I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
I wonder what the world's record is.

Some load none.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
> I wonder what the world's record is.
>
> Some load none.

Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
"abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
shown/used in the URL toolbar.

Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
gobsmacking.

Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!

On 8/18/2021 9:33 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>
>> Some load none.
>
> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
> shown/used in the URL toolbar.

I suspect they just use server-side "cookies". When you've got boatloads
of server capacity, it's silly to give the user *any* control over your
interactions!

Note that eBay also "knows its you" -- as does Amazon.

> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
> gobsmacking.

Sadly, there are many cross-references that some sites need
for pages to load properly. But, they "add value" (?) whereas
those, below, don't!

> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!

I added them to my hosts(5) file.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>
>> Some load none.
>
>Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>"abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>
>Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>gobsmacking.
>
>Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!

I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.

Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.

John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>
>>> Some load none.
>>
>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>
>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>> gobsmacking.
>>
>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>
> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>
> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
> google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.
>

I use Qubes disposable VMs for browsing, over a VPN, with a useragent
switcher. When I close the browser, the VM goes away, and so does the
tracking info, and NoScript plus Privacy Badger keep it way down even
within a session. I never see targeted ads.

Of course I'm not on antisocial media either.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On 18/08/21 17:58, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>
>>> Some load none.
>>
>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>
>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>> gobsmacking.
>>
>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>
> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.

It really doesn't matter.

They dump a unique long number in a cookie in your browser.
Every site you visit with their javascript initiates an http
request to their server. That request contains the long
number and referring URL, i.e. the page you visited.
Job done, and that info can be sold.

It is unimportant whether that long number is tied to a
Farcebook/Twatter account and real life name.

> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
> google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.

Yup; see above :)

On 2021-08-18 18:33, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>
>> Some load none.
>
> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>
> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
> gobsmacking.
>
> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>

I've seen sites that are *only* JavaScript, several MB of
inextricable code, while the stuff that's actually shown
on screen isn't worth more than a few kB. Slow! Clumsy!
Broken! Grrr!

The web used to be about compatibility, generality,
robustness and durability of information. Those days are
gone. A huge step backwards.

I'm sure Sir Tim is horrified.

Jeroen Belleman

On 8/18/2021 10:09 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 18/08/21 17:58, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>
>>>> Some load none.
>>>
>>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>>
>>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>>> gobsmacking.
>>>
>>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>
>> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>
> It really doesn't matter.
>
> They dump a unique long number in a cookie in your browser.

But you can block the cookies...

> Every site you visit with their javascript initiates an http
> request to their server. That request contains the long
> number and referring URL, i.e. the page you visited.

.... and scripts from that domain.

Of course, there's nothing to prevent individual domains
from "kabitzing" behind the scenes.

> Job done, and that info can be sold.
>
> It is unimportant whether that long number is tied to a
> Farcebook/Twatter account and real life name.

One can also fingerprint browsers and, when coupled with
originating IP address, provide lots of identifying information.
They don't care that it's "Joe Blow" but, rather, that "it's
likely the same person that just visited foo.com in search
of tent peg grease"

Amusingly, the more you try to lock down your browser, the
more *unique* (identifiable) you appear!

Sadly, Mozilla *used* to have a convenient hook to disable
images on a page -- at a time when most ads *were* images!

>> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
>> google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.
>
> Yup; see above :)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:37:40 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 8/18/2021 10:09 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 18/08/21 17:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some load none.
>>>>
>>>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>>>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>>>
>>>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>>>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>>>> gobsmacking.
>>>>
>>>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>>>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>>
>>> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>>
>> It really doesn't matter.
>>
>> They dump a unique long number in a cookie in your browser.
>
>But you can block the cookies...

Some sites really need the cookies, so I can't block them all.

I have a cookie reporter and deleter add-on to Firefox. As noted, I've
seen 54 on a first visit.

On 18/08/21 19:37, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/18/2021 10:09 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 18/08/21 17:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some load none.
>>>>
>>>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>>>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>>>
>>>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>>>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>>>> gobsmacking.
>>>>
>>>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>>>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>>
>>> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>>
>> It really doesn't matter.
>>
>> They dump a unique long number in a cookie in your browser.
>
> But you can block the cookies...

That's far less easy/useful in firefox than it used to be.
Many people noted that, to no avail.

>> Every site you visit with their javascript initiates an http
>> request to their server. That request contains the long
>> number and referring URL, i.e. the page you visited.
>
> ... and scripts from that domain.

Yup. NoScript works a treat.

