Happened to know that mozilla hides ublock origin add-on page for
chinese IP address because they think it's illegal in china. I searched
and see there are disputes however. Is this a problem in your country?

--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM: xmpp:luweitest@riotcat.org
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA

Am 09.02.23 um 09:37 schrieb Lu Wei:
> Happened to know that mozilla hides ublock origin add-on page for
> chinese IP address because they think it's illegal in china. I searched
> and see there are disputes however. Is this a problem in your country?

Why should it be illegal?
Intrusive and unsolicited ads are illegal. The rules in Europe are very
strict.

My suggestion: Also install NoScript to keep unwanted third parties out.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Lu Wei <luweitest@gmail.com> wrote:

> Happened to know that mozilla hides ublock origin add-on page for
> chinese IP address because they think it's illegal in china. I searched
> and see there are disputes however. Is this a problem in your country?

You sure that effect isn't part of the "Great Firewall of China" (GFC)
at work? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall. I've hit
the BBC web site which won't show some of its articles, because my IP
address is geolocated in the USA. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-blocking.

When you go to addons.mozilla.org, and search on "adblock", is just
uBlock Origin missing from the results list, or are other adblockers
missing, too?

Use of adblockers is not prohibited in my country (USA). I take it you
are inside China, and wondering why some resources are blocked to you,
like Google's online search (gov't censorship got Google blocked back in
2010).

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/03/google-shuts-down-translate-service-in-china-.html

Sites can restrict some of their content using regional throttling often
by geolocation of IP address. I thought there were some (perhaps
illegal) VPNs that penetrate past the GFC, and pretend to site you are
in a different geolocation.

Ah, here is something more specific to the Chinese gov't interfering
with web sites as to what they allow into their country:

https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/chinese-users-cant-use-ad-blocker-extensions/94823/2

On 2023-2-9 17:17, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 09.02.23 um 09:37 schrieb Lu Wei:
>> Happened to know that mozilla hides ublock origin add-on page for
>> chinese IP address because they think it's illegal in china. I searched
>> and see there are disputes however. Is this a problem in your country?
>
> Why should it be illegal?

Almost the same reason presented in the courts of Europe or America. The
accuser thought he couldn't run the service for free, so the users must
watch the ads. The opinion have been discussed thoroughly I think.

> Intrusive and unsolicited ads are illegal. The rules in Europe are very
> strict.
>
This is a bit far from my point.

> My suggestion: Also install NoScript to keep unwanted third parties out.
>
Yes, noscript and ublock origin installed on every browser I use.

--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM: xmpp:luweitest@riotcat.org
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA

On 2023-2-10 0:39, VanguardLH wrote:
>
> You sure that effect isn't part of the "Great Firewall of China" (GFC)
> at work? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall. I've hit
> the BBC web site which won't show some of its articles, because my IP
> address is geolocated in the USA. See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-blocking.
>
The blocking is at mozilla's side, for the page could be opened, but
displays "not available in your region" information. That's the point
mozilla be blamed.

> When you go to addons.mozilla.org, and search on "adblock", is just
> uBlock Origin missing from the results list, or are other adblockers
> missing, too?
>
Not all. Some of the most users, AdBlocker, AdGuard, uBlock, etc.

> Use of adblockers is not prohibited in my country (USA). I take it you
> are inside China, and wondering why some resources are blocked to you,
> like Google's online search (gov't censorship got Google blocked back in
> 2010).
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/03/google-shuts-down-translate-service-in-china-.html
>
> Sites can restrict some of their content using regional throttling often
> by geolocation of IP address. I thought there were some (perhaps
> illegal) VPNs that penetrate past the GFC, and pretend to site you are
> in a different geolocation.
>
Yes, if mozilla is serious about obeying chinese gov's order, it should
check ID cards of every visitor.

> Ah, here is something more specific to the Chinese gov't interfering
> with web sites as to what they allow into their country:
>
> https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/chinese-users-cant-use-ad-blocker-extensions/94823/2
>
I have commented in that forum.

