How do regular folks stand browsing the modern web? I have a VM for opening random links with no javascript or ad blocking. When I open certain news sites my laptop fans spin 100% loading all the ads, and it's almost impossible to read the actual story.

To elaborate, this is a disposable VM just for opening random, possibly untrusted links other people send me. I do most of my own browsing in a different VM with ad and javascript blocking in place. It's always jarring to see just how bad the web is without all of that in place.

Show thread

@kyle I use

it's like uBlock (I think it shares some code), but instead of not-loading ads it cliks everything, doing (allegedly) the most damage to data capturing

@kyle check out I use it to browse for news - static html pages without all of the BS bloat found in modern news sites

@kyle even websites without ads are still crippled by “full stack” dependency on garbage from top to bottom. I see this a lot on corporate sites. Abysmal performance that comes from using the latest tech rather than the most well suited, and then doubling down on copypasta of StackOverflow solutions to tricky topics rather than trying to understand a best practice or approach.

@kyle This is pretty much exactly what @feonixrift has been on about here:

I'm more in the "open in an isolated browser session or Tor browser" stage, though that's because non of my principle daily drivers do VMs all that well presently.

But yeah: The Web Is Overtly Hostile. It's a mistake.

Sites should function at a minimum level of complexity (no JS, no images, no markup past a very minimal HTML tagset), or GTFO.

Of course, enforcing that is a fool's errand, though a hyperbolic discounting / downrating through search engines might help.

The migration to social web is probably negating even that power as we speak.

@kyle Case in point:

The Web as experienced by tech nerds is completely different thing than the Web as experienced by other people. Even browsing big social media is not as hostile, so no wonder that they are "the Web" for increasing amount of people.

@kyle I'm starting to more and more agree with @tbernard that we need web browsers start in private mode by default.

At least I think they should open URLs from external sources in a private mode window, with a simple way to reopen it into the regular mode.

@KekunPlazas @kyle @tbernard that was kind of my intent with Ephemeral but I would love that to be built into browsers.

@cassidyjames @kyle @tbernard I'm pretty sure the maintainers of Epiphany would be on board with that.

@KekunPlazas @cassidyjames @kyle @tbernard

But... it exists? It's not super great - something like Ephemeral for opening links would be awesome.

@exalm I don't think that's what you want in practice.

My vague idea is something like this:
- Regular: Browsing history; acceptable amount of content/js/etc blocking where sites generally work
- Private: Very aggressive blocking; where links open by default
- Compat: also ephemeral like Private; as little blocking as possible, but tries to be distinct from other sessions; for sites where you need to temporarily disable content blocking

Also, this needs easy ways of moving a tab between modes.

@tbernard eh, that sounds weird and complex. At the very least disabling blocking would be a toggle rather than a session - no way I'm juggling 3 sessions like that.

Moving tabs is also not feasible - it has to be in the same process and same `GdkDisplay`.

@exalm As i said the idea is half-baked, but I do think those are the three distinct modes you need one way or the other.

How exactly it would all fit together in a coherent UX is a separate question :)

@tbernard @exalm I like the idea, but I don't think moving tabs between sessions is possible. What we could hve though is a way (a button?) to reopen a tab into another session kind.

@tbernard @exalm I think apart from adblocking something like noscript is essential for modern web browsing. And I also believe that there *should* be a UI like noscript in epiphany; not just set opaque options that handle what is blocked behind the screen. Informing and allowing fine-grained control over what code runs on the system is essential for empowering users. It can be a button with a counter that only expands when pressed; unobtrusive, yet powerful.

@KekunPlazas @kyle @tbernard
Yes, the later. Any browser auto-spawn from url should open private tab. Only explicit launch should be normal (so not former).

@ruff @KekunPlazas @kyle @tbernard
That sounds pretty good. Perhaps some "whitelisting" mechanism would make sense. Simplest way would be to remember the sites you opened in regular mode.
Problem: Some obnoxious sites now tell you to leave private mode to read an article.
So, an ephemeral, untrusted profile that is cleared on closing the tab, might be a useful addition to private mode.

@KekunPlazas @tbernard This is one big reason why I've been experimenting so much on the side with running browsers inside bwrap so I could have a persistent but externally-sandboxed browser for more trusted browsing, and a disposable sandboxed browser that erased its sandbox when the window closed, for untrusted browsing (like opening URLs from external sources).

The implementation is pretty simple, it's just a matter of maintaining bwrap rules long-term.

@KekunPlazas @kyle @tbernard Firefox Focus does that, and regular Firefox can be configured to clear everything when closed too. It also turns up the anti-tracking protection when in private browsing.

@kyle and so many sites dont't work when ads and trackers are blocked. The web is so broken.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Librem Social

Librem Social is an opt-in public network. Messages are shared under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license terms. Policy.

Stay safe. Please abide by our code of conduct.

(Source code)

image/svg+xml Librem Chat image/svg+xml