When people are blocking Javascript, big tech generally replaces their spying using a 1x1 frame or 1x1 image, usually wrapped inside of the "noscript" tags to prevent redundant data they collect.

This is actually a pretty big problem, because blocking frames and/or images does even more harm than good often times.
On the other hand, blocking noscript will render legit use cases of it useless, like submitting a form by selecting something in a pulldown menu with JS enabled, or showing a submit button with JS disabled for example.

The common sense of dealing with it is to block all off-domain (3rd party) requests, though in some cases I'd opt for 2nd party blocking (so everything hosted on subdomains of that same site) as well, but either way will break way too many websoytes because they're generally made by idiots who don't know how to code properly.

Or just fuck it all, and start using Tor and I2P for everything apart from Fedi, and view clearnet content from condoms like Invidious, Nitter, LibREEEddit, GobHub, AnonymousStackOverflow, and Rimgo.
Because let's be real, there's almost nothing left on the clearnet that's not either big tech (Cuckflare and Fastly counts as big tech by the way), or Fediverse, or Gitea instances.
Follow

@ryo Could be worse. There have been instances of people putting redirect metatags in noscript tags to redirect users who disabled JavaScript.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0
I think the only time I encountered that was on CuckCuckGlow where they redirect you to their rather useless html. subdomain.

@ryo I heard that Disney used to do that. I don't know if they still do though.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.