer/10718549?hl=en https://support.google.com/tagmanager/answer/10718549?hl=en In fact, if you visit pages with an ad blocker, cookie consent modals will not even appear – meaning no tracking starts at all. That's a win–win: privacy respected, no shady behavior, "no" is the default. Big companies can't afford to violate that. What DataUnlocker addresses is a different issue: Let's say a user wants to grant "essential" tracking consent — they've consented — but uses an ad blocker by default. They load the page, bounce in 5 seconds, and are gone. Most won't bother to disable the blocker for 5 seconds – maybe 1–2% will. So how do you solve this from the publisher's perspective? Even the best tools can be misused (think Google Sheets). But when used responsibly, DataUnlocker simply helps fix a technical blind spot – surely not spy on people who didn't opt in.
azalemeth 1y ago
Given that "consent walls" are not legal in Europe (https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/gdpr-no-cookie-consent-walls/ https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/gdpr-no-cookie-consent-walls/) and the likes of Google explicitly have a JS blocking extension for users who don't want to consent to tags I really don't see how this is legal in my jurisdiction. I don't want to be tracked. I want privacy. If this appeared on a website I cared about, I'd stop using it -- and that includes ones like the guardian, for whom I pay a subscription but always browse privately and adblock. If I saw it on another site, I'd most likely move on. I browse with dev tools open and do actually watch xhr requests: this would stick out like a sore thumb. This product is not ethical.
- nikitaeverywher 1y ago
  DataUnlocker has nothing to do with "consent walls" or cookies, nor does it allow nor enable websites to circumvent laws like GDPR. I'm honestly (understandably) surprised it's being perceived this way — that's great feedback to improve our communication! Let me put this absolutely clear: DataUnlocker does not change how a website handles privacy or consent. 1. If a website uses a "consent wall", that's the website's decision — not something introduced or enabled by DataUnlocker. 2. If a website properly implements GDPR-compliant consent, no tracking occurs without the user's approval, even when DataUnlocker is in place. So what does DataUnlocker actually do? - It wraps the web app's code in a way that software like blockers can no longer tamper with or disable it — making the site's intended logic (like analytics, post-consent) function reliably. Restoring analytics data lost to blockers is just one (though probably the main) use case for this new approach. Does this explanation help to clarify things better?
  - azalemeth 1y ago
    I know exactly what it does – I just think it is incredibly misguided. Cookie walls and consent banners are not uniformly legal; there are repeated instances of the IAG's "default" option being found to be breaking EU law by many national regulators. I don't want _any_ form of tracking, beyond the inevitable server-side usage logs, of what I do on a website. None. Nil. Nada. I don't consent to GA, Adobe Tags, or anything like that – and I both make that choice explicit by declining tracking and by blocking them at source. By proxying requests for the scripts that I (and google's own extensions for people like me!) explicitly chose to block at an OS level as well as in my browser you are directly _not_ complying with my requests and your actions – and this product – may well be manifestly illegal. If I see an obsfucated load of JS as a website, I (and good search engines like Kagi) automatically distrusted that site and I will be far less likely to visit in the future. Give me plain html, make it fast, and make it readable. I realise most people aren't as extreme as perhaps I am, but honestly I suspect a very high percentage of computer-using professionals are -- and we're likely to be a particular market segment that the owners of sites that would be your target audience would wish to court.
Voultapher 1y ago