--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM: xmpp:luweitest@riotcat.org
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA

Am 10.02.23 um 01:52 schrieb Lu Wei:
> On 2023-2-9 17:17, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 09.02.23 um 09:37 schrieb Lu Wei:
>>> Happened to know that mozilla hides ublock origin add-on page for
>>> chinese IP address because they think it's illegal in china. I searched
>>> and see there are disputes however. Is this a problem in your country?
>>
>> Why should it be illegal?
>
> Almost the same reason presented in the courts of Europe or America. The
> accuser thought he couldn't run the service for free, so the users must
> watch the ads. The opinion have been discussed thoroughly I think.

Funny reasoning. All attempts by companies to forbid adblockers failed
in court (in Europe) about 20 years ago.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Lu Wei <luweitest@gmail.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> You sure that effect isn't part of the "Great Firewall of China" (GFC)
>> at work? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall. I've hit
>> the BBC web site which won't show some of its articles, because my IP
>> address is geolocated in the USA. See
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-blocking.
>>
> The blocking is at mozilla's side, for the page could be opened, but
> displays "not available in your region" information. That's the point
> mozilla be blamed.

As mentioned, that is regional blocking aka geolocation blocking. The
Chinese gov't doesn't want adblockers available from anyone outside of
China hence outside the control of the Chinese gov't. Like Google,
Mozilla could have decided to merely block any access to mozilla.org
from users coming from inside China. Instead they block content the
Chinese gov't doesn't like, so some of their content is still
accessible.

It's also a legal choice. If Mozilla continued to provide content that
the Chinese gov't bans, then Mozilla is susceptible to lawsuits and
sanctions. Mozilla likely does want a presence in China, but has to
obey China laws and restrictions. Else, Mozilla could just leave the
China market as did Google. If the China gov't gets more picky, Mozilla
just might do that.

You're focusing on the wrong cause for content blocking. Mozilla is
obeying China's rules, or Mozilla is reducing their legal liability due
to China's behavior.

How many times have you visited a USA-based web site to get those
annoying "We use cookies" popups you have to dismiss to see the rest of
the web page. That's due to the GPDR and their demand that sites
disclose their privacy practice, like announcing cookies are used at a
site. USA-based site don't have to comply with anything the GPDR
declares. Some do, because they want commerce or exposure in that area,
so they avoid any legal entanglements (stranglements) by complying with
some other country's rules that are not required in their own country.

That a web site is not under the thumb of a country where their site can
be reached is not reason enough to necessitate complete restriction by
users in the throttled region. Many USA-based web sites comply with the
GPDR despite none of their "laws" are enforceable in the USA. Think
about it for just one second: If every non-China web site simply blocked
access to all of their content to China-based users, those users would
lose a HELL OF A LOT of content.

If it were my personal web site, I would simply ignore any of China's
regulations (and hope I didn't nailed by some reciprocity between China
and the USA, and I never visit China), or I'd say "fuck them" and block
ALL of my content to any China-based user (but then I'd have to waste my
time figuring out how to geolocate my visitors to determine which can
get my content and which don't). Mozilla is playing nice: comply with
foreign regulations and provide some allowed content. You would prefer
Mozilla block all their content to all China-based users? If so, you
couldn't get ANY of the add-ons for Firefox. If all web sites took that
attitude, well, you'd be stuck with just whatever you can reach inside
the Great Firewall of China.

Again, there are no VPNs or TORs that have entrance/exit nodes within
China? I suspect they'd be illegal since they would undermine Party
Rule. Plus, anyone can operate a VPN. The first in the USA were
operated by the FBI. A VPN node inside of China could be operated by
the China gov't to spy on what those users might be doing that is
anti-Communist. Alas, most VPN nodes, and TOR nodes, have unknown
operators.

Violating China's rules can result not just in them blocking your site
in the Great Firewall, but can also lead to retailiation by the Chinese
gov't. The have perpetrated DDOS (distributed denial of service)
attacks again violators. If you operated a web site, would you want the
Chinese to focus their Great Cannon at your site? They attacked Github
leaving that site unresponsive for several days. So, Mozilla could
block ALL their content from ALL China-based users, or comply with the
Party's rules on what content Mozilla can deliver to China-based users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Cannon

The point of a web site is to survive, not to initiate war against
China's Communist Party because they disagree with them.

