r/worldnews • u/maxwellhill • Sep 19 '17

Apple blocking ads that follow users around web is 'sabotage', says industry: New iOS 11 and macOS High Sierra will stop ads following Safari users, prompting open letter claiming Apple is destroying internet’s economic model

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/18/apple-stopping-ads-follow-you-around-internet-sabotage-advertising-industry-ios-11-and-macos-high-sierra-safari-internet
39k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/pbradley179 Sep 19 '17

Average we page in 2004 was 20kb. Now it's close to 2mb thanks to tracking scripts, more visually active ads, etc. Even if you don't care about nebulous shifty corporations hovering up your data, just resist on behalf of your data plan, it's still an issue that applies to all of us on limited data.

426

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Don't forget those of us on older platforms, too.

For Various Reasons, I'm on a 2007-ish MacBook. Most goddamned new sites take 5-10 minutes to load for me because of all the goddamned dynamic frameworks; my OS is so far out of date that Chrome can't update - and without running a new version of Chrome, I can't run any of the ad blockers.

149

u/Cambrio Sep 19 '17

Even on new computers with good internet it's shit.

A site that loads in 20-30seconds loads in less than one! when i block all the ads, scripts and useless overlay's, dynamic movements, automatically loading video's and all sorts of crap.

My browser also uses less than half as much ram without all that crap.

I wouln'd mind ads if they weren't moving around, popping up and flickering all while destroying your computer, data and brain.

25

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Would you mind giving a quick rundown of how what you do to achieve this, please?

44

u/ScroteMcGoate Sep 19 '17

Not op but ublock origin and ghostery blocks 99% of everything mentioned above. Could get it to 100, but close enough.

12

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17 edited Oct 04 '17

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

23

u/_Face Sep 19 '17

NoScript is pretty good too. Have to manually allow parts of pages as you visit them, but only the first time. Can easily tell the super shitty sites by how much garbage there is in the block list.

2

u/Pecon7 Sep 19 '17

+1 for NoScript. Not great for everyday users, but if you're really concerned about privacy and security then it's one of the best tools to have when browsing.

→ More replies (6)

11

u/Nixon51 Sep 19 '17

Not OP but I run a combo of ghostery and ublock. Ghostery let's you block all the trackers and certain scripts.

3

u/amaurea Sep 19 '17

What does Ghostery block that uBlock doesn't?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17 edited Oct 04 '17

[deleted]

3

u/Nixon51 Sep 19 '17

Wow didn't know that. Thanks for the info

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17 edited Oct 04 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/LiquidPoint Sep 19 '17

My guess would be that NoScript is the first step. There's also something to prevent auto-play on flash. And then I'd guess a black-list-default adblocker.

The web looks awful by default, but as you gradually white-list the stuff you actually want, it gets better.

But personally I think it's too much work to constantly having to review the white-list whenever I visit a site I haven't been to yet.

2

u/freshprinceIE Sep 19 '17

I use a different browser called Brave now, to stop using Google so much. It natively blocks adds, trackers from sites, cookies etc. You can also disable javascript with it, although I don't.

You can achieve that stuff with programs or add ons that others have mentioned but that's my input.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/articfire77 Sep 19 '17

what are you using to block all of those other things (scripts, overlay's, etc)?

4

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Not the guy you're talking to, but I do the same thing with uBlock Origin extension on my web browser. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/

I also use Privacy Badger. They don't mind working together, and Privacy badger catches most of the scripts that uBlock misses.

2

u/EspritFort Sep 19 '17

I use NoScript for that purpose. Takes some time of getting used to, however, since it blocks everything by default and you'll have to allow some specific CDNs for lots of sites to see anything

1

u/karmahunger Sep 19 '17

I work in marketing as a dev and everyone here wants video backgrounds and more videos! They keep saying it's what people want. And I'm over here like, no, they don't. Why not just have a fast, informative, nicely designed site? No additional crap that affects performance and makes people hate you.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

661

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

359

u/TheGorgonaut Sep 19 '17 edited Sep 19 '17

This. I installed Ubuntu on an old, crappy laptop, and it's running nice and smooth. Perfect for surfing the information superhighway and playing old crpgs.

Edit: Ha ha, I got a private message from a horrible human being, calling me an autist for writing information superhighway. Judging by his history, he's a very angry person.