Sigh, can't wait for someone to break it. Same way secure enclaves and anti-crack tools always are. What an awful product, I can feel my food coming back up when reading manipulative garbage like: > In 2025, the popularity of ad blockers, VPNs, and privacy browsers continues to grow and disrupt how websites and web apps operate. Is a bit like saying "We are proud to present the performance collars 2.0. Many mining operations are increasingly affected by employees managing to break free of their performance collars, especially younger employees below the age of 12. With the new and improved performance collars 2.0 you can improve site productivity by 15-50% depending on your employee demographics." Building tools to give the more powerful parties in an interaction, i.e. corporations even more power against users sucks, and speaks of an utter lack of moral character. And before anyone comments, saying, no no analytics are good for users and the benevolent companies with great track records will use this power for good, go and read [1], a small excerp: > There's plenty else WEI can do (it would make detecting ad-fraud much easier), but for every legitimate use, there are a hundred ways this could be abused. It's a technology purpose-built to allow rent extraction by stripping us of our right to technological self-determination. Releasing a technology like this into a world where companies are willing to make their products less reliable, less attractive, less safe and less resilient in pursuit of rents is incredibly reckless and shortsighted. You want unauthorized bread? This is how you get Unauthorized Bread. [1] https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/ https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/
- nikitaeverywher 1y ago
  "Performance collars 2.0" is an oversaturated comparison. If you feel enslaved to the system when you sit and cherry-pick what every website gets from you (instead of, to simplify, just opening an incognito tab), that's your choice. In reality, nothing really changes for you personally — except that good feeling of going against the system and saving a bit of bandwidth on blocked requests. I’ve explained in other threads that some basic data is inevitably collected server-side, and network filters just make it feel like you're outsmarting the system — trying to change how physics works while withholding website data like "how long did you keep your tabs open", for instance. In contrast, what actually makes me "feel my food coming back up" is the fact that some privacy browsers advertise how they block (for instance) YouTube ads. On one hand, I think: "Well deserved, YouTube – your UX with 1-minute unskippable ads is more than terrible." On the other – what a piracy leader move. Reminds me of the 2000s when I was buying game disks with cracks that cost almost the same as legit ones. Anyways, this market has to exist and be used – it's a law of nature and I have nothing against it to be honest. One day, maybe, we’ll release a new kind of privacy browser or similar product – just not one that strips a web app down to its bare, minimal functionality like plucking a chicken. On subscriptions: If someone doesn't want to pay a subscription (for a car), they'd probably just buy another car. We live in an open market. If a fraction of people hates subscriptions, there'll always be alternatives. Same with the cited article: Chrome dominates, but if they kill off extensions like ad blockers (which BTW work fine even now with Manifest V3 etc), they'll lose a chunk of market share to competitors. It's an open market, and most people choose Chrome today — because it's just a good browser. Numbers say it, not me. Software businesses chose subscription models for a reason – mostly predictive budgeting. Sure, there are cases when subscriptions feel super-odd (like warming up a car seat), bad monetization design. There are also "lifetime subscription" examples. Too broad to dive into here. I will just conclude that if subscriptions are everywhere, there's a reason for it. Denial or Anger it is normal (as per Five Stages of Grief).

