"Isshu Mittal" <isshu.mittal@armworldwide.com> wrote

| Creators are interested in using modern technologies to make their life
| easier.

They're not creators. They're technicians. For the most part
they have no idea how to code either HTML or script. They're
just plugging "content" into software, which then spits out pages.
That's why there are script "libraries". They provide a wrapper
level of abstraction so that people working on webpages won't
have to understand things like display size, browser differences,
complex code, etc.

| 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.
|

Javascript is not required for a login. It's used for 2 main
reasons that I can think of. 1) Server-side coding requires
more power and more expertise than DOM scripting. 2) DOM
scripting allows great detail of interaction and spying. The
page code can monitor, and report, in great detail. The
website can even watch your mouse move, all the while making
your own computer do that work and sparing the server CPU.

| 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.
| I was actually reading the other day about a new fad of
making webpages in plain text. The idea of web-apps is
not necessarily a problem, but it's only one way to make
webpages. When I visit Home Depot or a news website and
it's completely broken without script, that's a problem. It's
unnecessary. The script is used for spying, special effects,
and because the webpage "creators" simply don't know
what they're doing. They only know how to feed updated
"content" into the software that spits out webpages.

Meanwhile, clever coders and marketers and focus group
denizens and lawyers on the back end are designing those
pages to run 4 videos, 3 popups, 6 animated ads, and an
irritating cookie approval DIV on top of it all... all while spying
on you and talking to Google about who you are so that ads
can be targetted. People are tired of that. And it has nothing
to do with "web apps" like a portal to your bank. It's just noise
and sleaze. Miracle Mile on drugs. And it's not efficient. People
complain constantly about slow browsers. With NoScript and
a good HOSTS file I protect security and privacy, and nearly
every webpage loads almost instantly.

What you're seeing is not necessarily progress. It's just a lot
of businesses trying to figure out how to make a buck online,
by providing some kind of consumer service. Unfortunately, many
of them are sleazy. And in general it's not safe. Javascript itself
is a seat-of-the-pants technology.

Originally, back in the 90s, people talked about the information
superhighway. The idea was that everyone could have a front door
on the Internet, with their own website, and information could
be shared. It was an idealistic concept. The Whole Earth Catalogue
electrified. Javascript was just functional within the browser, like
CSS is today. With Java, ActiveX, and Flash, companies started
trying to get more functionality. But it was never safe. That's why
most of that was phased out. If you run executable code in a browser,
you create vulnerabilities. A few years back, about 10% of people
were blocking javascript. Along with iframes it was being phased out.
What changed? Not progress. Spying and targetted ads were what
changed. Then websites started desigining their webpages to break
if people blocked spying.

I see an increasing number of sites that embed the entirety of
the HTML in script. Or they put an opaque DIV on top of the page
that's only removed by script. They don't want you to see their
webpage unless they can spy on you and force targetted ads.
In those cases it's not at all necessary. It's a sleazy strategy to
make money, by putting any old content on a webpage and then
selling targetted ads. And it's an attempt to reverse the design of
the Internet. It's designed such that people put files out in public
and other people can get them. That's what every webpage is. But
these companies are trying to hijack the system, trying to block
access to those files until after they've picked your pocket.

What you think is progress is mostly just commercialization of
the information superhighway. The removal of shared and public
spaces in favor of comercial services for millennials and
Gen-Zers who can't cook their own meal, read a map, or do much
of anything else without calling a service on their cellphone. If
you do online banking and shopping, you take a risk. But it is, of
course, convenient. That needs interactive webpages. If you allow
all websites to track you and show you ads then you're merely a
sucker. For the most part, that's not a necessary part of the Internet.

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

| 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.
|

Very mature and decent of you. I'm kind of surprised
that you never got coup-ed. In any group there are always
the leaders who want to take over, and the followers who
want to be led.

On 3/31/2022 8:44 AM, Mayayana wrote:

> 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."

Mayayana:

Ever heard of the "Babel Fish"? ;-)

From: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (Book 1, Chapter 6, 1979) by
Douglas Adams

"The Babel Fish is small, yellow, leachlike and probably the oddest thing in the
universe."

