In article <t23qra$i9k$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> Philip,
>
> > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
>
> No, it isn't possible.
>
> I took the time to follow such a link (
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/{name}/posts/{big number} ), and all that I
> got was a page full of JS. With the only human readable contentin some
> "<meta property=" tags in the "head" part of the page.
>
> IOW, the link itself is *at best* an indirect one - with the actual content
> hidden behind a lot of JS.
>
> Why do you think I asked ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Well, there's not much point asking if you're going to dismiss any answers you
get.

This is such a link. It points to a 'page' maintained by a (rather good)
fitness equipment manufacturer. Unsurprisingly, acces isn't restricted to
Facebook users. To verify this, I logged out of FB in the browser in which I
access Facebook (having dug out this link) then fired up a different browser
(in which I don't access FB) and pasted the link. Up comes the page, together
with an encouragement to log in to Facebook. Groups work the same way, but
although I've occasionally been surprised to spot a 'public' group, I can't
currently think of one. Here's the link:

https://www.facebook.com/Bowflex/photos/a.10150424282868938/10160229963088938/
(Their Max Trainer is an *amazing* bit of kit...)

--

Phil, London

In article <t24t00$1arb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> nospam,
>
> > > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
> >
> >> No, it isn't possible.
> >
> > yes it is.
>
....
> ... My browser doesn't do javascript. Thats all you
> need to know.
>

Indeed it is.

You may well have a good rationale for shunning a technology that's used to
deliver content on a very large proportion of sites, and that's enabled on a
the overwhelming majority of browsers in use, but failing to mention that does
distort the question somewhat. So no, you can't get to this stuff, and you
might as well stop trying. Most of the content you seek is going to be behind
a permissions wall anyway.