> Of course, there's nothing to prevent individual domains
> from "kabitzing" behind the scenes.
>
>> Job done, and that info can be sold.
>>
>> It is unimportant whether that long number is tied to a
>> Farcebook/Twatter account and real life name.
>
> One can also fingerprint browsers and, when coupled with
> originating IP address, provide lots of identifying information.
> They don't care that it's "Joe Blow" but, rather, that "it's
> likely the same person that just visited foo.com in search
> of tent peg grease"

Exactly.

> Amusingly, the more you try to lock down your browser, the
> more *unique* (identifiable) you appear!
>
> Sadly, Mozilla *used* to have a convenient hook to disable
> images on a page -- at a time when most ads *were* images!
>
>>> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
>>> google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.
>>
>> Yup; see above :)
>

On 18/08/21 18:37, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-18 18:33, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>
>>> Some load none.
>>
>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>
>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>> gobsmacking.
>>
>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>
>
> I've seen sites that are *only* JavaScript, several MB of
> inextricable code, while the stuff that's actually shown
> on screen isn't worth more than a few kB. Slow! Clumsy!
> Broken! Grrr!
>
> The web used to be about compatibility, generality,
> robustness and durability of information. Those days are
> gone. A huge step backwards.
>
> I'm sure Sir Tim is horrified.

Arguably he has bigger concerns :(

Don't forget to add web designers that insist on inflicting
their concept of readability on us, not the original concept
of my device defining how best to display their content.
Examples:
- faint grey characters
- nailed-down narrow page columns with lots of whitespace
on either side, but so much information to display that
it won't fit in /their/ narrow column. Example: RS
components' component selector with its own kookie scroolbar
- meaningless hieroglyphics instead of simple words
- flattie designs that don't indicate what can be clicked
etc, ad *nauseum*.

Those in the UK will understand why Victor Meldrew is such
a well-loved character.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 20:32:38 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 18/08/21 18:37, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2021-08-18 18:33, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>
>>>> Some load none.
>>>
>>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>>
>>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>>> gobsmacking.
>>>
>>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>>
>>
>> I've seen sites that are *only* JavaScript, several MB of
>> inextricable code, while the stuff that's actually shown
>> on screen isn't worth more than a few kB. Slow! Clumsy!
>> Broken! Grrr!
>>
>> The web used to be about compatibility, generality,
>> robustness and durability of information. Those days are
>> gone. A huge step backwards.
>>
>> I'm sure Sir Tim is horrified.
>
>Arguably he has bigger concerns :(
>
>Don't forget to add web designers that insist on inflicting
>their concept of readability on us, not the original concept
>of my device defining how best to display their content.
>Examples:
> - faint grey characters
> - nailed-down narrow page columns with lots of whitespace
> on either side, but so much information to display that
> it won't fit in /their/ narrow column. Example: RS
> components' component selector with its own kookie scroolbar
> - meaningless hieroglyphics instead of simple words
> - flattie designs that don't indicate what can be clicked
>etc, ad *nauseum*.
>
>Those in the UK will understand why Victor Meldrew is such
>a well-loved character.

Some sites are such continuous chaos of popups and stuff that I never
visit them.

On 8/18/2021 12:32 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 18/08/21 18:37, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2021-08-18 18:33, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>
>>>> Some load none.
>>>
>>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>>
>>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>>> gobsmacking.
>>>
>>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>>
>>
>> I've seen sites that are *only* JavaScript, several MB of
>> inextricable code, while the stuff that's actually shown
>> on screen isn't worth more than a few kB. Slow! Clumsy!
>> Broken! Grrr!
>>
>> The web used to be about compatibility, generality,
>> robustness and durability of information. Those days are
>> gone. A huge step backwards.
>>
>> I'm sure Sir Tim is horrified.
>
> Arguably he has bigger concerns :(
>
> Don't forget to add web designers that insist on inflicting
> their concept of readability on us, not the original concept
> of my device defining how best to display their content.
> Examples:
> - faint grey characters

Google maps is annoying in it's use of greys -- making printing
(on a monochrome printer) of those maps more challenging
than necessary

> - nailed-down narrow page columns with lots of whitespace
> on either side, but so much information to display that
> it won't fit in /their/ narrow column. Example: RS
> components' component selector with its own kookie scroolbar
> - meaningless hieroglyphics instead of simple words

Don't you like the one that appears to show a person (web designer?)
with it's head up its ass???

> - flattie designs that don't indicate what can be clicked
> etc, ad *nauseum*.