There follows several paragraphs of entertaing techno/theological babble in
which the author trys to explain how a Bable Fish placed in anyone's ear enables
them to understand perfectly any alien speaking any language!!

The passege concludes:

"Meanwhile, the poor Babel Fish, by effectivly removing all barriers between
different races and clutures has caused more and bloodier wars than anything
else in the history of creation."

Was Adams predicting the Internet??

John

--
\\\||///
------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o----------------
----------------------------()--------------------------
'' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. ''

Philip,

> And, yes, you do say ".. nor does my browser run random scripts".
> And, yes, I did miss those words

Apology accepted.

> That's surely understandable: my browser doesn't run "random" scripts

Actually, I don't understand. You download a script from a server out there
and run it. You have *zero* knowledge of where you actually got it from or
whats in it - just a bunch of assumptions. Thats what I call them 'random
scripts'.

Its funny though : when 'puters got harddisks /everyone/ was warned *not* to
just copy stuff from another computer onto a floppy and run it on their own
computers. Nowerdays people who took that warning to heart (like me) are
considered oddities ...

> either, just those which are part of pages I load (I'm just careful
> about which those are).

Again, you have *NO* idea what you have just downloaded and are subsequently
running. Just some "I can't change anything about it anyway" trust in that
the other side won't abuse its position.

I don't. Why ? Maybe because of shennigans like the below :

https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/21/google_messages_gdpr/

Bottom line : if some company thinks you won't notice that their scripts are
/ software is doing stuff you never asked for they have very few scrupules.

In that regard they are often not much (if any) better than a common
thief-of-opportunity. Worse, they bloody well know that when they get
caught all they have to do is to pay the (most rather meager) fine, and
continue as usual.

> So yes, you can have a web link which will load a Facebook page or group
> post

So no.

You've dropped a rather important word ("direct") from your previous claim
in your post of Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:12:02 +0100. IOW, you've changed the
subject (while hoping I would not notice ?)

Also, you've just (again?) bluntly shoved my "no random scripts in my
webbrowser" aside, as if what I want is of no consequence to you.

> I don't know what your reasons are for shunning JavaScript (nor do I
> care, frankly)

And that seals it. As such this conversation is over.

goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"John Dulak" <Johnd@Booogus.com> wrote

| There follows several paragraphs of entertaing techno/theological babble
in
| which the author trys to explain how a Bable Fish placed in anyone's ear
enables
| them to understand perfectly any alien speaking any language!!
| | The passege concludes:
| | "Meanwhile, the poor Babel Fish, by effectivly removing all barriers
between
| different races and clutures has caused more and bloodier wars than
anything
| else in the history of creation."
| | Was Adams predicting the Internet??
|

Interesting idea. I haven't read that book. Frankly I've
never found the Tower of Babel story self-evident. And I'm
wary of epic interpretations of anything. It would be the height
of vanity to think we're so special as to have front row seats
at the Apocalypse. Yet that doesn't stop people deciding that
they do.

Maybe you have a useful interpretation of the Tower of Babel
story? It seems to have similarities to the Eden story: The birth
of self-conscious ego being an inevitable step on the way to
wisdom. Thus, Adam and Eve had to be ejected from the garden,
lest they eat from the tree of eternal life. Presumably that's
because "you can't get there from here". Egoism can't attain
to profundity. They'd have to make their way back to the garden.

I've never found the vague, poetic style of Judeo-Christian
teachings to be very available. Maybe I'm just too literal-minded.
I do think, though, that the violent imposition of multi-paradigmatic
awareness, brought on by fast cultural change, is leaving many
people in a state of hysterical reactivity.

I'm curious what you were thinking. Is the Internet ultimately
harmful? Inevitable? Doomed?