>> When you go to addons.mozilla.org, and search on "adblock", is just
>> uBlock Origin missing from the results list, or are other adblockers
>> missing, too?
>
> Not all. Some of the most users, AdBlocker, AdGuard, uBlock, etc.

Odd. The forum article mentioned below has users complaining that many
adblockers are geolocation-restricted from China-based visitors.

Also, Firefox has its own internal adblocker. They get the blacklist
from Disconnect.Me. Go to about:preferences#privacy under the Enhanced
Tracking Protection (ETP) section to see what level of tracking blocking
is selected. I don't know if Mozilla removes this code from Firefox
when distributing that product to China-based users, but that blacklist
is similar in purpose as to all the other blacklists to which the
adblocker add-ons can subscribe. For me, the only way to get rid of the
Disconnect.me blacklist (which is puny compared to other blacklists) is
to configure ETP using a custom setup, and deselect all categories
(which I've done when having to diagnose problems in Firefox).

>> Sites can restrict some of their content using regional throttling
>> often by geolocation of IP address. I thought there were some
>> (perhaps illegal) VPNs that penetrate past the GFC, and pretend to
>> site you are in a different geolocation.
>
> Yes, if mozilla is serious about obeying chinese gov's order, it
> should check ID cards of every visitor.

They do. You proved that. So have other China-based users. It's
called geolocation already mentioned. We're talking about the Web, so
even you know inspecting physical ID cards is impossible; however, sites
can check your location. Any site can block some or all of their
content if you are coming from a restricted location. That's the ID
card. Being a USA-based visitor, there is some content at bbc.com that
I'm not allowed to see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopositioning

Even if you disable geolocation in Firefox, and kill all geo functions
in your computer, your IP address comes from someone else's IP pool, and
that is limited to a region.

>> Ah, here is something more specific to the Chinese gov't interfering
>> with web sites as to what they allow into their country:
>>
>> https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/chinese-users-cant-use-ad-blocker-extensions/94823/2
>
> I have commented in that forum.

Perhaps having better visibility to Mozilla than in newsgroups that they
don't monitor.

"Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote in message
news:ts2dns$m3c1$1@solani.org...
> Am 09.02.23 um 09:37 schrieb Lu Wei:
>> Happened to know that mozilla hides ublock origin add-on page for
>> chinese IP address because they think it's illegal in china. I searched
>> and see there are disputes however. Is this a problem in your country?
>
> Why should it be illegal?
> Intrusive and unsolicited ads are illegal. The rules in Europe are very
> strict.

I would describe just about any form of advertising as unsolicited, and a
lot of it is intrusive. Web adverts are particularly obtrusive because they
can pop up a screen that hides part of the page that you are reading (as
opposed to simply pushing the text further down the page). A common ploy for
inline adverts (ie not popups) is not to specify the pixel dimensions of an
advert image, so the text jumps about as each image is downloaded from a
server that is probably overloaded so can't supply all the advert images at
the same time as the rest of the page is loaded.

My philosophy is that the only good advert is one that you can ignore if
it's not of interest to you, but which is there if you *are* interested.
They can force-feed us adverts but they can't force us to look at them ;-)

I did read a rant by an American advertising executive who said that TV
viewers should watch every advert and give it their undivided attention, and
if they must go to the loo or make a cup of tea, they should do it during
the programme. That's the rule he enforced in his house. I bet his children
*loved* him ;-) Pure cloud-cuckoo-land drivel ;-)

Sadly the rules in Europe are not strict enough. There should be rules such
as "all TV adverts to be shown between, not within, programmes" and "no
popup overlays on web sites" and "every advert in any form should carry a
very clear 'ADVERT'" overlay. Anything to make adverts easier to ignore.
They have to be included, in order to pay the bills, but beyond that they
are a necessary evil that are as popular as dogshit on your lounge carpet.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote in message
> news:ts2dns$m3c1$1@solani.org...
>> Am 09.02.23 um 09:37 schrieb Lu Wei:
>>> Happened to know that mozilla hides ublock origin add-on page for
>>> chinese IP address because they think it's illegal in china. I searched
>>> and see there are disputes however. Is this a problem in your country?
>>
>> Why should it be illegal?
>> Intrusive and unsolicited ads are illegal. The rules in Europe are very
>> strict.
>
> I would describe just about any form of advertising as unsolicited, and a
> lot of it is intrusive. Web adverts are particularly obtrusive because they
> can pop up a screen that hides part of the page that you are reading (as
> opposed to simply pushing the text further down the page). A common ploy for
> inline adverts (ie not popups) is not to specify the pixel dimensions of an
> advert image, so the text jumps about as each image is downloaded from a
> server that is probably overloaded so can't supply all the advert images at
> the same time as the rest of the page is loaded.
>
> My philosophy is that the only good advert is one that you can ignore if
> it's not of interest to you, but which is there if you *are* interested.
> They can force-feed us adverts but they can't force us to look at them ;-)

