zlacker

[return to "GoDaddy locks out derivatives of Chrome"]
◧
1. rvnx+o2[view] [source] 2022-07-14 10:24:13
>>mrspen+(OP)
This is because the browser fails to load some JS on the control panel because the browser blocks them. That's it.
◧◩
2. alias_+44[view] [source] 2022-07-14 10:43:21
>>rvnx+o2
This is an infuriatingly poor error message if the problem is disabled JavaScript. Surely they can detect that and show a proper error instead of trying to be cute with this "Your browser is a bit unusual" junk?
◧◩◪
3. pdw+k5[view] [source] 2022-07-14 10:56:22
>>alias_+44
It's hard to differentiate between completely disabled JavaScript, some individual JavaScript files being blocked by an (overzealous?) ad blocker, and the browser not implementing some required JavaScript feature.
◧◩◪◨
4. pluc+x6[view] [source] 2022-07-14 11:08:30
>>pdw+k5
I've been using NoScript for about a month full-time.. and it's insane the things you can leave blocked and still see a site as it's meant to be. Ads, trackers and internal tools that somehow I have to contribute my data to, and their accompanying libraries EASILY make up 70% of all JS.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. sgbeal+T8[view] [source] 2022-07-14 11:30:36
>>pluc+x6
> Ads, trackers and internal tools that somehow I have to contribute my data to, and their accompanying libraries EASILY make up 70% of all JS.

Citation needed. Literally 100% of the JS code i've written over the past 24 years has been 100% free of "ads, trackers, and internal tools that somehow users have to contributor their data to."

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. wolrah+Em[view] [source] 2022-07-14 12:50:33
>>sgbeal+T8
> Citation needed. Literally 100% of the JS code i've written over the past 24 years has been 100% free of "ads, trackers, and internal tools that somehow users have to contributor their data to."

It's a fair assumption that the majority of the code on the internet probably isn't written by you, so what you or any other individual writes isn't exactly a counter-argument.

I'd assume the poster you replied to was referring to the Javascript that gets delivered to their browser on a day to day basis by general purpose web sites, for which a significant percentage being ads and related unwanted content is entirely plausible.

If you were to capture all of the Javascript delivered to a randomly selected person's browser during a normal day I would easily believe somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of that Javascript was things that if the user was given a real choice they would not choose to load.

[go to top]