On 4/3/2022 11:00 AM, Mayayana wrote:

>
> I'm curious what you were thinking. Is the Internet ultimately
> harmful? Inevitable? Doomed?
>

Mayayana:

Just because a being is "intelligent" does not mean they are tolerant,
understanding or wise. They are just as likely to think that THEIR opinion,
thought or idea is absolutely correct and definitive. Anyone who does not agree
100%, 24/7/365 is somehow defective if not sub-sapient. The Internet lets ALL
kinds of have their say - loudly.

John

--
\\\||///
------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o----------------
----------------------------()--------------------------
'' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. ''

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 11:00:51, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>| Was Adams predicting the Internet??
>|
DNA was very fond of technology.
>
> Interesting idea. I haven't read that book. Frankly I've

Although the books (there's a 4+ volume trilogy [yes, I know]) are
excellent, the series was best experienced as the original radio series,
or failing that the (low-budget, as is all the best BBC SF) TV series,
from which https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuumnjJWFO4 is the relevant
section. (Skip to 2:07 if you must.) [All those excellent graphics,
incidentally, were actually done without a bit in sight! All done with
rostrum camerawork.)

>never found the Tower of Babel story self-evident. And I'm
>wary of epic interpretations of anything. It would be the height
>of vanity to think we're so special as to have front row seats
>at the Apocalypse. Yet that doesn't stop people deciding that
>they do.

Very true!
[]
> I've never found the vague, poetic style of Judeo-Christian
>teachings to be very available. Maybe I'm just too literal-minded.

Me too.

>I do think, though, that the violent imposition of multi-paradigmatic
>awareness, brought on by fast cultural change, is leaving many
>people in a state of hysterical reactivity.

I _think_ I agree - too many long words close together for me to be sure
(-:
>
> I'm curious what you were thinking. Is the Internet ultimately
>harmful? Inevitable? Doomed?
>
Not intrinsically harmful: "The web is a blank slate; you can't design
technology that is 'good'. You can't design paper that you can only
write good things on. There are no good or evil tools. You can put an
engine in an ambulance or a tank. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Radio Times
2009-Jan-30 to -Feb-5.
>
Inevitable? Probably; it's certainly here.

Doomed? Despite it becoming so sodden and bogged-down with script, I'm
still optimistic (naive?) enough to think it might not be.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 11:23:35, John Dulak <Johnd@Booogus.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>Just because a being is "intelligent" does not mean they are tolerant,
>understanding or wise. They are just as likely to think that THEIR
>opinion, thought or idea is absolutely correct and definitive. Anyone
>who does not agree 100%, 24/7/365 is somehow defective if not
>sub-sapient. The Internet lets ALL kinds of have their say - loudly.
>
>John
>
I agree with all you say - except for your use of "24/7/365". Although
it's common, it should be either 24/365 or 24/7/52. Or in words,
"twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year" or
"twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year".

(And yes, I know it's 365.25, or .24, or .2425 ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

On 4/3/2022 8:36 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 11:23:35, John Dulak <Johnd@Booogus.com> wrote (my
> responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>>Just because a being is "intelligent" does not mean they are tolerant,
>>understanding or wise. They are just as likely to think that THEIR
>>opinion, thought or idea is absolutely correct and definitive. Anyone
>>who does not agree 100%, 24/7/365 is somehow defective if not
>>sub-sapient. The Internet lets ALL kinds of have their say - loudly.
>>
>>John
>>
> I agree with all you say - except for your use of "24/7/365". Although
> it's common, it should be either 24/365 or 24/7/52. Or in words,
> "twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year" or
> "twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year".

.....or more simply, as far as I'm concerned, "all day long, every day."

> (And yes, I know it's 365.25, or .24, or .2425 ...)

--
Ken

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 08:27:25, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
> They're not creators. They're technicians. For the most part
>they have no idea how to code either HTML or script. They're

Agreed.
[]
> I was actually reading the other day about a new fad of
>making webpages in plain text. The idea of web-apps is

Excellent! (I am reminded of a story I once read where the rebels used
AM radios, because the authorities used FM, so thus wouldn't hear
anything - yes I know the flaws technically, but it was a fun idea.)