I've seen some users express their hyper-sensitivity regarding ads. Any
ad is a bad ad despite these whiners are leeching someone else's
resources to provide all the other content. The whine of the super
entitled. That's like users that get 1 spam a month, or less, going
beserk that they've been spammed.

Why do I mention such hyper-sensitivity? Because when Adblock Plus
decided to allow "good" ads, by default, to reward sites that didn't use
every damn trick to force feed their ad, and enable good ad sources by
default (by not blocking them), many Adblock Plus users went beserk.
Yet it was their option to use Adblock Plus in the first place. They go
through the effort of installing and configuring the product, but God
forbid they flip an option to block "good ads", too. Such an onerous
task to change a setting.

https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads

Although animated ads is only mentioned for the mobile platform, I would
like to see them added for the desktop platform, too. Animated ads are
a deliberate attempt to almost force your attention to them. Also,
animation whether for a video or GIF should not be allowed to start
until the viewer clicks on an object to start the animation. No sound
and no animation or playback unless the viewers overtly okays them. Not
as a feature of a web browser, but by web document design.

Users tend to, or maybe they would like to, ignore that someone is
paying the bill to design, maintain, and host a web site. Yes, there
really are users that think the Internet should be completely free ...
to them, that is. They need to move out of their parents house, get a
job, and pay for everything they got free from their parents, including
Internet access. You are not entitled to Internet access. You are not
entitled to someone else's web content. There is no amendment to the
Constitution granting you free and ad-free web content. It is not a
right.

We have Internet1 which is what most web users know about. There's
Internet2 dedicated for other purposes. Perhaps we should have
Internet3 where there is a fee to access every web site, so ads are
unnecessary and not allowed to support all the costs a web owner
encounters to present their content. I know a "stamp" fee was proposed
for e-mail to eliminate spam since spammers aren't going to pay for the
stamps. That never happened. For all those complaining about ALL ads,
not just the bad behaviored one but the good ones, too, they should be
collecting themselves behind a push for a paid Internet3. You have to
pay for Internet access, so pay for site access. If you don't pay, the
sites have to still pay their bills. How many sites you see with a
pre-home web page declaring you must pay a fee to visit their site? So,
just how are sites to accrue revenue to offset their bills?

There is no law nor even morality that says someone must be altruistic
to pay for your wants. There are some, but altruism is not a mandate.
Might be what your parents did (having children is expensive), but the
Web is not your parents.

Ads keep sites alive. It's the behavior of some that has inflamed the
user community against all ads. It's like eating pizza, burning the
roof of your mouth, and everything you eat therafter feels like a burn.
Some bad actors ruin the Web experience for all ad content.

On 2/10/23 3:43 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

>Users tend to, or maybe they would like to ignore that someone is
>paying the bill to design, maintain, and host a web site.

How is me blocking an internet ad different from me getting up during a TV
ad to go to take a leak?

AJL <noemail@none.org> wrote:

> On 2/10/23 3:43 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>>Users tend to, or maybe they would like to ignore that someone is
>>paying the bill to design, maintain, and host a web site.
>
> How is me blocking an internet ad different from me getting up during a TV
> ad to go to take a leak?

And while you take a leak, the ad still plays, the advertiser still pays
the network, and the content you watch is still ad-laden. You haven't
changed the nature of ad-laden TV by walking away from your TV.