- sites that keep tweeking the underlying links so you can't tell
if you've already *visited* a particular link (esp true of clickbait
news sites)
- silly background imagery that adds nothing to the site
- lengthy pages with "layered" panels that scroll *above*
the page instead of the page itself

Amusingly, sites designed for accessibility tend to be much easier to
"consume" than the stuff intend to amaze the masses!

> Those in the UK will understand why Victor Meldrew is such
> a well-loved character.

On 8/18/2021 12:13 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 18/08/21 19:37, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/18/2021 10:09 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 18/08/21 17:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>>>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some load none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>>>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>>>>> shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>>>>> about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>>>>> gobsmacking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>>>>> page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>>>
>>>> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>>>
>>> It really doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> They dump a unique long number in a cookie in your browser.
>>
>> But you can block the cookies...
>
> That's far less easy/useful in firefox than it used to be.
> Many people noted that, to no avail.

ISTR a dialog whereby you can specify block/session-only/allow
on a per-site basis (?)

The sad thing is that none of these things are made *easy*
for users. Just like email clients that make it too easy for
users to have remote content presented, open attachments
with a click, etc.

Turn it on its head: make it TEDIOUS to do these things
so you have to demonstrate that you REALLY REALLY want to
be screwable...

>>> Every site you visit with their javascript initiates an http
>>> request to their server. That request contains the long
>>> number and referring URL, i.e. the page you visited.
>>
>> ... and scripts from that domain.
>
> Yup. NoScript works a treat.

Sadly, it should make note of which domains are enabled on a PER SITE
basis! So, I don't have to enable some scripts for a particular
site -- and then remember to disable them for all the other sites
when I visit those!

(c'mon, it's only memory -- and you can build a nice off-line struct to
make accessing that easy-peasy... instead of having to load it into memory)

>> Of course, there's nothing to prevent individual domains
>> from "kabitzing" behind the scenes.
>>
>>> Job done, and that info can be sold.
>>>
>>> It is unimportant whether that long number is tied to a
>>> Farcebook/Twatter account and real life name.
>>
>> One can also fingerprint browsers and, when coupled with
>> originating IP address, provide lots of identifying information.
>> They don't care that it's "Joe Blow" but, rather, that "it's
>> likely the same person that just visited foo.com in search
>> of tent peg grease"
>
> Exactly.

But, people don't give a shit. So, why go the extra mile if
it's not going to be appreciated?

>> Amusingly, the more you try to lock down your browser, the
>> more *unique* (identifiable) you appear!
>>
>> Sadly, Mozilla *used* to have a convenient hook to disable
>> images on a page -- at a time when most ads *were* images!
>>
>>>> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
>>>> google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.
>>>
>>> Yup; see above :)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:58:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>
>>> Some load none.
>>
>>Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>"abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information shown/used
>>in the URL toolbar.
>>
>>Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know about your
>>activity on a page. Some sites and companies are gobsmacking.
>>
>>Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/ page you
>>visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>
> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>
> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
> google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.

In Firefox preferences, under "browsing", make sure both "Make
recommendations" lines are UNchecked.

Wond <lost@the.ether.net> wrote in news:sflt11$3e1$1@dont-email.me:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:58:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page
>>>> visit. I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>
>>>> Some load none.
>>>
>>>Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>>"abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
>>>shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>>>
>>>Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>>>about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>>>gobsmacking.
>>>
>>>Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
>>>page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>
>> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>>
>> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys
>> on google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.
>
> In Firefox preferences, under "browsing", make sure both "Make
> recommendations" lines are UNchecked.
>

It matters not. I mentioned something about a matress that some
dude threw into the dumpster like an idiot, and the next day I start
getting spammed on my phone and my YouTube browsing, etc.

They listen to us through our phones.

Same thing happens for job hunt placement agencies. I get emails
all the time now for Truck Driver positions, and I have never applied
for such a thing in my life.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 15:23:13 -0000 (UTC), Wond <lost@the.ether.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:58:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>
>>>> Some load none.
>>>
>>>Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>>"abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information shown/used
>>>in the URL toolbar.
>>>
>>>Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know about your
>>>activity on a page. Some sites and companies are gobsmacking.
>>>
>>>Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/ page you
>>>visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>
>> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>>
>> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
>> google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.
>
> In Firefox preferences, under "browsing", make sure both "Make
>recommendations" lines are UNchecked.

If there are going to be ads all over the screen, they may as well be
for inductors and parakeet toys.

