this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2026
1042 points (97.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

12257 readers
1472 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tja@programming.dev 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

but client side requires the client to cooperate. and the client is regularly not under your control.

I can't make sense of your second sentence.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The client needs to "cooperate" to do anything, including showing whatever it is says "please don't block our ads :'("

I mean that merely observing behaviour is not spying, because that covers any interaction. So what makes this spying?

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Except they all are spying on us and we all know it.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But I asked what makes this spying

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am saying we already know they are all spying. So while this humour might not quite fit, it's still just one step removed.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

All the cumulative information just got fed into LLM models through data brokers that have a record of everything you every said, combined with everything else. So, not really meh, so much as an existential risk, as LLM's are not AI and won't stop failing, can be used for repression quite well if not entirely accurately.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"meh" to the sentiment that a meme/message/whatever doesn't need to be accurate as long as you agree with the sentiment. Lots of people believe a lot of utter lies because of that attitude.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But it is kind of spying, they are sharing it with 1,300 paying clients. That can then do whatever with it.

Do they spy more elsewhere? Yes, does that mean this isn't spying, not necessarily. I don't think you made the case for why this doesn't qualify either.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

Detecting that your client failed to load an ad, and displaying a message attributing that to an ad-blocker, is not, in my book, anything like "spying". What else the website gets up to is not relevant to whether that is spying, which is what the original post said.

[–] MoonRaven@feddit.nl 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unless you're blocking Javascript, they have control to see what elements are loaded.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wait, you realize those have been used to spy on you before right? In store and even between stores in certain cases.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If they travel between stores you must have stolen something, they are removed at checkout.

[–] Killer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Depends on the product, some of them just uses stickers that are "deactivated"

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

Those stop transmitting. You can check it yourself, the readers are available, sometimes a phone is enough.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

Ideally yes, but in reality it doesn’t always happen.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago

Yes, I agree. Still not spying...