Analytics and marketing tools used on all websites – such as Google Analytics, GTM (both client- and server-side), Facebook Pixel, and many more – are increasingly blocked by privacy tools and ad blockers. As a result, 15–50% of front-end data (conversions, attribution, referrals) never reaches dashboards. This missing data has long been accepted as the norm, to the point where front-end analytics are treated as unreliable and approximate. DataUnlocker 2.0 offers a drop-in solution: a proxy and JavaScript protection layer that shields tracking from blockers. It becomes an integral part of your web application — not only hiding analytics from generic blocking filters, but also making the code essential for the app to function. Blockers simply have no safe way to remove it. Your feedback is welcome – happy to dive deeper.

azalemeth 1y ago
Interesting work! I have a question -- How can I block it in umatrix?
- nikitaeverywher 1y ago
  There's no way to block it — that's by design. The only way would be to block the entire website or disable JavaScript entirely. DataUnlocker makes the app function as a single integrated unit, so trying to cut out one piece causes the whole thing to stop working. It's a broader topic worth deeper discussion to be honest. I'll be posting more on it soon — including why I believe the internet privacy "movement" should align with this: instead of breaking tools used in web apps (while I agree if you can, you can), the focus should go on pseudo-anonymizing users (web clients) while preserving functionality – parts of it are already implemented (VPNs, one-time sessions, etc). I can honestly see both sides of the debate — it's a long-standing and nuanced topic.
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    Pseudo-anonymizing is worthless snake oil, and provides little in the way of actual privacy. This tool is just an escalation in the level of contempt being routinely shown against actual people.
    - nikitaeverywher 1y ago
      Can you explain more on why "Pseudo-anonymizing is worthless snake oil, and provides little in the way of actual privacy"? I'm sure when one uses Tor browser (an example of what I mean under pseudo-anonymizing), they are as safe from tracking as possible. They will get tracking cookies and all that, but from a random location, and all IDs the web app could have created will be destroyed right after closing the browser tab.
      - JohnFen 1y ago
        Well, for starters, I don't consider the Tor browser to be anonymizing. It only offers protection against outside attackers, it offers almost no protection against the websites you may browse to (how could it?) Pseudo-anonymization is snake oil because it's not that hard to reverse. All you have to do is combine the "anonymized" data with data from other sources and you can identify people. It doesn't even take that much data from other sources. True anonymization is possible: it requires the collector to just keep general aggregate statistics and to immediately delete the individual telemetry reports. But few entities do that, and we have to just trust that the ones the claim they do are being honest and competent about it. But the track record is extremely poor so trusting in such claims is, in my opinion, very foolish.
        nikitaeverywher 1y ago
        > it offers almost no protection against the websites you may browse to (how could it?) > All you have to do is combine the "anonymized" data with data from other sources I'm struggling to understand why. Can you give a very specific example of how I, using Tor browser to browse web, can still be tracked as an individual? What are "other sources"? Each session of Tor browser has a randomized IP and user agent, and moreover if JavaScript requests for instance the "screen width" of the device, it gives some random numbers. Letterboxing, anti-fingerprinting in action: https://support.torproject.org/tbb/maximized-torbrowser-window/ https://support.torproject.org/tbb/maximized-torbrowser-wind... > True anonymization is possible: it requires the collector to just keep general aggregate statistics and to immediately delete Most businesses store all that "raw" data (pageview and other events) to process it later. It's reasonable – hard to build and unify it otherwise, but at the end of the day it gets aggregated. To add, they have their own data retention policy. So the best and minimally required one can do IMO is to use aka "incognito mode" when browsing, if it matters.

pickleglitch 1y ago

Here's my feedback: This product aims to further enable the surveillance state and erode our privacy. Go fuck yourself.

nikitaeverywher 1y ago
I'm prepared for this kind of feedback, but please – no need to be rude. Let me give you more context. DataUnlocker has a long history and comes from years of hard work, mainly to help developers and product teams deal with missing data. If you’re in tech or marketing, you know how critical accurate metrics are – attribution, conversion rates, traffic volumes. The goal isn't to track individuals – it's to ensure these metrics aren't broken. I’d ask you to consider this perspective: - People who want to stay anonymous, will stay anonymous. DataUnlocker doesn’t interfere with that at all! - It fixes just the technical accounting of data. Things like location masking, anti-fingerprinting, VPN use, etc., – all still apply and protect your privacy (and moreover I can confirm there's no way around them). Hence, even on websites which don't respect your privacy (there are not many, to be completely honest) and try to misuse tracking, blocker users would still appear as anonymous, ID-less visitors. That’s by design, here to stay – and I can assure this from my experience. DataUnlocker just. Fixes. Tech. (think of it like DataUnlocker making web apps behave more like mobile apps — hard to tamper with)
- pickleglitch 1y ago
  Sorry, not sorry. Spin it however you want to help yourself sleep at night, but this product exists to capture data that users don't want captured, and I find that to be rude. Even if the data is "anonymous", it's still fed into algorithms and LLMs built explicitly for mass manipulation. And even anonymized data can be de-anonymized if you have enough points of cross reference. Accurate metrics may be useful, but business got along just fine without all this data for centuries, so to say they are critical is a joke. Targeted advertising might make a lot of money for a very small number of people, but it has been a disaster for society at large.
  - nikitaeverywher 1y ago

JohnFen 1y ago

This sort of garbage is why I only rarely allow websites to use client-side scripting. It's just too risky.