--

Phil, London

In article <t247nn$udl$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana wrote...
>
> "Philip Herlihy" <PhillipHerlihy@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote
>
> | It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post -
> termed
> | "permalink" in FB. That link is underneath the faint grey legend of the
> | date/time of posting, just beneath the post.
>
> As Rudy pointed out, that still leaves the problem of
> extensive javascript, which probably won't work at all
> in older browsers. I'm finding that in XP on an increasing
> number of sites. The most recent was my doctor's website,
> built on reactJS. These sites are complicated software,
> designed to only work in the very latest browsers, by people
> who don't actually have any idea of how to code a webpage.
> One look at the code makes it clear that it's all machine-
> generated.
>
> | So it's possible to access a
> | given post via the web, if the applicable permissions allow. But if
> nobody
> | identifies that link for you, then without a profile you'll be knocking at
> a
> | locked door. It's perfectly possible to have a minimal profile, even
> using
> | genuine information, and to configure it so that none of it is visible to
> | anyone that you haven't explicitly given permission to. And that would
> give
> | you many more chances to get at the info you're looking for. But some
> people
> | simply knee-jerk at the thought (often based on third-hand accounts) of
> social
> | media. The choice is yours.
> |
>
> You talk as though social media is just a neutral tool. It's
> actually a profound cultural change. Sleazy, for-profit companies
> have taken control of peoples' social lives; especially teenagers.
> If you ask young people why they don't quit they say they'd never
> hear about parties. Their social lives are owned by Zuck and his
> ilk. That's like teenagers who grow up in malls rather than in
> parks and on Main St. They grow up seeing themselves having a
> duty to be consumers, rather than as citizens. But social media has
> greatly amplified that effect.
>
> And that's just part of it. Social media has also created crushing
> peer pressure. When I go onto public trains and buses I see virtually
> everyone, especially the young, swiping through posts. Then they
> put their phone away, only to take it out again, 2-3 seconds later,
> like automatons on a software loop. As of 2021, 1 in 12 children
> in the US is on psychoactive drugs prescribed by a doctor. I don't know
> how many are in "therapy", but I know it's been normalized. I know
> a 14 year old now who's going home from school regularly with
> "panic attacks". That sea change is not an arbitrary accident.
>
> Young people are living in a fishbowl of peer pressure, forever
> doomed to the mob rule of the playground. They're growing up
> in terror of actually being alone, because they don't know that
> experience. Nor are they normally where they are. Their bodies are
> in one place; their interactions in another.
>
> If you look at wokist mania and cancel culture you can see
> reverberations of that. Brutal peer pressure with no adult supervision.
> Young people screaming about feeling "safe", obsessed with tokenistic
> self-righteousness. They all feel under the microscope of social media
> and that has produced a witch hunting mob of people who mercilessly
> accuse others for fear they'll be accused themselves. They don't
> even dare to be male or female!
>
> To regard social media as neutral is like the geeks on Slashdot
> desperately wanting to believe that 5 hours/day of murdering
> people in video games has no effect on young minds. If that were
> true there would be no such thing as raising children, because
> the raising would have no effect. 40-year-old GTA addicts
> just can't bring themselves to admit that they're wasting
> their lives in a sick addiction.
>
> Which is not to say that I think the whole idea is evil. Rather, the
> ubiquity, the for-profit model, and the lack of supervision for children
> is what worries me. I've been using Reddit for some time, to join
> specific discussions where I can offer help. Their current version is broken
> for me, but they were nice enugh to offer an older, compatible version
> at old.reddit.com. They require minimal personal info and it's not a
> social site in the sense of people conducting their personal lives there.
> It's more like usenet with whining.
>
> But even Reddit has a dark side. They want people to be happy
> and keep coming back. So groups tend to form around topics of
> interest and then the "moderators" can be petty tyrants, strictly
> controlling what can be said. Anyone is free to complain that they
> feel "harmed" by someone they disagree with. Posts can be upvoted
> and downvoted. So that nasty peer pressure gets going again.
> People begin to post in hopes of votes. I know that because they
> talk about it. Younger people, especially, are so accustomed to the
> mob rule of social media that for them social discourse means saying
> whatever they think will gain them acceptance. Again, you can see
> that mindset reflected in wokism, BLM, gender battles, and so on.
> No one dares to think for themselves. It's all desperate "virtue
> signalling" while accusing others of lacking in virtue.
>
> I saw some good commentary about that kind of groupthink around
> last week's Oscars. There was pure idiocy, like Jessica Chastain
> defending LGBTQ out of the blue, as though someone had just
> beat up a lesbian onstage, and "Power of the Dog" almost winning
> simply because it attacks "toxic masculinity" and champions
> men acting more feminine, bringing out their "hidden homosexuality".
> CODA won because the actors are deaf. No one dares to judge
> the movies on quality.
>
> Ricky Gervais was asked what he might say if he were hosting,
> and as usual, he injected a bit of sane decency:
>
> "I'm proud to announce that this is the most diverse and progressive Oscars
> ever. Looking out I see people from all walks of life. Every demographic
> under the sun. Except poor people, obviously. Fuck them."

A great deal of what you say has truth in it (as I've come to expect). But
I've seen a lot of good done in social media, and Facebook in particular. I've
been an admin with significant responsibility in two main groups. One is a
'locality' based group, which really does have to be open (initially at least!)
to anyone based in the relevant area. But with locality the key thing that
people have in common, it has been a battle-ground for trolls and
'campaigners' of all types. I came up with, first, a rather wordy
"constitution" which gave a basis for solving a lot of the problems admins
faced. This was superseeded after a few years with a bald set of three
"values", with related "Rules", and further "Guidelines" on how those Rules
would be interpreted. The group continues with about 18K members, and is
recognised by FB as one of the best in class across Europe. Without a fairly
dedicated admin prepared to defend the core principles, though, it would fail.
If you're interested, the Values, etc can be found here:
http://leytonstone.life/
Life changed for me when the pandemic hit, and I had to hand over to another
admin - who's doing a sterling job. I hope to get back into it before too
long. I miss the fun, the local gossip, the predominant goodwill, and also the
challenge of dealing with difficult people in a constructive way. I learned a
lot from that role.