As long as they use plain-text HTML, not the citation tag (I forget
which one it is, the one that keeps formatting unchanged). One of the
main properties of basic HTML - lost in virtually any modern webpage,
sadly! - is that it auto-wraps to whatever window you view it in. (If I
want fixed-layout pages, I'll use PDF.)
[]
> Meanwhile, clever coders and marketers and focus group
>denizens and lawyers on the back end are designing those
>pages to run 4 videos, 3 popups, 6 animated ads, and an
>irritating cookie approval DIV on top of it all... all while spying
>on you and talking to Google about who you are so that ads
>can be targetted. People are tired of that. And it has nothing

I don't even mind (static, anyway) ad.s; it's the script bogginess that
depresses me. Not just because it tends towards making my older
machine(s) slow, but it's also fragile.
[]
> Originally, back in the 90s, people talked about the information
>superhighway. The idea was that everyone could have a front door
>on the Internet, with their own website, and information could
>be shared. It was an idealistic concept. The Whole Earth Catalogue

I didn't mind it departing from the idealistic to cover - with a slight
surplus, why not - the hosting/development/editing costs. It has just
got _too_ bad.
[]
>What changed? Not progress. Spying and targetted ads were what
>changed. Then websites started desigining their webpages to break
>if people blocked spying.

Like you, I rarely visit such sites unless I _really_ want what they
have and I can't get it elsewhere (though I allow script more than you
do).
>
> I see an increasing number of sites that embed the entirety of
>the HTML in script. Or they put an opaque DIV on top of the page
>that's only removed by script. They don't want you to see their
>webpage unless they can spy on you and force targetted ads.

It's surprising how many of those still _do_ work if you turn off script
and then hit reload. I guess it's probably declining, though )-:.
[]
Basically, I'm pretty sure we agree; we just have accepted different
levels of inconvenience as the price for our principle(s).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

In article <t2c46p$79n$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana wrote...
>
> "Philip Herlihy" <PhillipHerlihy@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote
>
> | 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.
> |
>
> Very mature and decent of you. I'm kind of surprised
> that you never got coup-ed. In any group there are always
> the leaders who want to take over, and the followers who
> want to be led.

There was a big mistake in the early days - wanting the group to be 'owned' by
its membership, I handed out Admin privileges to anyone who'd accept them.
Never again! One in particular asked for those privileges, and then used them
to attempt to force the group to her way of thinking (very political).
Eventually I simply removed them (the group creator can't be overruled, even by
other admins). Just one thing I learned.

--

Phil, London

In article <t2c821$1m8p$2@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> Philip,
>
> > And, yes, you do say ".. nor does my browser run random scripts".
> > And, yes, I did miss those words
>
> Apology accepted.
>
> > That's surely understandable: my browser doesn't run "random" scripts
>
> Actually, I don't understand. You download a script from a server out there
> and run it. You have *zero* knowledge of where you actually got it from or
> whats in it - just a bunch of assumptions. Thats what I call them 'random
> scripts'.
>
> Its funny though : when 'puters got harddisks /everyone/ was warned *not* to
> just copy stuff from another computer onto a floppy and run it on their own
> computers. Nowerdays people who took that warning to heart (like me) are
> considered oddities ...
>
> > either, just those which are part of pages I load (I'm just careful
> > about which those are).
>
> Again, you have *NO* idea what you have just downloaded and are subsequently
> running. Just some "I can't change anything about it anyway" trust in that
> the other side won't abuse its position.
>
> I don't. Why ? Maybe because of shennigans like the below :
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/21/google_messages_gdpr/
>
> Bottom line : if some company thinks you won't notice that their scripts are
> / software is doing stuff you never asked for they have very few scrupules.
>
> In that regard they are often not much (if any) better than a common
> thief-of-opportunity. Worse, they bloody well know that when they get
> caught all they have to do is to pay the (most rather meager) fine, and
> continue as usual.
>
> > So yes, you can have a web link which will load a Facebook page or group
> > post
>
> So no.
>
> You've dropped a rather important word ("direct") from your previous claim
> in your post of Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:12:02 +0100. IOW, you've changed the
> subject (while hoping I would not notice ?)
>
> Also, you've just (again?) bluntly shoved my "no random scripts in my
> webbrowser" aside, as if what I want is of no consequence to you.
>
> > I don't know what your reasons are for shunning JavaScript (nor do I
> > care, frankly)
>
> And that seals it. As such this conversation is over.
>
> goodbye.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Just need to clarify - there was no apology, though I did acknowledge that I
hadn't picked up the meaning it turns out that you assumed would be conveyed.
I think your initial question was obscured by the opinionated baggage it
carried. You could have asked something like this:

"Sometimes my searches for information lead to posts in Facebook groups. I very
much prefer not to allow JavaScript to run in my browser, and I don't want to
set up a Facebook profile. Is there any way at all to get access to the
content I want?"

To which the answer is: It's very unlikely. Facebook is effectively set up as
a database, and browser JavaScript is an essential part of that functionality.
It is certainly possible to have a direct URL link to a particular post, but FB
won't deliver the content if JavaScript can't run. And without a profile,
you'll be limited to the minority of groups which are "public" - most limit
access to those previously admitted to group membership, and you should note
that group admins are wary of minimal profiles.

I hope that's a helpful answer, which was always my intention. But as you've
been very grumpy with me, and with several others simply trying to put you in
the picture, I won't be responding to you further. What you want really has
become of no consequence to me. So be nice. People will treat you better.
And it's never too late to start.

--

Phil, London

In article <t2bjgn$o32$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> IOW, all I have been talking about is how to get at the actual posts.

you were told 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

the only changes facebook (and other sites) will make is to actively
block people like you, who try to get around the security they've put
in place, for reasons that should be obvious.

> 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.

such a site would require javascript, which rules you out. it would
also require logging into facebook to access restricted content, which
also rules you out. such a site violates facebook's terms of service,
which means if it did exist, facebook would almost certainly take
action to shut it down.

> Yes, I did mention a few times that all I got was a page full of JS

that should be the first clue that you're doing something very wrong.

In article <t2bsru$i1f$2@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > Andy is explaining to you, that Facebook is such a fortress.
>
> And I asked how I could penetrate the de walls of that fortress.

and you were told that you cannot.

if that were possible, then facebook's security would be worthless.

> 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. :-)

that's your solution. ask someone who uses facebook to access the posts
and send you screen shots.

>
> > 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.

you do understand that you're trying to bypass the security that the
website has put in place, which is also a violation of the terms of
service and is also illegal, right?

In article <t2bsrv$i1f$3@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > Sorry, I thought you wanted to 'extract' the content?
>
> Nope, just read it.

which requires extracting it first.

> I will probably have to mimic some of Facebooks own
> extraction process to be able to do that though.

good luck on that. you've already said you can't read or understand
javascript, which means reimplementing what it does is going to be
extraordinarily difficult.

> > 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.

there's a difference between a hobby and trying to reimplement facebook.

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

twitter is not facebook.

unlike facebook, nearly all content on twitter is public, without the
need to have an account or log in. twitter also has an api to access
tweets, which is how there are numerous third party twitter apps as
well as such sites.

> 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.

simply using a vm will still leak information to facebook.

facebook knows all of the tricks and then some. trying to outsmart it
is extremely difficult and it only takes *one* slip to shatter any
walls.

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

not probably. he *is* 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 ?

you should tell your country that you are actively trying to violate
those privacy laws by accessing content to which you are not entitled
and likely violating numerous other laws as well.

In article <t2c821$1m8p$2@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> Its funny though : when 'puters got harddisks /everyone/ was warned *not* to
> just copy stuff from another computer onto a floppy and run it on their own
> computers. Nowerdays people who took that warning to heart (like me) are
> considered oddities ...

no, they were warned to not copy stuff from *untrusted* *sources*.

that's very different than downloading from established developers,
which includes visiting their web sites.