Possibly page loads would be faster without looking up customized ads.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:34:16 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> Wond <lo...@the.ether.net> wrote in news:sflt11$3e1$1...@dont-email.me:
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:58:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
> >> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 18/08/21 17:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page
> >>>> visit. I wonder what the world's record is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some load none.
> >>>
> >>>Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
> >>>"abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information
> >>>shown/used in the URL toolbar.
> >>>
> >>>Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
> >>>about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
> >>>gobsmacking.
> >>>
> >>>Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/
> >>>page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
> >>
> >> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
> >>
> >> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys
> >> on google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.
> >
> > In Firefox preferences, under "browsing", make sure both "Make
> > recommendations" lines are UNchecked.
> >
> It matters not. I mentioned something about a matress that some
> dude threw into the dumpster like an idiot, and the next day I start
> getting spammed on my phone and my YouTube browsing, etc.
>
> They listen to us through our phones.
>
> Same thing happens for job hunt placement agencies. I get emails
> all the time now for Truck Driver positions, and I have never applied
> for such a thing in my life.

And you blame this on the chips they've implanted in your head? Yeah, I agree.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:74c8a5ed-1e95-42bc-adce-311659155b99n@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:34:16 AM UTC-4,
> DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
>> Wond <lo...@the.ether.net> wrote in
>> news:sflt11$3e1$1...@dont-email.me:
>> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:58:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> >> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On 18/08/21 17:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first
>> >>>> page visit. I wonder what the world's record is.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Some load none.
>> >>>
>> >>>Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing
>> >>>to "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the
>> >>>information shown/used in the URL toolbar.
>> >>>
>> >>>Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know
>> >>>about your activity on a page. Some sites and companies are
>> >>>gobsmacking.
>> >>>
>> >>>Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about
>> >>>/every/ page you visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise
>> >>>why!
>> >>
>> >> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>> >>
>> >> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet
>> >> toys on google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys
>> >> everywhere.
>> >
>> > In Firefox preferences, under "browsing", make sure both "Make
>> > recommendations" lines are UNchecked.
>> >
>> It matters not. I mentioned something about a matress that some
>> dude threw into the dumpster like an idiot, and the next day I
>> start getting spammed on my phone and my YouTube browsing, etc.
>>
>> They listen to us through our phones.
>>
>> Same thing happens for job hunt placement agencies. I get emails
>> all the time now for Truck Driver positions, and I have never
>> applied for such a thing in my life.
>
> And you blame this on the chips they've implanted in your head?
> Yeah, I agree.
>

Learn to read, ya dopey jokester wannabe. I said they listen to your
phones. Even when you are not on them. The matress conversation was
at a parsons abode looking out the front door across the lot at the
dumpster.

So I blame your lacking on the chips 'they've' implanted in *your*
head.

Yeah, so agree with that, Chippy.

On 19/08/21 19:08, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 15:23:13 -0000 (UTC), Wond <lost@the.ether.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:58:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 17:33:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/08/21 17:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> I've seen one web site that loaded 54 cookies on my first page visit.
>>>>> I wonder what the world's record is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some load none.
>>>>
>>>> Google has found a way to avoid needing cookies, so is pushing to
>>>> "abolish" them. They are also trying to limit the information shown/used
>>>> in the URL toolbar.
>>>>
>>>> Try "no script" to see all the companies that "need" to know about your
>>>> activity on a page. Some sites and companies are gobsmacking.
>>>>
>>>> Farcebook and Twatter have JavaScript are on just about /every/ page you
>>>> visit. Doesn't take much thought to realise why!
>>>
>>> I don't do either. Or text. Or any of that stuff.
>>>
>>> Still, I'm obviously being tracked. If I search for parakeet toys on
>>> google or amazon, I see ads for parakeet toys everywhere.
>>
>> In Firefox preferences, under "browsing", make sure both "Make
>> recommendations" lines are UNchecked.
>
> If there are going to be ads all over the screen, they may as well be
> for inductors and parakeet toys.
>
> Possibly page loads would be faster without looking up customized ads.

A particular nasty is the type of advert that prevents the
page being displayed until after the advert has loaded.
Such adverts can be particularly slow since they conduct an
online auction for your eyeballs[1] in order to determine
which advert to show you based on your browsing history[2]

[1] I'd include the the brain, but most of us are very adept
at ignoring adverts in favour of the content.

[2] based on the "magic" long numbers mentioned earlier.

On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 20:50:48 UTC+1, Tom Gardner wrote:

> A particular nasty is the type of advert that prevents the
> page being displayed until after the advert has loaded.
> Such adverts can be particularly slow since they conduct an
> online auction for your eyeballs[1] in order to determine
> which advert to show you based on your browsing history[2]

A few years ago the Farnell website did this, making it unusable when
I had an obscure internet problem that prevented me from accessing
one of the sites they linked to. I asked them to fix this and they did.

John