The other group was for users of a particularly wonderful exercise machine.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/bowflexmaxtrainer
Conflict is almost unheard of, despite 6.7K members. What you get is almost
universal mutual support and encouragement. Over several years, the admins
only had to sanction errant members in single figures. There was almost
nothing for admins to do, other than welcome new members.

--

Phil, London

Philip,

> You may well have a good rationale for shunning a technology that's
> used to deliver content on a very large proportion of sites, and
> that's enabled on a the overwhelming majority of browsers in use, but
> failing to mention that does distort the question somewhat.

You know what also distorts what you think my question is ? You not
actually having read it (in my initial post).

I suggest you do that now. You might want to apologize afterwards.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Philip,

> Well, there's not much point asking if you're going to dismiss any
> answers you get.

It was in no way ment dismissive. If I would have wanted to do that I would
not added an explanation to why I disagreed.

I know what you ment, and it probably looks like that for you (with JS
enabled in your browser), but for me (with JS disabled) I see something
different.

> This is such a link.
....
> Up comes the page, together with an encouragement to log in to Facebook.

Below is what I see. I've trimmed all lines otherwise it would be 268
KByte :

< !DOCTYPE html>< html id="facebook" class="_9dls __fb-light-mode" lang="nl"
< link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/r
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/y-/r/ITe
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iT8I4/yf/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iGHn4/yp/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iF2Q4/yn/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3ijxk4/yi/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iqH14/yY/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3i2sC4/yJ/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iECz4/yM/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/yP/r/HZG
< !--EF-->

< title>Facebook< /title>
< script>requireLazy(["HasteSupportData"],function(m){m.handle({"bxData":{"
< /head>< body class="_6s5d _71pn _-kb">< div id="mount_0_0_/4">< /div>
< script>var hc=navigator&&navigator.hardwareConcurrency;null!=hc&&4>hc&&do
< script>requireLazy(["replaceNativeTimer"],function(j){j()})< /script>
< script>requireLazy(["bootstrapWebSession"],function(j){j(1648920612)})<
/script>
<
script>qpl_tag(["comet_aa_coinflip:false"]);qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","
<
script>__SSRInit({"cavalry_get_lid":"7082060102531052788","success_status":
<
script>requireLazy(["JSScheduler"],function(j){j.makeSchedulerGlobalEntry(null,false)})<
/script>
<
script>requireLazy(["JSScheduler","ServerJS","ScheduledApplyEach"],function(J
< script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierOneEnd");< /script>

<
script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierTwo");qpl_inl("7082060102531052788-server","tierTwo",263);<
/script>
<
script>requireLazy(["HasteSupportData"],function(m){m.handle({"clpData":{"1743
requireLazy(["JSScheduler","ServerJS","ScheduledApplyEach"],function(JSScheduler,
< script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierTwoEnd");< /script>

< script>window.__onSSRPayload([{"status":"fail_ssr_disabled"}],[]);<
/script>

<
script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierThree");qpl_inl("7082060102531052788-server","tierThree",277);<
/script>
<
script>requireLazy(["HasteSupportData"],function(m){m.handle({"clpData":{"194989
requireLazy(["CometResourceScheduler","JSScheduler","Bootloader"],function(c,s,b){
requireLazy(["JSScheduler","ServerJS","ScheduledApplyEach"],function(JSScheduler,S
< script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierThreeEnd");< /script>

< script>window.pldmp =
{"7082060102531052788":{"js\/12c9cvaqgi80w4o4.pkg.js":{"ur
<
script>qpl_tag(["lastServerTagFlushed"]);qpl_inl("7082060102531052788-server","e
< /body>< /html>

Apart from he "title" tag (which doesn't mention the intended target) I do
not see anything in there thats ment to be read by a human, do you ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:

> Apart from he "title" tag (which doesn't mention the intended target) I do
> not see anything in there thats ment to be read by a human, do you ?