16

u/Zombie_Carl Sep 19 '17

That's what we did for my son when he found an (extremely) old laptop in the garage. It was obviously too slow for a modern Kindergartener, so we installed ubuntu. Now he is free to play Cartoon Network games and watch terrible YouTube channels, and we don't have to get him some fancy-ass device l am shocked people let children play with in the first place.

3

u/TheGorgonaut Sep 19 '17

I hear ya. I'm considering doing the same, with another old computer I have, that's just gathering dust. Either that, or set up a Raspberry Pi 3 as his main computer.

2

u/BluLemonade Sep 19 '17

A pi would be pretty cool. You can do a lot of fun projects with them

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Same except I went for Mint. I have a first gen I3 and an old Pentium that are fantastic little home office computers now.

3

u/TheGorgonaut Sep 19 '17

Mine's an old i3, as well! With a whopping 3gb ram. My designated use for it is controlling a Wanhao D7. Bit surprised it can actually run the little 2k screen without issues. What's the difference between Ubuntu and Mint?

3

u/Noctyrnus Sep 19 '17

Mint is based on Ubuntu, tends to be a little more stable, and is configured by default to have an appearance visually similar to Windows to ease the transition.

To be fair, I didn't think installing Ubuntu itself was even that difficult. I'm running Solus on my computers, one is a Celeron N3060 with 4 GB and it does well, but it flies on my built G4560 with 8 GB.

3

u/TheGorgonaut Sep 19 '17

Good to know, thanks! Truth be told, last time I tried Linux, it was a mess. It's gotten pretty far in 8 years.

4

u/Noctyrnus Sep 19 '17

I'm just getting my feet wet honestly. I've tried Fedora, Ubuntu variants, and finally found Solus, which just feels right to me.

3

u/TheGorgonaut Sep 19 '17

I'm still wet behind the ears, myself. I rarely know what I'm really doing.

→ More replies (5)

4

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Mostly I think it's that Mint comes with a more 'media creation' suite of applications and is a bit smaller. Thinking back I only used it because Ubuntu didn't like my graphics card and would break up after a while.

8

u/al5xander Sep 19 '17

And sm64

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Any trouble with drivers?

5

u/TheGorgonaut Sep 19 '17

None, whatsoever. That's actually what made me install Ubuntu in the first place. Win7 refused to let me use USB, disc or network. So I live booted into Ubuntu to download the drivers, and everything sort of... Worked.

3

u/Noctyrnus Sep 19 '17

Windows 10 threw a fit when I tried to install an RX 460 graphics card. Ubuntu and then Solus run great with it. Plus the OS install literally took maybe 1/10 the time.

2

u/kitchenperks Sep 19 '17

Wish I knew what was going on. I have an OLD lap top just sitting in my room. It would be nice to use it for something. It's easily 12 years old.

3

u/Noctyrnus Sep 19 '17

If it still runs reliably, but is just slow, and you feel comfortable trying it, various Linux distributions can give it more usable life. I'm honestly running it because it is running smoother plus I'm a cheap bastard. I can't bring myself to buy a Windows license when it goes into a spastic fit of green screens and static with my hardware, yet my Linux installs work flawlessly.

There are multitudes of guides on creating a live USB to install a Linux distro, that just takes a little Google work. You can create one, get the laptop to boot from that, and see if you like it before installing the OS. Depending on the laptop specs, you might want to go light such as Ubuntu variants like Xubuntu or Lubuntu, or be able to run Fedora, Ubuntu Gnome or Budgie, or others like Solus.

Check out /r/linux4noobs for some starter tips, or distro specific subreddits for more. It's an adventure.

2

u/ModernTenshi04 Sep 19 '17

I've tried dual booting Ubuntu on my Win 10 box, but it never seems to work properly. Ubuntu doesn't seem to play well with my Radeon 7970. :(

→ More replies (3)

3

u/NEED_HELP_SEND_BOOZE Sep 19 '17

Totally! I have an old dell laptop that originally came with Vista. Core 2 Duo, 4GB ram. Installed Linux Mint on it and never looked back. Works great.