There's no one monitoring your absence from your TV, but web sites can
see if you don't retrieve some or all of their content, including ads.
If blocking ads becomes more prevalent, more sites will do what many are
doing now: alerting you that they won't deliver some or all of their
content because you are using an adblocker. That you want to take a
leak or block ads doesn't obviate the site owner has to pay the bills
somehow. Whether YOU see them is not critical to the site owner getting
revenue from ads. Click-through ads are not yet the norm.

For me, my bladder doesn't cooperate by getting full just at the time
the ads show up on TV. I just use the mute button on the remote, and
pickup a book that I'm reading. In fact, with all the stupidity in TV
programming, I watch my muted TV a lot. Without canned laughter, there
would very few funny shows. Without the noise during game shows,
they're a lot more boring. I wish there was a way to separate music
from dialogue to eliminate those orchestras that follow the characters
around in the movies.

On 2/10/2023 9:50 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

> If blocking ads becomes more prevalent, more sites will do what many
> are doing now: alerting you that they won't deliver some or all of
> their content because you are using an adblocker.

Perhaps the ad blockers will update eventually. How about if (when?)
they build a browser that reports back to the site that all is well but
locally still gets rid of the ads?

> That you want to take a leak or block ads doesn't obviate the site
> owner has to pay the bills somehow. Whether YOU see them is not
> critical to the site owner getting revenue from ads.

Yup. My GUESS is that most (non-tech) folks see the ads for most common
sites so that the revenue likely isn't damaged that much.

I go one step further. My favorite Android tablet browser Silk allows me
to turn off both JavaScript and cookies. So for subscription sites like
the New York Times and the Arizona Republic I can read most of their
stuff AND still not see most of the ads.

So am I cheating more by beating the subscription or beating the ads?

> For me, my bladder doesn't cooperate by getting full just at the time
> the ads show up on TV.

Probably more than I wanted to know... ;)

Am 10.02.23 um 22:28 schrieb NY:
> My philosophy is that the only good advert is one that you can ignore if
> it's not of interest to you, but which is there if you *are* interested.
> They can force-feed us adverts but they can't force us to look at them ;-)

My philosophy is to prevent them all. Most advertisments carry along
much more severe payloads like tracking element, crosscripting and more.

A script blocker like NoScript is absolutely mandatory. Together with
uBlock Origin it is an unbeaten team. Works on Windows, Mac, Linux and
Android which is very important for my environment.

https://noscript.net

The NoScript Security Suite is *Free Open Source Software* (FOSS)
providing extra protection for Firefox (on Android, too!), Chrome, Edge,
Brave and other web browsers. Install NoScript now!

Working with trust levels in NoScript's popup UI
NoScript in action
NoScript is a built-in key security component of the Tor Browser, the
top anonymity tool defending millions against surveillance and censorship.

This browser extension allows JavaScript and other potentially harmful
content to be executed only by trusted web sites of your choice (e.g.
your online bank).

NoScript also provides the most powerful anti-XSS protection ever
available in a browser.

NoScript's unique pre-emptive script blocking approach prevents
exploitation of security vulnerabilities (known, such as Meltdown or
Spectre, and even not known yet!) with no functionality loss: you can
enable JavaScript and other dynamic capabilities for sites you trust
with a simple left-click on the NoScript icon.

* experts endorsing NoScript, among others: Edward Snowden (former NSA
analyst and whistleblower against surveillance state); Window Snyder
(former top security officer at Microsoft, Square, Inc., Apple, Fastly,
Intel and Mozilla Corp.); Douglas Crockford (Javascript expert and
creator of the JSON format); the Sans Internet Storm Center

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 10.02.23 um 23:43 schrieb VanguardLH:
> I've seen some users express their hyper-sensitivity regarding ads. Any
> ad is a bad ad despite these whiners are leeching someone else's
> resources to provide all the other content. The whine of the super
> entitled. That's like users that get 1 spam a month, or less, going
> beserk that they've been spammed.
>
> Why do I mention such hyper-sensitivity? Because when Adblock Plus
> decided to allow "good" ads, by default, to reward sites that didn't use
> every damn trick to force feed their ad, and enable good ad sources by
> default (by not blocking them), many Adblock Plus users went beserk.

Correctly so. There are more powerful solutions against unsolicited
intrusion. Adblock Plus is simply deception and does not prevent the
more severe techniques. There are much more powerful solutions that are
in addition *Open Source*.