But if you let the jscript run, does it not result in a human-readable page that
you could parse from the DOM?

Andy,

> But if you let the jscript run, does it not result in a human-readable
> page
> that you could parse from the DOM?

In relation to what do you want to have that answered ? I see at least
three questions intermingled, and all of them have different answers.

One related to my origional question
One related to the post this one could be considered a reply to
One which is a simple "If you do A than you can do B "

Than again, I might have missed what you actually wanted to know/say/ask.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 02/04/2022 22:06, R.Wieser wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I might have missed what you actually wanted to know/say/ask.
>
>

You are missing the main point here and that is all modern websites
require users to have scripts enabled in their browsers because that is
what creators expected from its users.

Creators are interested in using modern technologies to make their life
easier. Facebook is using a database to store information and that info
needs to be extracted somehow so they use scripts. You might say why
don't they use php or c#. The answer is they are using them as well but
these don't capture login info from users so it makes it difficult to
operate efficiently.

The days of using just plain html/css/php are over. Websites are
becoming Web-Apps and the likely-hood is that people won't need to
install any applications on their machines because with modern browsers
things can be done more efficiently.

"Philip Herlihy" <PhillipHerlihy@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote

| A great deal of what you say has truth in it (as I've come to expect).
But
| I've seen a lot of good done in social media, and Facebook in particular.

I have nothing against social media as a concept. The trouble
is with exploitive, commercial venues. But I expect that will never
be solved. Most people just don't want to run their own life if
they can find someone else to do it for them.

| If you're interested, the Values, etc can be found here:
| http://leytonstone.life/

Seems very reasonable. Though the dictate to be fair only
works if admins have no vested interest and no drive to
power. I've noticed that on Reddit a lot of groups are
run by petty tyrants who just shut down anyone they disagree
with. It easily becomes an echo chamber. Even in a support group
that's not healthy.

Ken Blake wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>> I've been trying to contact a second cousin that I haven't heard
>>> from in years. He no longer lives where I last knew where he lived,
>>> and none of the old e-mail addresses I have for him work.
>>
>> Maybe a genealogy site might help. Some have free trials, but could
>> be too crippled to be of value. Likely you'll have to pay a monthly
>> subscription to get a far larger database to search, but you'll have
>> to pay for a month if the free trial is fruitless.
>
> Ten years or so ago I tried unsuccessfully to use genealogy software
> to find the names of my paternal grandparents, who I never knew (my
> parents were divorced when I was two). With the help of a friend who
> knows much more about genealogy than I do, I manged to find out. So I
> now know a little (still not much) about such software, and I have no
> expectation that such software will help.

Some have free trials, like for a month. Should be plenty of time to be
clumsy figuring out how to use them. Just be sure the trial is
unfettered by allowing you to use their service or create a free account
WITHOUT doling out a credit card number. The ones I found were
web-based services, not client software installed onto a local host.
They might have client apps, but I wouldn't bother with those, and just
use their site.

R.Wieser wrote:

> Than again, I might have missed what you actually wanted to know/say/ask.

The O/P seems to be complaining that if he scrapes a facebook URL, all he gets
is javascript, not readable content ... I was just pointing out that he'll have
to let the javascript run, and then scrape the resulting content, there's no
point in moaning how facebook assemble their content, they're unlikely to revert
to static html ...

Isshu,

>> I might have missed what you actually wanted to know/say/ask.
>
> You are missing the main point here and that is all modern websites
> require users to have scripts enabled in their browsers because that
> is what creators expected from its users.

Thieves all over the world expect me to carry my (ofcourse well-filled)
wallet in such a way that they can easily get at it. For some odd reason
I've never felt inclined to cater to their expectations.

And kid, I asked a question. If all you can think of is "but you are not
allowed to want that!" than you are welcome to stay outof this thread.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Andy,

> The O/P seems to be complaining that if he scrapes a facebook URL, all he
> gets is javascript, not readable content ...