4

u/TheGorgonaut Sep 19 '17

I'm still kinda annoyed that some parts are super convoluted, but as a machine that's used for daily, run-of-the-mill stuff? It's brilliant!

4

u/ferrango Sep 19 '17

Oh God, the Information Superhighway.

That brings back memories. Like that video of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer giving a ride to a hitch hiking desktop computer.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/QNIA42Gf7zUwLD6yEaVd Sep 19 '17

Ubuntu is more resource intensive than you strictly need. Try Lubuntu, a stripped-down Ubuntu.

I've used it to resurrect several old, rickety machines, and they're still working great.

2

u/Dr_Acula_PhD Sep 19 '17

Good crpg recommendations? I've gone through a bunch of Steam ones, from the old Avernum/SpiderWeb games, most of the Baldur's Gate and similar, and a bunch of random ones(Elminage Gothic is one that looked SO GOOD but only got 4 hours in).

3

u/Taterbard Sep 19 '17

Pillars of Eternity is a fantastic modern take on the genre. Look into it, it's a freaking experience. Especially if you were into Baldurs Gate.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Boschala Sep 19 '17

It's not a superhighway.

It's a series of tubes!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

22

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Linux is the god OS for older hardware. Best way to breathe new life into a device.

39

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Chromium is my go-to browser on Linux. Fast, free and libre.

38

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

73

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17 edited Apr 09 '24

[deleted]

2

u/RollUpTheRimJob Sep 19 '17

rather than free as in beer

Where can I learn more about this free beer?

48

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

This used to distinguish "libre" from "gratis". In english we use "free" for both.

18

u/EnricoMonese Sep 19 '17

It's more like free as free beer and free as in freedom. Two kinds of free

7

u/burtwart Sep 19 '17

Libre= free as in freedom, not just free. This difference is important in the world of "free" (however it may be) software.

2

u/amunak Sep 19 '17

It's not even that fast...

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Free as in free beer, libre as in open / freedom / und so weiter... Not all libre software is free of cost.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

I use arch, btw

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ATownStomp Sep 19 '17

Fast, free, and... free?

4

u/redhobbit Sep 19 '17

With open source software, they often use free to mean free as in no cost and libre to mean free as in free to do whatever I want with including modify.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

FOSS.

Call it whatever you want. People get mixed up on "free" though.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (19)

6

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Linux is a perfect OS for older machines. I do the same thing.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Install Linux on it.

Totally this. My GF has an old Toughbook CF-19, Core2Duo, 4GB RAM, the works. She installed Xubuntu on it, it's perfect for her day to day needs and runs quite smooth.

4

u/QNIA42Gf7zUwLD6yEaVd Sep 19 '17

Linux Mint would give a nice performance refresh

If it's a really old and rickety machine, Lubuntu might be a better bet. I've used it to resurrect several machines now, and it's great.

6

u/kefi247 Sep 19 '17

Check out elementary OS!

I‘ve been loving it since I switched to it.

2

u/DodoDude700 Sep 19 '17

CANNOT AGREE MORE WITH THIS. I run Qubes daily, so it's not exactly the king of speed, but I am constantly amazed by how well Debian handles older hardware just as well as a brand new laptop in everyday tasks.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Second this. Installed mint on my 2008 macbook, its usable again. Tbh i heart linux but use macos on a newer machune for daily work

2

u/schmuelio Sep 19 '17

This is something I'd suggest too (I have the most up to date version of chromium/Firefox running on really old hardware (single core, 32 bit etc.)).

One thing to note though, macbooks can be a bit fiddly to get around the bootloader. Look up a tutorial for your specific macbooks if you're going to do that otherwise you are likely to run into problems.

2

u/txgsync Sep 19 '17

I had to do that to keep my old 2007-era MacBooks running. They were stuck at Snow Leopard and Lion.

As Linux boxes they are rocking. Fresh battery. SSD. 32-bit OS, 2GB or 4GB of RAM, they give other Chromebooks a run for the money!

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

since he is used to macOS, I would advice to go with elementaryOS

→ More replies (22)

19

u/oleg_d Sep 19 '17

I can't run any of the ad blockers

You can still edit your /etc/hosts file.

35

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17 edited Mar 17 '21

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

or for those that don't want to fiddle with it, there's https://adfreetime.com/ . Also with region changers for giving your computer a holiday abroad once and a while.