> > So yes, you can have a web link which will load a Facebook page or group
> > post
>
> So no.

he is right. you are not.

it *is* possible to have a link to facebook content that does not
require logging in and in some cases, without needing javascript.

it's not common, but it's certainly possible.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| There are no good or evil tools. You can put an
| engine in an ambulance or a tank. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Radio Times
| 2009-Jan-30 to -Feb-5.

He was writing some years ago about the problem of "silos",
or closed systems online. But I think it's actually worse than that.
Companies have websites, services, advertising, devices all tied
together. I'd like to see Berners-Lee take a more active role.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 13:06:34 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:

> 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/
>>

Hmm; that site looks like a lot of effort has been put into it - was
it worth it? The population of Leytonstone (60k or so - Wikipedia)
must be suitably grateful. Perhaps other areas nearby (Woodford,
even Chingford) should have similar websites put up - volunteers?

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote in
news:t2bsrv$i1f$3@gioia.aioe.org:

>> 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. :-)

LOL....so something that violates one of your ABSOLUTE requirements *is* a possibility?

DanS,

> LOL....so something that violates one of your ABSOLUTE
> requirements *is* a possibility?

Lol ! You have no clue what "in context" means, right ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 4/16/2022 9:07 AM, DanS wrote:
> "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote in
> news:t2bsrv$i1f$3@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>
>>> 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. :-)
>
> LOL....so something that violates one of your ABSOLUTE requirements *is* a possibility?
>

The VMs don't even have to be visible (rooted).

In this example, the second Firefox is a Linux one :-)

https://i.postimg.cc/1zbdH9mP/two-different-firefoxes.gif

I just got that working yesterday. The XClock in the picture,
some Microsoft article suggested it would be fun to run that,
so I did.

On Windows 7 Pro, "WinXP Mode" runs rootless. Which is the last
time I had a rootless setup.

Paul

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote in news:t3ei4v$t4h$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> DanS,
>
>> LOL....so something that violates one of your ABSOLUTE
>> requirements *is* a possibility?
>
> Lol ! You have no clue what "in context" means, right ?

The "context" was that you absolutely refused to want to run any *random* scripts inside
a browser.

DanS,

>> Lol ! You have no clue what "in context" means, right ?
>
> The "context" was that you absolutely refused to want to run any
> *random* scripts inside a browser.

Thats *your* context, not mine as in the post you replied to. Try again.

Hint, read a few posts going back up this subthread. You might notice that
Andy tried to make it sound as if there was /but one/ solution - enable JS
in my browser. Even though other possibilities where already mentioned.

And I give you another hint : the difference is, as shown in this post, my
"my browser" against your "a browser". just two letters making a world of
difference.

Heck, in the post you replied to I mentioned that I had already considered
using a Raspberry Pi as a dedicated machine for it. But somehow you
absolutily missed (all of) that ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote in
news:t3h4c2$nem$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> DanS,
>
>>> Lol ! You have no clue what "in context" means, right ?
>>
>> The "context" was that you absolutely refused to want to
>> run any *random* scripts inside a browser.
>
> Thats *your* context, not mine as in the post you replied
> to. Try again.

You're a liar. That was your main crybaby whine.

I've read far too much of this entrie thread. You repetetively repeated this requirement
following post after post telling you not using JS is virtually impossible for what you
wanted to do.

>And I give you another hint : the difference is, as shown in this post, my
>"my browser" against your "a browser". just two letters making a world of
>difference.

Your "hints" are just another way for you to backlpeddle and be good little Usenet troll
moving the goal posts, and being cryptic and ambiguous.

I'm done with you.

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote

| > Thats *your* context, not mine as in the post you replied
| > to. Try again.
| | You're a liar. That was your main crybaby whine.
|

He's actually a talented programmer, but he enjoys
being adversarial and likes an impossible challenge. So
he does things like ask in the scripting group how one
can have sex via command line while using a VBScript
to edit the 7th layer of a Paint Shop Pro image. We try
to explain that WSH doesn't recognize .PSP format, but
he won't listen. He just answers, "That's not what I
asked, fool! Go away, little boy, if you can't say anything
helpful!" :)