Just a question : why are you talking about me in the third person ? I
*am* the OP.

> I was just pointing out that he'll have to let the javascript run

You've invoked question #1 ! As a prize you may now read the OPs (my)
initial question, and the conditions he has mentioned in it.

Read: Your suggestion violates the "no random scripts" condition I've set.
Suggesting that I do so anyway is ... rude (understatement and than some).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:

> Your suggestion violates the "no random scripts" condition I've set.
> Suggesting that I do so anyway is ... rude

I'm not forcing you to run the scripts, merely saying that unless you do, you
won't see the content ... I guess it depends how much you want to see it?

Andy,

I forgot :

> and then scrape the resulting content,

Why ? If its in the browsers DOM than "chances are" that it gets
displayed on the screen. And that allows me to read what was posted. Which
is all I asked for.

> there's no point in moaning how facebook assemble their content, they're
> unlikely to revert to static html ...

Quote where I moaned about it and I'll give you a cookie.

IOW, all I have been talking about is how to get at the actual posts. I
did not specify how, or made any suggestions in a direction that Facebook
should change its ways to accomodate me (would not mind if they did though
:-) ).

Heck, my initial post even mentioned the possiblity that some proxy website
would do the extraction for, and just deliver the (plain text with a
possible touch of HTML) result to me.

Yes, I did mention a few times that all I got was a page full of JS - stated
in the same way as a motorist who exclaims to his satnav that "there is no
road here I can turn into!". Not because he expects that road to just
appear, but because the satnav expects something thats not there, and as
such the motorist can't continue.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 4/3/2022 3:01 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Andy,
>
>> The O/P seems to be complaining that if he scrapes a facebook URL, all he
>> gets is javascript, not readable content ...
>
> Just a question : why are you talking about me in the third person ? I
> *am* the OP.
>
>> I was just pointing out that he'll have to let the javascript run
>
> You've invoked question #1 ! As a prize you may now read the OPs (my)
> initial question, and the conditions he has mentioned in it.
>
> Read: Your suggestion violates the "no random scripts" condition I've set.
> Suggesting that I do so anyway is ... rude (understatement and than some).
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Protocols were invented to build fortresses.

Andy is explaining to you, that Facebook is such a fortress.

AJAX was invented for just such occasions.

1) Allow the JS to run.
2) Fortress operator emits content ("push") with AJAX.
This allows the content to be hidden, expressly to
prevent Webwhacker-style attacks. If the UserAgent
is "WGET 1.0", they're going to be offended at such
a clumsy attempt.

It's not a surprise that Facebook is not constructed
of CERN 1.0 generation web code.

The only way to get the content on your terms, is to hack
one of the software interfaces on a Facebook server, tip the
site over and "harvest" a few terabytes before you're caught.

Even Google has "scraping detection" on their search engine,
which is why, when I do a bunch of searches here, I'm hit up
with a captcha and "prove you're not a robot". The threshold
for scraping is set surprisingly low. A robot wouldn't even
get its engines warmed up, before nuisance captchas would appear.

*******

Let's try another strawman.

"Hey guys, I thought it would be cool to dump all the bank
balances of the customers at my bank."

No, the HTML on the bank site isn't that naive. There's no
reason for the bank balance to appear in every web page from
the site.

People do make mistakes. Like the state government which
put SSN numbers of their education employees on some web pages.
Somebody was accused of "hacking" the government site, by a governor
(when all they were doing, was viewing poorly constructed HTML).
That's an example of an organization, where nobody does
code reviews, and "slaps around stupid".

*******

Open this in a browser. Now, "Save As, Web Page complete".
What do you notice ? No separate folder of files! It's just
a single html file. Open it in Notepad. This is how naive
the web used to be. If you'd stepped into a time machine
and went back in time to this Epoch, there wasn't even
a NoRobots pragma.

http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html

Paul

R.Wieser wrote:

> Andy,
>
> I forgot :
>
>> and then scrape the resulting content,
>
> Why ?