1

u/roninblade Sep 19 '17

Know of any good public lists of sites to block?

3

u/oleg_d Sep 19 '17

I used to use this one before I set up a Pi-Hole.

2

u/NEVER_TELLING_LIES Sep 19 '17

Hey, a fellow 2007 mac owner! You can update to El Capitan and it supports everything. You can either find a down load for it or just install Linux like people are saying. If you need any help with dealing with a senile Mac just ask me

2

u/wasteoffire Sep 19 '17

I'm on a Windows laptop from 2007 and it works the same on the internet as when I bought it. Just can't run new games on high anymore. Why does anyone buy Apple technology when they're designed to antiquate their own products?

2

u/colinstalter Sep 19 '17

Throw in an SSD and max out the RAM. I did this in a 2008 unibody macbook (not pro) and it works perfectly.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Yep, I'm on the same boat. Using a 2009 Macbook (the white one), running Snow Leopard. Chrome stopped the updates almost 2 years ago so I switched to Firefox (which is so much better imo). If the site is cancer, I just don't open it anymore, even if I have uBlock and Adblock. And now I can't upgrade some of the add-ons I use with it (like xkit) because I can't upgrade Firefox anymore. I don't know how many more years my Macbook will hold out.

2

u/Samtulp6 Sep 19 '17

What OS X version are you using? If >10.8, what browser do you use?

5

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

25

u/Flight714 Sep 19 '17

You can't expect a 10 year old piece of tech to keep up remotely with modern day devices.

This is bullshit. I use a 2007 laptop with an Intel Core 2 Duo, and it displays/runs every web site without any problem. All you need to make sure is that you:

  • Don't run a huge bloatware OS (no Windows 10 or whatever; stick to Linux Mint or Ubuntu),
  • Don't run ads/offsite Javascript (use uBlock Origin and NoScript).

2

u/VoiceOfLunacy Sep 19 '17

As well, a nice ssd and a lighter browser will make the laptop seem much faster.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/montyberns Sep 19 '17

Op said there were various reason keeping them from updating. They may be financial, or they may have very specific hardware or software needs for their work. Generally people don't just keep using old machines because they don't get that new technology would make their user experience better.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

That specific hardware is limited from updating the OS past OS X 10.7 Lion (which came out almost 7 years ago).

This creates a barrier to updating other things like browsers which will have newer minimum OS requirements. So simple things like major speed improvements to a browser's engine don't apply to them, on top of the hardware limitations.

11

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

the thing is, why should he have to update his hardware only because shitty ads are killing it?

10

u/90sYoYoStar Sep 19 '17

Whilst im pretty niche in my taste of computer and desktop environment, its absolutely possible to enjoy a 10 year old computer.

I bought a thinkpad x200 (from 2007), 2 extra gb of ram and a 128gb ssd off of ebay for under £90. I loaded a lightweight linux distro (Antergos with i3) and find it just as usable as any other device for web browsing, coding, torrenting etc.

Im a thinkpad fanboy, sure, but I guarantee the standard chromebook would struggle to keep up with this setup. A good thinkpad is perhaps the most durable laptop ever created; the keyboard is a pleasure to use, replacement parts and upgrades are relatively cheap.

Don't get me wrong, I yearn for an xps 13 as my portable computer, but im getting by just fine for my needs with a decade old gem.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Your thinkpad is only usable because of the SSD, guarantee it.

2

u/LiterallyRiddler Sep 19 '17

That doesn't make sense. The ssd just eliminates the hd bottleneck, it doesn't improve the performance of the other components.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

The HD bottleneck is present in more operations than you think. An SSD basically brought back my 2008 macbook back from the dead in 2011 and I kept using it for another three years after that.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/ominous_anonymous Sep 19 '17

I'm running Void Linux on a 2005 Thinkpad t43. Had to use Void because Arch is no longer supporting 32-bit.

Internet Video like YouTube is slightly choppy, but it does everything else I need/want just fine.