nikitaeverywher 1y ago
What's your main risk?
- JohnFen 1y ago
  In this context, the main risk is the exfiltration of data about me or my use of my machines to others without my active informed consent. This tool is designed and proudly intended to allow exactly that. After all, someone taking actions to prevent data collection is unambiguously signalling that they do not consent to being spied on, and this tool intentionally subverts their wishes.
  - nikitaeverywher 1y ago
    I see your point – it's valid, but perhaps a bit overgeneralized. Let me explain. You don't wear a balaclava to walk down the street just to avoid being seen – you still share some minimal data with the world, like your appearance. Similarly, on the Internet, some minimal metadata is inevitably shared, even if you're privacy-conscious. So a genuine question is: what do you consider acceptable "minimal data" to share with websites? None?
    - JohnFen 1y ago
      "Minimal data" would be my IP address, as that's necessary in order for traffic to be exchanged. Everything else should only be collected with my informed consent. If I've consented, then whatever I've consented to is acceptable. There is absolutely a gray area, though, where data collection may be unobjectionable. The reason I consider it a "gray area" is because it requires trusting whoever is collecting the data, and history has very clearly shown that trust is misplaced. I'm talking about things like: just counting, in the aggregate, how many times users have clicked a button is OK, but recording entire sessions is not (even if that recording is "anonymized"). But as an end user, it's impossible for me to tell who is being well-behaved and who isn't, so I have to assume that everyone is ill-behaved.

reify 1y ago

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://icecatbrowser.org/ https://icecatbrowser.org/ Jshelter will block that shit https://jshelter.org/ https://jshelter.org/ Detects and blocks nonfree and potentially dangerous JavaScript. I am sure Ublocks gorhill will be on this

nikitaeverywher 1y ago
They'd need to block all JavaScript – essentially disabling interactivity — or develop custom workarounds for every single website, ensuring they don't break any logic (like checkout flows). That’s an utterly extreme complexity solution (believe me, DataUnlocker is, too). I hope to publish an article soon outlining a more cooperative path forward, where blockers and websites don't have to be at odds. Part of that will include DataUnlocker's internal rules, just like cookie consent mechanisms – but thoughtfully introduced over time. Here's the bigger picture, from my point of view: The web is shifting toward consent-based tracking – and rightly so. Cookie and data collection consents are now standard (and even legally required in the EU). DataUnlocker is fully compatible with this. When implemented on the website, it activates only after user consent – just like any compliant tracking setup. The tech to do that wasn't trivial a few years ago, and it still catches up. https://support.google.com/tagmanager/answer/10718549?hl=en https://support.google.com/tagmanager/answer/10718549?hl=en In fact, if you visit pages with an ad blocker, cookie consent modals will not even appear – meaning no tracking starts at all. That's a win–win: privacy respected, no shady behavior, "no" is the default. Big companies can't afford to violate that. What DataUnlocker addresses is a different issue: Let's say a user wants to grant "essential" tracking consent — they've consented — but uses an ad blocker by default. They load the page, bounce in 5 seconds, and are gone. Most won't bother to disable the blocker for 5 seconds – maybe 1–2% will. So how do you solve this from the publisher's perspective? Even the best tools can be misused (think Google Sheets). But when used responsibly, DataUnlocker simply helps fix a technical blind spot – surely not spy on people who didn't opt in.

azalemeth 1y ago

Given that "consent walls" are not legal in Europe (https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/gdpr-no-cookie-consent-walls/ https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/gdpr-no-cookie-consent-walls/) and the likes of Google explicitly have a JS blocking extension for users who don't want to consent to tags I really don't see how this is legal in my jurisdiction. I don't want to be tracked. I want privacy. If this appeared on a website I cared about, I'd stop using it -- and that includes ones like the guardian, for whom I pay a subscription but always browse privately and adblock. If I saw it on another site, I'd most likely move on. I browse with dev tools open and do actually watch xhr requests: this would stick out like a sore thumb. This product is not ethical.