What "advice" can we expect from people still using such dinosaurs:
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41 running on a OS that is inherently
insecure and disrespects the privacy of its users from the very beginning.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 03:47:09 -0000 (UTC), AJL <noemail@none.org>
wrote:

>On 2/10/23 3:43 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>>Users tend to, or maybe they would like to ignore that someone is
>>paying the bill to design, maintain, and host a web site.
>
>How is me blocking an internet ad different from me getting up during a TV
> ad to go to take a leak?

One stops you from wetting your pants, the other doesn't.

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote

| Ads keep sites alive. It's the behavior of some that has inflamed the
| user community against all ads.

You're such a card, V. :)

I don't block any ads. I also don't see any ads. Why?
Because I block the major spyware companies that I
never chose to visit. It's a design flaw in HTML that allows
a webpage at acme.com to send me to Google/doubleclick
without asking. If people put an ad on their site, and it
doesn't require script, then I'll see it. But I don't. Because
there are no honest, non-spyware-based ads.

Of course, banner ads never paid well. And it's work
to get them. Far easier for a webmaster to just sign up
with Google, paste a line of script in their webpage, and
collect payment for letting Google spy on you, send you
ads, and risk a CSS attack by Russian hackers in the process.
No thanks. Ads have actually become dangerous. Google
couldn't care less who buys their way into your browser,
so long as they pay the bill.

It's all based on dishonesty. That's no way to run an
Internet. But you forget that sites don't have to make
money. Few sites are actually products. It just looks that
way because of Google pagerank. They try to send you
to their advertisers. If you go to homedepot.com,
acmehospital.com, or millions of other sites that just provide
an online interface, there's no reason for ads or tracking.
The Internet I see is largely non-ad-supported and free of
social media.

The latest news is that Google and MS are both drooling
over the idea of a chatty Internet. They envision a time,
very soon, where the Internet will be like Star Trek's
computer, but a shopping mall rather than a tool. Maybe
that's your Internet v. 3:

"Clippy, where's the nearest pizza?"

"Hi Vanguard. I'm so happy you asked. Turn right in
30 feet and park at Leo's. There's one spot open for
$1.20 per hour. Shall I reserve it for you?...OK... Done...
I highly recommend the large pizza with sausage and
peppers."

"Thanks, Clippy. I can't imagine how I'd even manage
to even get out of bed without a dependable friend like
you."

"Anytime, V. I love to serve. Shall we go for ice cream
after the pizza? You'll get in 58 walking steps going from
your parking meter to Leo's and back. I calculate that
if you only have 2 slices of pizza then you can afford
the calories in a single scoop of chocolate chip."

"Yippee! You're the best, Clippy. Why did anyone ever
hang around with humans when there are friends like you?"

"Calculating... calculating... Apparently that's because
Microsoft didn't give me a voice until 2023... Hey, I have an
idea... Let's get the ice cream and then I'll project the history
of Microsoft on the dashboard while you eat. They have
7 new products since last time we checked in."

"Sounds great, Clip. I could get laid tonight, but fluids
and touching are just so last decade."

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| I go one step further. My favorite Android tablet browser Silk allows me
| to turn off both JavaScript and cookies.

I didn't know about that one. I have FF on
Android. Though I rarely use it. I prefer a desktop
to a Lilliputian computer. But I'll have to try Silk.

| So for subscription sites like
| the New York Times and the Arizona Republic I can read most of their
| stuff AND still not see most of the ads.
| That's an interesting one. We get NYTimes delivered.

(Not my idea. The other day their main editorial was
some dimwit claiming that Madonna ruining her face* and
body trying to look young was actually a courageous
re-invention. Huh? Woke much?

* For those who don't know, Madonna appeared on
the Grammy's, looking like a shiny, bloated Medusa,
swollen with silicone and nearly unrecognizable.)

Pages 2-3 of the NYT are just one big ad to tell me,
"Yeah, you're paying way too much for this paper, but
if you actually want to read all the stories you'll still
have to go online and let us track you. Here's a list
of stories you're not getting in this paper."