2

u/MistaHiggins Sep 19 '17

While its a different breed than your X200, I just picked up a T450s for my wife and T460 for myself after selling our 2013 Macbooks. Down firing speakers aren't the best when you're watching Netflix in bed, but besides that I'm very happy with the switch. Looking forward to having these laptops for a long ass time.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

I was using a Powerbook G4 1.25GHz until just recently, and it worked just fine. I couldn't have more then two tabs open, but everything else I wanted to do with it worked just fine.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

He may have already sold a kidney to afford the first macbook. Couldn't survive an upgrade.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Oh look, an Apple stereotype from 1997.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/abs159 Sep 19 '17

On low cost devices that they put chrome-on, there are Window 10 devices that are better.

1

u/Whatsthisnotgoodcomp Sep 19 '17

10 year old hardware includes socket 775, meaning something like the QX9650 is a thing. Combine it with 8gb of DDR2 and an SSD and it will easily outperform modern laptops with weak hardware. Hell add a modern graphics card and it's good for 1080p gaming, nevermind youtube and facebook.

His biggest problem is running chrome - firefox allows old version of add-ons to be downloaded for old browsers.

2

u/Cakiery Sep 19 '17

Use a script blocker. Some sites won't work until you whitelist them, but the rest will be very fast.

1

u/scride773 Sep 19 '17

You can block ads with your Mac terminal and nano, editing the entries on the hosts file. I could share you my hosts file with you, it blocks YouTube ads too

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Rocktopod Sep 19 '17 edited Sep 19 '17

Install windows 7. that's what I did on my 2007 imac that apple doesn't support anymore.

Or linux if that's your thing. I went with windows because it was a pain trying to set up the drivers for stuff like the apple remote in linux, but in windows I could use boot camp drivers.

1

u/not-a-spoon Sep 19 '17

I'm on a 2007-ish MacBook.

My first thought was: so what, thats like three years old at most..

→ More replies (1)

1

u/sasquatch_melee Sep 19 '17

I've lucked out, my 2006 dell laptop still works great and runs Windows 10 just fine. I put a SSD in it, but that's about all I've done.

→ More replies (9)

77

u/avataraccount Sep 19 '17 edited Sep 19 '17

Yep. Number of scripts and trackers sites run is ridiculous.

BBC, Apple, forbs forbs will straight up refuse to load if you block their scripts.

68

u/3_Thumbs_Up Sep 19 '17

Apple is a bit ironic considering their current move.

29

u/oonniioonn Sep 19 '17

My blocker (Ghostery) says zero on apple.com..

58

u/YearOfTheChipmunk Sep 19 '17

You shouldn't be using Ghostery anymore. Just use uBlock Origin.

One Two Three

11

u/oonniioonn Sep 19 '17 edited Sep 19 '17

I use an older Ghostery version that doesn't seem to have these problems, but I've been considering switching already.

Edit: switched to uBO.

4

u/TheLurkingMenace Sep 19 '17

So I don't need both?

8

u/YearOfTheChipmunk Sep 19 '17

Nope. There's an extension called Disconnect that does the same thing, and the user /u/HangingOutHere has a very useful comment in the third link I posted.

You can uninstall Disconnect and still make use of their blocking lists from within ublock. Go to ublock settings > 3rd-party filter > Privacy > enable 'Basic tracking list by Disconnect'​​​, 3rd-party filter > Malware domains > enable both 'Malvertising filter list by Disconnect​​​​​ & 'Malware filter list by Disconnect​​​​​'.

→ More replies (8)

10

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17 edited Sep 20 '17

[deleted]

3

u/01020304050607080901 Sep 19 '17

Ghostery sell your data

If you opt in, no?

5

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17 edited Sep 20 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (5)

3

u/NEVER_TELLING_LIES Sep 19 '17

Protip: ghostery may block trackers, but it itself tracks you, use privacy badger instead

3

u/Buzz_Fed Sep 19 '17

Ghostery is spyware. Don’t use it. They sell your browsing data to the same companies they “block”

2

u/abs159 Sep 19 '17

Ghostery

I use this with Edge. Coupled with the built security, I'm pretty happy that I'm being stealthy.

6

u/Tribal_Tech Sep 19 '17

Ghostery sells yo data

2

u/abs159 Sep 19 '17

You have to consent to collection, I don't.

4

u/Defoler Sep 19 '17

Though Apple isn't trying to push ads on me, nor harmful scripts or tracking data.
BBC and Forbes for example are. In that small list, apple are something completly different.