Sorry, I thought you wanted to 'extract' the content?

> IOW, all I have been talking about is how to get at the actual posts.
>
> Heck, my initial post even mentioned the possiblity that some proxy website
> would do the extraction for, and just deliver the (plain text with a
> possible touch of HTML) result to me.

Why would anyone offer that? Can't see it being to many people's benefit.

> Yes, I did mention a few times that all I got was a page full of JS - stated
> in the same way as a motorist who exclaims to his satnav that "there is no
> road here I can turn into!". Not because he expects that road to just
> appear, but because the satnav expects something thats not there, and as
> such the motorist can't continue.

Can't you setup a "readonly" VM where you'll allow yourself to run a browser
with JS enabled, then shut it down after you've read what you want?

What you're asking for is generally known as pissing into the wind ...

On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 22:23:06 +0100, Isshu Mittal wrote:

> The days of using just plain html/css/php are over. Websites are
> becoming Web-Apps and the likely-hood is that people won't need to
> install any applications on their machines because with modern browsers
> things can be done more efficiently.

Hmm. Is there a 'web-app' for Usenet?

Andy,

> I'm not forcing you to run the scripts,

Thanks ... I guess.

> merely saying that unless you do, you won't see the content ...

Thats actually the first time you've said anything of the kind ... (feel
free to quote yourself on that though).

And are you /sure/ about that ? You see, there are a few possible
solutions beside that one. One I've mentioned in my initial post. Another
is - ofcourse - to figure out what that JS is doing, and rewrite it (in a
language of my own choice), ripping out everything (tracking and related) I
don't like.

But as I already replied to someone else, I simply don't want to spend that
kind of effort to read just a few posts - and /certainly not/ when someone
has already solved it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Paul,

> Andy is explaining to you, that Facebook is such a fortress.

And I asked how I could penetrate the de walls of that fortress. In fact,
I already suggested that someone could just go in for me, grab the goods and
than bring them out. That would suffice for my needs. Penetration
accomplished. :-)

Also paul, you're knowledgable enough that most any kind of software can be
disassembled and recreated in a language of choice, doing exactly what the
rewriter wants and no more (possibly using fake data where needed). The
only question in this regard is : how much effort do I want to spend on it.

Answer: For just a few posts ? Not much.

> 1) Allow the JS to run.

That possibility was explicitily excluded in my initial post.

> If the UserAgent is "WGET 1.0", they're going to be offended at such a
> clumsy attempt.

:-) So, you suggest I should be(have) extra smart, and change that programs
UserAgent to mimic the one of my browser ? I would /never/ have thought
of that :-p

> Even Google has "scraping detection" on their search engine,

Can't say that I remember having ever encountered it there, and I do (or
did. Its mostly DDG now) use it /very/ regulary and over prolonged streches
of time.

But all I intend to do is to read a few posts. If thats caught as scaping
I'll just stop for the day and read the next post tomorrow or a few days
after it. No rush.

> Let's try another strawman.
>
> "Hey guys, I thought it would be cool to dump all the bank
> balances of the customers at my bank."

Yeah, sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to get at there.

> Open this in a browser. Now, "Save As, Web Page complete".
> What do you notice ? No separate folder of files! It's just
> a single html file.

No embedded resources, no resources folder. Sounds logical to me.