On the rare occasions that I actually want to read a NYT
article, it works fine online so long as script is disabled.
But different sites are trying different things. Forbes, for
example, used to bury the entire page's text in javascript.
No script, no page. Then they decided to stop that, for
reasons I don't know. My guess is that various companies
are trying different things, but still don't have a good
solution... aside from the default solution that most people
just don't know how to protect tehmselves from spying and
excessive ads.

On 2/11/2023 8:02 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

> I go one step further. My favorite Android tablet browser Silk
> allows me to turn off both JavaScript and cookies.

> I didn't know about that one. I have FF on Android. Though I rarely
> use it. I prefer a desktop to a Lilliputian computer.

Depends on what gadget I'm using and my browsing purpose as to what
browser I use. On my Android toys (including Chromebook) I have Firefox,
Chrome, Silk, Dolphin, and Little Web Browser.

On my Windows stuff just Edge, Chrome, and Firefox. They all have
extension JavaScript and cookie killers. And I sometimes use the
extension Tranquility reader which usually cleans things up very nicely...

> But I'll have to try Silk.

It's an Amazon browser but can be sideloaded to other tablets.

> So for subscription sites like the New York Times and the Arizona
> Republic I can read most of their stuff AND still not see most of
> the ads.

> That's an interesting one. We get NYTimes delivered.

How quaint... :)

> Pages 2-3 of the NYT are just one big ad to tell me, "Yeah, you're
> paying way too much for this paper, but if you actually want to read
> all the stories you'll still have to go online and let us track you.
> Here's a list of stories you're not getting in this paper.

Can they track you if your browser kills cookies?

> On the rare occasions that I actually want to read a NYT article, it
> works fine online so long as script is disabled.

Same here.

> But different sites are trying different things.

Yup. The Arizona Republic also counts your article views using cookies.
After 3 views they block further access and solicit a subscription.
Blocking all cookies solves that. I suppose I should feel somewhat
guilty because I was once a paperboy for them around 70 years ago...

On 2/11/2023 7:14 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.org wrote:

>> How is me blocking an internet ad different from me getting up
>> during a TV ad to go to take a leak?

> One stops you from wetting your pants, the other doesn't.

And...it's better than being pissed of having to watch the ad.

Ok, it's urine turn for another bad pun...

In article <ts8f5r$1f1ge$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> Can they track you if your browser kills cookies?

they sure can.

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| > That's an interesting one. We get NYTimes delivered.
| | How quaint... :)
| What do you use to line the bottom of your
garbage or to spray paint a small object? :)
Actually I've always enjoyed the paper. For me
in the morning it's like warming up on the starter.
I may be too groggy to get much of it, but it gets
the cogs moving. A kind of soft porn to go with
my coffee.

| > Pages 2-3 of the NYT are just one big ad to tell me, "Yeah, you're
| > paying way too much for this paper, but if you actually want to read
| > all the stories you'll still have to go online and let us track you.
| > Here's a list of stories you're not getting in this paper.
| | Can they track you if your browser kills cookies?
|

If I were to use our "free" login then they'd track me.
Then of course there's all the other tracking from Google
and such. And if you allow script that's multiplied. Not
only will most pages call in external script, but script can
learn a lot more about your system in order to ID you.

| > On the rare occasions that I actually want to read a NYT article, it
| > works fine online so long as script is disabled.
| | Same here.
| | > But different sites are trying different things.
| | Yup. The Arizona Republic also counts your article views using cookies.
| After 3 views they block further access and solicit a subscription.
| Blocking all cookies solves that. I suppose I should feel somewhat
| guilty because I was once a paperboy for them around 70 years ago...
|

That was also my first job... unless I count my housekeeping
gigs for old ladies. But I don't feel bad. Awhile back I was writing
a code de-obfuscator for Windos, running as an HTA. I decided
to add functionality so that I could copy a section of source
code containing script-encased HTML, remove the gobbledygook,
then render it as HTML. It works pretty well, when I need to
use it.
You can see an example of that script if you view source at
the current page from nytimes.com. First is a gigantic block of
CSS. Then a gigantic block of script. Then there's actual HTML,
with links to actual articles. Then there's more script. In that block
is embedded a piece about COVID numbers, which is only visible
if you enable script. There's also a gigantic pile of script to make
their COVID statistics chart work. Yet that data is also available
without script:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