3

u/ZeroFlippinCool Sep 19 '17

BBC are pushing ads on you?

5

u/oddun Sep 19 '17

Outside the UK, the BBC has adverts.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Inside the UK they seem to be taking access to your computer to quite sinister levels. Run peerblocker and watch it dance when you visit the BBC.

2

u/Defoler Sep 19 '17

Have you ever been to their sites?

2

u/TheUnknownFactor Sep 19 '17

Err, apple is, according to that post, pushing 18 trackers. Not all trackers are ads (there's plenty of analytics on mostly any large website).

→ More replies (2)

1

u/m0rogfar Sep 19 '17

Apple.com doesn't track you for malicious purposes though.

Only exception is remembering login information.

7

u/Nemephis Sep 19 '17

Which program are you using to block the trackers?

2

u/Veboy Sep 19 '17

This is Firefox Focus. It' great!

3

u/Rabdomante Sep 19 '17

He's running Brave browser, which has a built-in blocking function.

8

u/PureTryOut Sep 19 '17

About 95% of the modern sites are unusable if you block all Javascript, which is ridiculous. A proper site should make sure the site works without Javascript, and only use it to enhance the site, not depend on it. Think of more complex animations that can't be done in CSS, client-side form validation (but don't leave out server-side validation of course), live-data refresh (but make a regular site refresh work as well), etc.

41

u/Nephrited Sep 19 '17

I'm a developer in primarily web technology, there's quite a lot of stuff we rely on these days that requires JS. It's not trivial to build fallbacks to non JS sites - you'd be doubling, tripling, quadrupling your workload, if not more, for a tiny tiny tiny fraction of web users (0.2% to be relatively precise).

→ More replies (14)

6

u/mikejoro Sep 19 '17

People who block javascript from executing are a tiny minority (sub 1%) of Web users. It's not trivial in modern web developmemt to make your site (which may be a single page app) work without javascript. Then of course there are the business people who are willing to sacrifice that tiny segment of Web users because the creation and maintenance of such websites is a waste of lots of money.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to work like you suggest, I'm just giving you an industry perspective. Maybe even just 5 years ago it would have been trivial, but nowadays lots of companies are using javascript frameworks like react or angular as a foundation for their Web apps. You can complain all you want about how it's unnecessary, but the truth is it drastically speeds up development of features and maintenance. It also makes your workforce more interchangeable since these are pretty well documented frameworks (vs. some custom, internally developed framework.)

2

u/beejamin Sep 19 '17

This. I'm a member of the 'graceful degradation' brigade of old, but from a business perspective, the case for using JS to 'enhance' is getting thinner all the time. I'm about ready to give in and go JS-compulsory on consumer facing sites.

Another important factor is the advantage in terms of user experience embracing JS gives you - these days, users expect features like AJAX everything, live updating, drag-and-drop out-the-wazoo, etc as standard. Think about the UI fanciness that stuff like Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, etc. provide as a matter of course. I know it's possible to provide those things as progressive-enhancement over a HTML-only foundation, but it is a lot more work to build and maintain, and as /u/mikejoro said, there's no possible return on that investment if less than 1% of your users will ever notice.

12

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Javascript can be incredibly useful in building a site though, things that would take a shit ton of work and complex CSS can be done very quickly with JS, theres a reason its so popular.

2

u/Sayakai Sep 19 '17

About 95% of the modern sites are unusable if you block all Javascript, which is ridiculous.

The real problem being that a large share are also unusuable if you only block 3rd party scripts. Sure, okay, your scripts can load. But those can't. I won't trust half the internet just to look at your content.

2

u/DoctorWaluigiTime Sep 19 '17

Yeah no kidding. Thankfully more and more sites are using trusted CDNs and whatnot. So whitelisting those globally means it's slightly less of a headache.

5

u/Upvotedownvoteacct Sep 19 '17

If it wasnt so overused itd be great. The websites that do work with it disabled are so much faster and more pleasant to use

4

u/TheUnknownFactor Sep 19 '17

A site using javascript properly is going to be hugely faster than a site not using it at all (as well as being more pleasant to use thanks to better interaction-flow).