And yes, over time I've saved quite a number of webpages. In that regard
you could consider me as a kind of pack-rat.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message
news:t2bke4$tdq$1@dont-email.me...
> On 4/3/2022 3:01 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Andy,
>>
>>> The O/P seems to be complaining that if he scrapes a facebook URL, all
>>> he
>>> gets is javascript, not readable content ...
>>
>> Just a question : why are you talking about me in the third person ? I
>> *am* the OP.
>>
>>> I was just pointing out that he'll have to let the javascript run
>>
>> You've invoked question #1 ! As a prize you may now read the OPs (my)
>> initial question, and the conditions he has mentioned in it.
>>
>> Read: Your suggestion violates the "no random scripts" condition I've
>> set.
>> Suggesting that I do so anyway is ... rude (understatement and than
>> some).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rudy Wieser
>
> Protocols were invented to build fortresses.
>
> Andy is explaining to you, that Facebook is such a fortress.
>
> AJAX was invented for just such occasions.
>
> 1) Allow the JS to run.
> 2) Fortress operator emits content ("push") with AJAX.
> This allows the content to be hidden, expressly to
> prevent Webwhacker-style attacks. If the UserAgent
> is "WGET 1.0", they're going to be offended at such
> a clumsy attempt.
>
> It's not a surprise that Facebook is not constructed
> of CERN 1.0 generation web code.
>
> The only way to get the content on your terms, is to hack
> one of the software interfaces on a Facebook server, tip the
> site over and "harvest" a few terabytes before you're caught.
>
> Even Google has "scraping detection" on their search engine,
> which is why, when I do a bunch of searches here, I'm hit up
> with a captcha and "prove you're not a robot". The threshold
> for scraping is set surprisingly low. A robot wouldn't even
> get its engines warmed up, before nuisance captchas would appear.
>
> *******
>
> Let's try another strawman.
>
> "Hey guys, I thought it would be cool to dump all the bank
> balances of the customers at my bank."
>
> No, the HTML on the bank site isn't that naive. There's no
> reason for the bank balance to appear in every web page from
> the site.
>
> People do make mistakes. Like the state government which
> put SSN numbers of their education employees on some web pages.
> Somebody was accused of "hacking" the government site, by a governor
> (when all they were doing, was viewing poorly constructed HTML).
> That's an example of an organization, where nobody does
> code reviews, and "slaps around stupid".
>
> *******
>
> Open this in a browser. Now, "Save As, Web Page complete".
> What do you notice ? No separate folder of files! It's just
> a single html file. Open it in Notepad. This is how naive
> the web used to be. If you'd stepped into a time machine
> and went back in time to this Epoch, there wasn't even
> a NoRobots pragma.
>
> http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html
>
> Paul

Andy,

> Sorry, I thought you wanted to 'extract' the content?

Nope, just read it. I will probably have to mimic some of Facebooks own
extraction process to be able to do that though.

> Why would anyone offer that? Can't see it being to many people's benefit.

Why do people have hobbies ? Why do people look at movies or listen to
music ? Why do people create collections of worthless stuff (teabag
labels, sigar bands, stamps, you name it) All a great waste of time if you
ask me.

On the other hand ... someone here already posted about exactly such a site
for Twitter.

> Can't you setup a "readonly" VM where you'll allow yourself to run a
> browser with JS enabled, then shut it down after you've read what you
> want?

See, you /can/ think of possibilities when you put your mind to it. :-)

But yes, that is in the direction of something I did consider. As I have
zero experinece with VMs (and probably not running an OS on which I can do
that) I thought about a dedicated OS install on a Raspberry Pi. Even
better, as it than has absolutily no chance of leaking information (thru the
VMs walls - in either way) anywhere.

> What you're asking for is generally known as pissing into the wind ...

Yeah, you're probably right. I should tell my country (EU) that they
should just drop those customer privacy laws too. I mean, who can really
withstand those big companies, right ?

Newsflash : although it has taken a decade or two, Europe did put consumer
privacy into Law. Not in the first place because of just a few people who
kept "pissing into the wind".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

mechanic,

> Hmm. Is there a 'web-app' for Usenet?

*Ofcourse* there is !

Didn't you know that Google ursuped Usenet into "Google Groups" ? All you
need to access it is a login, and all it will cost you is your first born.
And I that surely isn't a too-high a price to pay for such a wealth of
user-generated content, don't you think ?

