3 ms·

Alternative to archive.ph Disable Javascript and CSS For example curl https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n09/john-lanchester/squillions \ |sed '1s/^/<

Alternative to archive.ph Disable Javascript and CSS For example curl https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n09/john-lanchester/squillions \ |sed '1s/^/<meta http-equiv=content-security-policy content=\"default-src none\">/' > 1.htm firefox ./1.htm There are also Firefox add-ons that can do this as well Or use a text-only browser links https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n09/john-lanchester/squillions links -dump https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n09/john-lanchester/squillions

Cider9986 5mo ago
BPWC is good as well, but I would keep it in a separate browser profile.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
To be clear, there are Firefox add-ons distributed at addons.mozilla.org that allow the user to add/modify/delete HTTP response headers and bodies One can use these to insert a Content-Security-Policy, either via HTTP header or <meta> tag, that disables Javascript and CSS Personally, I use a local forward proxy to insert HTTP response headers, not a browser add-on, for experimentation and learning As a matter of practice, I read HTML with a customised text-only browser that does not auto-load resources, nor does it interpret Javascript or CSS. There is no DNS prefetching or other nonsense. As such, a "Content Security Policy" is not necessary
1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
If the user chooses browser "add-ons" or "extensions" as their solution, then they can choose open source projects and compile the software themselves after reviewing the source code and modifying it, if necessary, to their satisfaction "Browser profiles" and other "browser features" created by developers working for Google or Mozilla, a Google partner, that are not reviewed and compiled by the user, are potentially compromised by conflicts of interest if used to protect users from online advertising If the user does not compile the browser themselves, and permits "automatic updates" (remote code execution), then Google or Mozilla can prevent users from using "extensions" or "add-ons" by changing the browser software As such, annd for various other reasons not mentioned, using "extensions", "add-ons" and "browser features" as protection from data collection, surveillance and advertising is not ideal In some cases it may be totally ineffective. In others it may actually subject the user to _more_ data collection, surveillance and advertising

Cider9986 5mo ago

BPWC is good as well, but I would keep it in a separate browser profile.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago

To be clear, there are Firefox add-ons distributed at addons.mozilla.org that allow the user to add/modify/delete HTTP response headers and bodies One can use these to insert a Content-Security-Policy, either via HTTP header or <meta> tag, that disables Javascript and CSS Personally, I use a local forward proxy to insert HTTP response headers, not a browser add-on, for experimentation and learning As a matter of practice, I read HTML with a customised text-only browser that does not auto-load resources, nor does it interpret Javascript or CSS. There is no DNS prefetching or other nonsense. As such, a "Content Security Policy" is not necessary

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago

If the user chooses browser "add-ons" or "extensions" as their solution, then they can choose open source projects and compile the software themselves after reviewing the source code and modifying it, if necessary, to their satisfaction "Browser profiles" and other "browser features" created by developers working for Google or Mozilla, a Google partner, that are not reviewed and compiled by the user, are potentially compromised by conflicts of interest if used to protect users from online advertising If the user does not compile the browser themselves, and permits "automatic updates" (remote code execution), then Google or Mozilla can prevent users from using "extensions" or "add-ons" by changing the browser software As such, annd for various other reasons not mentioned, using "extensions", "add-ons" and "browser features" as protection from data collection, surveillance and advertising is not ideal In some cases it may be totally ineffective. In others it may actually subject the user to _more_ data collection, surveillance and advertising