nikitaeverywher 1y ago
DataUnlocker has nothing to do with "consent walls" or cookies, nor does it allow nor enable websites to circumvent laws like GDPR. I'm honestly (understandably) surprised it's being perceived this way — that's great feedback to improve our communication! Let me put this absolutely clear: DataUnlocker does not change how a website handles privacy or consent. 1. If a website uses a "consent wall", that's the website's decision — not something introduced or enabled by DataUnlocker. 2. If a website properly implements GDPR-compliant consent, no tracking occurs without the user's approval, even when DataUnlocker is in place. So what does DataUnlocker actually do? - It wraps the web app's code in a way that software like blockers can no longer tamper with or disable it — making the site's intended logic (like analytics, post-consent) function reliably. Restoring analytics data lost to blockers is just one (though probably the main) use case for this new approach. Does this explanation help to clarify things better?
- azalemeth 1y ago
  I know exactly what it does – I just think it is incredibly misguided. Cookie walls and consent banners are not uniformly legal; there are repeated instances of the IAG's "default" option being found to be breaking EU law by many national regulators. I don't want _any_ form of tracking, beyond the inevitable server-side usage logs, of what I do on a website. None. Nil. Nada. I don't consent to GA, Adobe Tags, or anything like that – and I both make that choice explicit by declining tracking and by blocking them at source. By proxying requests for the scripts that I (and google's own extensions for people like me!) explicitly chose to block at an OS level as well as in my browser you are directly _not_ complying with my requests and your actions – and this product – may well be manifestly illegal. If I see an obsfucated load of JS as a website, I (and good search engines like Kagi) automatically distrusted that site and I will be far less likely to visit in the future. Give me plain html, make it fast, and make it readable. I realise most people aren't as extreme as perhaps I am, but honestly I suspect a very high percentage of computer-using professionals are -- and we're likely to be a particular market segment that the owners of sites that would be your target audience would wish to court.

Voultapher 1y ago

Sigh, can't wait for someone to break it. Same way secure enclaves and anti-crack tools always are. What an awful product, I can feel my food coming back up when reading manipulative garbage like: > In 2025, the popularity of ad blockers, VPNs, and privacy browsers continues to grow and disrupt how websites and web apps operate. Is a bit like saying "We are proud to present the performance collars 2.0. Many mining operations are increasingly affected by employees managing to break free of their performance collars, especially younger employees below the age of 12. With the new and improved performance collars 2.0 you can improve site productivity by 15-50% depending on your employee demographics." Building tools to give the more powerful parties in an interaction, i.e. corporations even more power against users sucks, and speaks of an utter lack of moral character. And before anyone comments, saying, no no analytics are good for users and the benevolent companies with great track records will use this power for good, go and read [1], a small excerp: > There's plenty else WEI can do (it would make detecting ad-fraud much easier), but for every legitimate use, there are a hundred ways this could be abused. It's a technology purpose-built to allow rent extraction by stripping us of our right to technological self-determination. Releasing a technology like this into a world where companies are willing to make their products less reliable, less attractive, less safe and less resilient in pursuit of rents is incredibly reckless and shortsighted. You want unauthorized bread? This is how you get Unauthorized Bread. [1] https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/ https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/

nikitaeverywher 1y ago
"Performance collars 2.0" is an oversaturated comparison. If you feel enslaved to the system when you sit and cherry-pick what every website gets from you (instead of, to simplify, just opening an incognito tab), that's your choice. In reality, nothing really changes for you personally — except that good feeling of going against the system and saving a bit of bandwidth on blocked requests. I’ve explained in other threads that some basic data is inevitably collected server-side, and network filters just make it feel like you're outsmarting the system — trying to change how physics works while withholding website data like "how long did you keep your tabs open", for instance. In contrast, what actually makes me "feel my food coming back up" is the fact that some privacy browsers advertise how they block (for instance) YouTube ads. On one hand, I think: "Well deserved, YouTube – your UX with 1-minute unskippable ads is more than terrible." On the other – what a piracy leader move. Reminds me of the 2000s when I was buying game disks with cracks that cost almost the same as legit ones. Anyways, this market has to exist and be used – it's a law of nature and I have nothing against it to be honest. One day, maybe, we’ll release a new kind of privacy browser or similar product – just not one that strips a web app down to its bare, minimal functionality like plucking a chicken. On subscriptions: If someone doesn't want to pay a subscription (for a car), they'd probably just buy another car. We live in an open market. If a fraction of people hates subscriptions, there'll always be alternatives. Same with the cited article: Chrome dominates, but if they kill off extensions like ad blockers (which BTW work fine even now with Manifest V3 etc), they'll lose a chunk of market share to competitors. It's an open market, and most people choose Chrome today — because it's just a good browser. Numbers say it, not me. Software businesses chose subscription models for a reason – mostly predictive budgeting. Sure, there are cases when subscriptions feel super-odd (like warming up a car seat), bad monetization design. There are also "lifetime subscription" examples. Too broad to dive into here. I will just conclude that if subscriptions are everywhere, there's a reason for it. Denial or Anger it is normal (as per Five Stages of Grief).