/s

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <oetm5q7blfey$.dlg@example1357.net>, mechanic
<mechanic@example.net> wrote:

>
> Hmm. Is there a 'web-app' for Usenet?

google groups.

In article <t2a315$10ke$3@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> Philip,
>
> > You may well have a good rationale for shunning a technology that's
> > used to deliver content on a very large proportion of sites, and
> > that's enabled on a the overwhelming majority of browsers in use, but
> > failing to mention that does distort the question somewhat.
>
> You know what also distorts what you think my question is ? You not
> actually having read it (in my initial post).
>
> I suggest you do that now. You might want to apologize afterwards.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Ok, I looked up your original post. Here it is:

> Hello all,

> I'm using DDG and Google to search for some particular information, and ever
> so often get results back that poin to a facebook group. I neither have a
> login, nor does my browser run random scripts.
>
> My question : does anyone know of a way to read (and *just* that)
> facebook-group posts ? A proxy perhaps ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
> P.s.
> If someone knows about similar simple, read-only access to other social
> media I would like to hear about those too.

And, yes, you do say ".. nor does my browser run random scripts". And, yes, I
did miss those words (or perhaps didn't interpret them as you intended).
That's surely understandable: my browser doesn't run "random" scripts either,
just those which are part of pages I load (I'm just careful about which those
are).

I often ask for help in groups like this. I recognise that people often don't
have much time to devote to considering my own puzzles, so I do my best to be
clear, highlighting anything of significance while keeping the overall length
as short as I reasonably can. Meanwhile, when replying (invariably with the
aim of being helpful) I'd want to disabuse people of unhelpful
misapprehensions.

So yes, you can have a web link which will load a Facebook page or group post
in the vast majority of browsers without an FB profile provided the permissions
are set to allow that. Most are not, so your choices will likely prevent you
getting the information you seek.

I don't know what your reasons are for shunning JavaScript (nor do I care,
frankly). If it's enough to ring-fence such activity so that it doesn't have
to be enabled in your browser you could consider using the app, available for
mobiles and for Windows. But you'd need at least a minimal profile, and - as
previously warned - group admins (who would have to admit you to their groups
in most cases if you are to see the content) tend to be wary of profiles which
give nothing away. Facebook isn't intrinsically evil, and if you did sign up,
you could describe yourself as someone new to FB, drawn here by your interest
in XYZ. You may even find yourself in interesting exchanges, as happens here.
--

Phil, London

In article <t2ai5q$j2c$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana wrote...
>
> "Philip Herlihy" <PhillipHerlihy@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote
>
> | A great deal of what you say has truth in it (as I've come to expect).
> But
> | I've seen a lot of good done in social media, and Facebook in particular.
>
> I have nothing against social media as a concept. The trouble
> is with exploitive, commercial venues. But I expect that will never
> be solved. Most people just don't want to run their own life if
> they can find someone else to do it for them.
>
> | If you're interested, the Values, etc can be found here:
> | http://leytonstone.life/
>
> Seems very reasonable. Though the dictate to be fair only
> works if admins have no vested interest and no drive to
> power. I've noticed that on Reddit a lot of groups are
> run by petty tyrants who just shut down anyone they disagree
> with. It easily becomes an echo chamber. Even in a support group
> that's not healthy.

Just so - and that's how our group came to be launched. I was ejected from a
similarly-themed group merely for questioning (diplomatically, I'd thought)
something outrageous that the admin had done to someone, and several friends
were soon ejected just for asking if (not why) I'd been ejected.

After a few weeks of sizzling with the INJUSTICE! of it all, I started to
wonder what a "fair" group would look like. Very soon, it became clear that
there had to be clear rules, and that those rules would have to bind the admins
as well as the general membership. So the values, rules and guidelines are
there to facilitate members challenging admins who may mis-step. I learned a
great deal over the years I ran that group, to the extent that I believe a grew
as a person because of the challenges I had to address.

--

Phil, London