"No no, I'm not a thief, but me and my 1200 paying friends would like to take a look around your house, may we come in?"
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2026
1023 points (97.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
12525 readers
2695 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
No.
... Land Shark
Ok c'mon in, i thought you were maybe an intrusive ad
load more comments
(1 replies)
This shit should be illegal.
Another finger on the monkey's paw curls are the ad blockers become illegal.
load more comments
(1 replies)
When I browse a website without the dialog I assume they’re not disclosing something they should be, but as a web developer that’s super against this my own websites are dialog free too.
It’s sad that we expect this behavior from “normal” websites.
That's why I appreciate the few and far between sites that have a banner... That's just "we don't track or nuffin', see here what we do", so it's clear that they've considered, any potential scripts did load successfully, and they're hopefully not lying
But if I were browsing a website and that came up it would irritate me too. I’d probably end up blocking that message as well.
I just want to see the content damn it! 🤣
Site: We noticed you're using an ad blocker. Ads are how we pay for this site so it can be free for you
Me: I'm using an ad blocker because without it your site is a barely functional jumbled mess
Site: Please disable your ad blocker
Me: Also the last time I visited the site without a blocker my antivirus caught a malicious ad injection.
Site: 🤡
Site: We noticed you’re using an ad blocker. Ads are how we pay for this site so it can be free for you
"Ads are how we sell as much information about you as we possibly can so that it can be free for you. This sites content is the nectar in our fly trap. Get the fuck into our fly trap so we can extract as much from your humanity as we possibly can"
load more comments
(3 replies)
We tested software at work once.
It would show who visited your website, their socials, their phone number, e-mail and company they work for. You could also open a video that would show their mouse movement and clicks.
All by clicking accept.
And all of this assumes they even show that accept button properly. With all the vibe coders, I wouldn't even trust the button to do anything at all.
The web is just fucked. Not leaking your fingerprint sounds like an impossible task to me.
Yep. It's also interesting to see teams have conversations about implementing these things without anyone mentioning how creepy it seems. I guess these things are just normalized now :/
Entirely depends on the group. I've been in meetings with developers where we agreed it was creepy and pushed back. I've also been in meetings with marketing where they said it was normal, and meetings with others who said it was the cost the user paid to use our website. Ignoring of course that we sold stuff on the website, and that part of it was a management system that the users actually paid us money to use.
They stopped giving me those projects, which was a win for me but arguably a loss for the users.
I did though for a bit convince people that it was worthwhile to fix the accept/reject not working right, but that it wasn't a top priority to fix the reject button disabling tracking for all users of the site for the duration of the cookie. (Cookie stored "be creepy" flag. When the user clicked the button it stored a flag in the session so we could statistics, and then read the flag to set the cookie. Someone used the wrong session value and stuck it in the global store used to cache sitewide data, so when it went to see if they opted out it would see if anyone had in the last month. They fixed it after the data was all fucky for a few months and they realized my argument of "who would opt out? It's just the way the Internet works" was extremely wrong and no one will ever complain about being opted out of tracking)
ok ok ok ok look I use DNS level ad blockers, I'm big in favor of them, but this is the dumbest shit ever.
Running client side JavaScript that detects when an advertisement failed to load and then popping a request to disable your ad blocker is in no way, shape, or form "spying".
Don't get me wrong, plenty of sites absolutely spy on you, and the ads themselves definitely spy on you.
But being able to detect that ads didn't load? It's completely client side and is not spying 😂
That last line is just real bad logic.
yep for websites that's literally just checking if their ad element exists in the DOM tree.
const myAdElementSelector = "#fuckingAd";
const myAdElement = document.querySelector(myAdElementSelector);
if (!myAdElement) return "yes user is using adblocker";
simple as.
or maybe not honestly i don't know i just wanted everyone to know i know javascript.
2/10, should have used jQuery
or maybe not honestly I don't know I just wanted everyone to know I'm old enough to remember classic stackoverflow
load more comments
(2 replies)
Even without JavaScript, back in my day doing some basic CSS stuff could effectively* do this too.
*Background showed if image doesn't. Not hard to work around but did something if ad didn't load.
There was better technique using CSS but I ran small band websites for basically free tickets so I wasn't chasing riches. Just hosting cost. Single small ad was enough.