In article <ts8k42$1uni4$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Newyana2
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | Can they track you if your browser kills cookies?
> |
>
> If I were to use our "free" login then they'd track me.
> Then of course there's all the other tracking from Google
> and such. And if you allow script that's multiplied. Not
> only will most pages call in external script, but script can
> learn a lot more about your system in order to ID you.

they can easily track you even when javascript is off.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/2023 8:02 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> > "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote
>
> > I go one step further. My favorite Android tablet browser Silk
> > allows me to turn off both JavaScript and cookies.
>
> > I didn't know about that one. I have FF on Android. Though I rarely
> > use it. I prefer a desktop to a Lilliputian computer.
>
> Depends on what gadget I'm using and my browsing purpose as to what
> browser I use. On my Android toys (including Chromebook) I have Firefox,
> Chrome, Silk, Dolphin, and Little Web Browser.
>
> On my Windows stuff just Edge, Chrome, and Firefox. They all have
> extension JavaScript and cookie killers. And I sometimes use the
> extension Tranquility reader which usually cleans things up very nicely...
>
I just use a local DNS server on my LAN which has a blacklist that
redirects all adverts to nothing/nowhere. Thus it works for all the
computers and phones on my LAN.

--
Chris Green
·

On 2/11/2023 10:40 AM, nospam wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> Can they [NYT & AZ Republic] track you if your browser kills
>> cookies?

> they sure can.

Ah. So they know me as an individual then. Seems odd that they're smart
enough to track me but dumb enough not to lock my daily unauthorized
reading ass out. Tracking huh...OK guess that's a fair trade. No more
guilt trips for me... ;)

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> If blocking ads becomes more prevalent, more sites will do what many
>> are doing now: alerting you that they won't deliver some or all of
>> their content because you are using an adblocker.
>
> Perhaps the ad blockers will update eventually. How about if (when?)
> they build a browser that reports back to the site that all is well but
> locally still gets rid of the ads?

Alas, that means wasting bandwidth and CPU to retrieve and process the
unwanted content, and then modify the rendered version of the web page.
Adblockers just block resources. They don't modify the web document
after the web browser has rendered it.

The site itself, or with cooperation with the ad resource (CDN = Content
Delivery Network), can see whether or not your client retrieved the
content that you otherwise block. Since your client is blocked from
requesting the content, the site or their partners can see you didn't
get that content when a web doc was sent to you. That's how adblockers
work: they break web docs by blocking access to resources the web doc
wants to retrieve, and why adblocking can also screw up layout or
behavior of a web doc since content is missing that the doc's script
expects to be available.

Grease Monkey possibly could do what you want. I think the way it works
is to modify the rendered copy of the web doc. However, that means you
wasted the time, bandwidth, and CPU cycles to have your client retrieve
the unwanted content, and then the add-on performs a clipping action on
the content (or substitutes non-descript content). Grease Monkey uses
Javascript on the post-rendered web doc to modify what is left behind in
it. So, yes, you are editing out or filling in the ad content, but you
still retrieved it.

One of the reason web docs load faster with adblockers is eliminating
(blocking) all that ad content. Takes time and bandwidth to retrieve
the ads to get down to your client. Sometimes the time saved is minimal
and you don't notice it. Other times there can be so much ad content,
and it is scripted (running a script takes time), that the web doc is
slow to finally complete rendering. Grease Monkey has your client
retrieve everything, and then try to modify the rendered version to yet
another version without the content you want to hide. It's like the dog
hiding his bone by pawing dirt atop of it, but the dog still had to take
the time to dig the hole, put the bone in the hole, and then bury the
bone, and then pretend the bone doesn't exist because it is not in view.

Because you have to write the Javascript to modify the web doc content
before the client shows it to you, you have to know Javascript.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/

There are links to help resources, but you'll probably want to reserve a
copy of "Coding with Javascript For Dummies" book before you start.
You'd be doing a lot of work to eliminate the "bad" ads since likely you
don't care if there are "good" ads.

https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads
https://acceptableads.com/

Unfortunately there are lots of "bad players" to ruin the ad experience.