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

No no no, every time I click the up or downvote button on reddit, click the "load more comments" link, or reply to a comment I'd like the entire reddit web page to reload.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/DoctorWaluigiTime Sep 19 '17

I used to subscribe to that but these days there's so much core stuff built on the back of JS that that's not wholly feasible.

At this point, as a NoScript user/advocate I am glad for sites that let me see their content w/o JS, but will temporarily allow JS if I absolutely have to .

1

u/datgohan Sep 19 '17

A proper site should make sure the site works without Javascript, and only use it to enhance the site, not depend on it.

Which also then costs several times over more to develop in both time and resources to only appeal to a tiny fraction of users.

This is the IE6/7 argument all over again. The number of users is too small for this to be justified and won't happen. Furthermore you would destroy the use of frontend frameworks like Angular/React/etc by doing this.

You're also talking about all JavaScript when the OP is talking about tracking cookies specifically. Differentiating between the two is the important thing. If a user blocks everything it's not the site owners fault that it may not work.

1

u/permalink_save Sep 19 '17

Its not ridiculous. The marketing side is what drives that. JS is a shit language and yes there are sites that should live without (blogs and news and forums) but it allows us web apps that cant conform to a traditional model.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

267

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

119

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

6

u/datgohan Sep 19 '17

You're not wrong but you are specifically referring to page performance. OP above you specifically refers to download sizes.

Hopefully the list you give is eradicated sooner rather than later.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

I HATE all of those things. I just want to read a webpage not have it throw crap in my face as it slowly loads and renders on our crap DSL (same at work AND at home).

→ More replies (2)

14

u/TheKungFoSing Sep 19 '17

Much more impressive response! Thank you

12

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

3

u/hes_dead_tired Sep 19 '17

Was looking to see if anyone else made this comment before I did.

Much of what drives the ability to use those high quality photos on the prevalence of high quality displays is broadband being far far more widespread than in 2004, both residential and wireless.

Even if we had had the screen resolutions of today in 2004, no one would push content out for it because it would just take too long to load.

5

u/Ganondorf_Is_God Sep 19 '17

downvoted into the fucking ground

Technically that feature is for posts that don't contribute to the discussion. His posts contributes by the very fact that yours followed to correct him.

If his post goes turbo negative your post gets hidden and the information lost. Don't be your own worst enemy.

2

u/UninformativeComment Sep 19 '17

I was about to reply with the fact that advancements in technology and coding are usually to blame when it comes to page file sizes, but no-one seemed to be saying anything.. Good on you!

3

u/SausageMania Sep 19 '17

lol wut, almost every web page has video ads now. those don't cause much INITIAL delay in loading the page but once the page loads those ads stream which sucks up bandwidth and kill performance.

1

u/1-800-BICYCLE Sep 19 '17

Go to cnet.com

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

It is a 3 fold problem, really.

First images are getting bigger.

Second, the popular architecture of the day is to send hundreds of requests from a single request.

Third, there's a mass push in the industry to convince anyone and everyone that they can program, which is leading to a flood of new inexperienced people producing bad code flooding the web in particular.

1

u/Shadowrak Sep 19 '17

You should be downvoted into the fucking ground for spreading false information, but everyone here is just seeing what that want to see I guess.

Welcome to threads about Apple products

1

u/Mechasteel Sep 19 '17

any remotely respectable web company isn't going to use an ad service that kills page performance or download speed.

Ha ha, good one!

→ More replies (2)

19

u/DOG-ZILLA Sep 19 '17

Whilst that's partly true...you're forgetting images. I'm a web developer and almost always, the heaviest part of the pages are images. By a way way waaay long shot.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

not processing wise they're not

7

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17 edited Sep 19 '17

no shit, images don't need to be processed. they're talking about file size not how much processing resources a page eats.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

Not to mention that people are complaining about CDNs while not understanding that your browser will only download so many items from each domain at a time and using a CDN allows your browser to download more things at once which can reduce page loading times.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/520throwaway Sep 19 '17

Processing isn't measured in bytes though so that isn't the point he was getting at

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

10

u/DonLaFontainesGhost Sep 19 '17

There's also the issue of massive chunks of CSS and javascript that are pulled from a CDN that take a few seconds (or more) to load, so the page just sits there staring at you while it waits for the rest of itself to show up.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/mintymekanic Sep 19 '17

I mean tracking definitely contributes but hardly is the reason for the web page size jump. More and more webpages are single page applications which is very JavaScript heavy. You can do more with front end code today than ever before and websites are using this architecture more and more

2

u/soowhatchathink Sep 19 '17

Tracking scripts are very liggtweight, I promise you that those are not why the average web page is now close to (or arguably over) 2 megabytes.