“We value your privacy” (as a commodity that we can legally sell with or without your permission. Do you want to download tracking cookies now or should we play coy?)
"We and our 947 partners value your privacy."
"We value your privacy"
Yeah, to sell it.
I have said it before and I'll way it again, an adblocker has gone from simply being a nuisance blocker to being an essential tool for not only privacy but also security.
My counterpoint to any website whining about you blocking their ads is this:
Untill website owners take full legal and financial responsibillity for any dammages the ads presented on their website causes my computer or property due to infected ads or an infected website, I won't even consider disabling my adblocker, I still probably won't, but I'll consider it.
Someone with that many partners is disease ridden.
This is created by someone who has no idea about websites, for an audience who has no idea about websites.
You don't need cookies, trackers or any personal data to detect an adblocker.
It's like accusing a store of spying for putting anti-theft gizmos on the merchandise.
Of course it's spying. Site dishes out an ad-link and observes if it gets loaded (can be done server side). That's the easiest way that comes to my mind. I'd say closely monitoring the behavior of your customers is spying. Especially as the customer does not know that/if he is being monitored in this way.
Putting "anti theft gizmos" in a store is also spying, at least if you mean cameras and not a locked cabinet for valuable goods.
The question is, if we agree that the other party has the right to spy on their users, and if/how the users have to be informed. Here stores have to announce video surveillance with a sign to anyone who enters.
This is pretty much never done server-side. It would unnecessarily increase server load by requiring callbacks and/or polling. It's always done in JavaScript or, for really simple setups, CSS.
Nobody running ads is considering users who block JavaScript wholesale. Not only is it a trivially small percentage of users, but it's also a waste of time: those users aren't going to stop blocking JavaScript to display ads anyway. Instead, they'll just make it so the site fails to render at all if JavaScript is disabled.
You've presented a solution looking for a problem.
As for anti theft gizmos, they're talking about the alarm tags and ink packs that get attached to merchandise so it sets of an alarm when you try to leave with it, or the item is covered in ink when you forcibly remove the security tag. These are passive anti-theft security and do not constitute spying.
Even if we were talking about video cameras, it's unreasonable to call that "spying". In order for something to be spying you need an expectation of privacy, which is not present when you're inside a private business. It would be like calling a security who observes customers a spy. It's absurd.
It's far easier to do this all client side. It's it spotting to detect when a resource load fails and log to the console?
Spying implies that someone, or at least some process, is watching me and my behaviour. But there is more to it, because that just describes a site working.
load more comments
(12 replies)
Eh, "did you ask to download something" is about the line where I would draw acceptability. You cannot use a website without them knowing if you made a download request for the content so I'm not bothered by them paying attention to the data to see what I downloaded.
It's when you start sharing the data with others, or using that data from others, or adding things to collect information and send it back that I mind.
If someone did everything on the up and up, they would see my browser request, information that says what it can do that the browser opts to send, and a cookie that identifies the browsing session.
I'm fine with that because I can clear it or change it at will, and without sharing anything the capability information is less useful than the session cookie.
There's rfid stuck to merchandise that makes an alarm go off when you exit without paying. Just like the HTML elements that are loaded or not loaded. No spying.
Wait, you realize those have been used to spy on you before right? In store and even between stores in certain cases.
If they travel between stores you must have stolen something, they are removed at checkout.
Depends on the product, some of them just uses stickers that are "deactivated"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ideally yes, but in reality it doesn’t always happen.
It’s like accusing a store of spying for putting anti-theft gizmos on the merchandise.
More like if you're trying to see how something fits and the anti-theft gizmo is getting in the way, so you try to move it off to the side. Then you hear a voice over the PA system asking you not to fiddle with the anti-theft device.
load more comments
(1 replies)
ublockorigin blocks the content and leaves them unable to see that you are using it.
Pretty sure you can still download it directly from their website.
Are you sure about that? I only use ublock origin and still get "can you not block our ads" popups sometimes
Update your filters, and/or couple it with uMatrix for extra fuckery.
Can't bitch about my use of an adblocker if I also block your fuckin' scripts.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The DNS I use blocks advertising. I love it. Get bent.
view more: next ›