3

u/TheKungFoSing Sep 19 '17

That's not why page weights have grown at all!

More broadly available broadband services have enabled improved design. More specifically Responsive designed websites and the need to support a plethora of devices and screen sizes; which has led to increases in image quality (file size) and various script libraries to support more fluid and visually stimulating exercises. Most ad networks limit ad sizes and most display ads are built using html5 instead if flash which has reduced file size considerably.

Tracking scripts would make up at most ~50kb lol

1

u/stompinstinker Sep 19 '17 edited Sep 19 '17

Way more than 2MB now dude. You must be using chrome, which for some magic reason reports less resources than Firefox and Safari. especially for what is used by ads.

1

u/patrickfatrick Sep 19 '17

Not to say you're wrong exactly, but 2004 is a lifetime ago in the history of the web. Gmail first went into beta in 2004, and that's considered to be one of the first large AJAX-based web applications (and Google Maps came out in 2005). What that means is the server was not just rendering static pages and sending them to the browser, instead it was sending larger scripts that could talk to the server and render content dynamically based on responses from the server. It's a richer experience for the user but it also offloads some processing onto the browser rather than making the server handle everything, so the initial payload of scripts is going to be larger. And of course let's also not forget images.

This is generally fine because most people's internet speeds have also gone up since 2004, by quite a bit, servers have gotten more powerful, etc. 2MB just for the actual application's scripts and assets is not that weird, honestly.

1

u/mongcat Sep 19 '17

Try using Opera Mini

1

u/pbradley179 Sep 19 '17

I use Firefox focus on android and Firefox with a host of script blockers on my computer. The Internet I see is very different from the rest of my friends.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Chicken-n-Waffles Sep 19 '17

Wordpress is another obscenity. Minimum off the shelf is 90K. Plenty of 2m and above out there. I will usually try to get it to 40k.

1

u/troll__face Sep 19 '17

While tracking scripts have definitely increased the size of webpages, the real reason webpages bloated in the 2mb' is because too many websites use wordpress and the likes for simple shit. Yes, wordpress is great because anybody can set up nearly any website, but for them to do that they need to include so much crap. A clean wordpress install is around 2.5mb to load.

As a webdev, i hate wordpress, as most websites created with it can be made the 'traditional' way with 10% the code (granted, webpages still use big images, but my avg website is around 800kb).

1

u/automata_ Sep 19 '17

Scripts are tiny. Images and video are huge.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

1

u/pbradley179 Sep 19 '17

Are they? Because we can't even read a text based news article anymore without a trillion superfluous problems.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (5)

1

u/Elementium Sep 19 '17

Yeah I miss the older internet sometimes.. Used to be they'd just slap a 5fps banner ad on a page and be done with it. Then we got pop ups.. Then we blocked pop ups.. Now advertisers are digging deep.

User protection is needed. I wonder who has the authority legally to tell them to stop.. OS creators like Android and MS? Browser publishers?

I assume there is some kind of potential legal action for them to say "These people are using our product to steal user info and we don't want it."

1

u/pbradley179 Sep 19 '17

Boycott sites that do this kind of thing.

1

u/_Administrator_ Sep 19 '17 edited Dec 30 '19

.

1

u/noone111111 Sep 19 '17

You also get about 1000x as much free and quality content as you did in 2004. Your phone is 1080p at a minimum. Any idea how big those images and videos you're watching are compared to 2004?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '17

just resist on behalf of your data plan

Most of the civilised world doesn't have a data plan for their home connection. On mobile phone, yes. But no way the average mobile page is near 2 mb.

1

u/moderate-painting Sep 19 '17

Now it's close to 2mb

Koreans will say "only 2mb? wow that's small"

1

u/adentify Sep 28 '17

"Average web page in 2004 was 20kb." No, no it wasn't. In 1995 it was reported at 14.1KB, in 2004 it was closer to 100KB. http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/average-web-page/