[Terretta]

What is with content that can't be seen unless you enable social media plugins?

In this case, I'm not sure its intentional (looks related to how Disqus is embedded), but this is one of several such cases in the last couple weeks.

[r0h1n]

I face that all the time as a user of NoScript+Ghostery+Adblock. I have to go through a process of whitelisting trial and error with new websites I come across everyday.

I wish there were a whitelist I could subscribe to that would only enable only those domains that are critical to loading content & comments for websites I visit.

[seiji]

Run Disconnect instead of Ghostery. Ghostery had a big fad following a while ago, but it's not actually good for you. Disconnect is much better.

(and stop running NoScript (nobody is designing sites to work for you), just run with Click to Plugin enabled, Disconnect, and ABP)

I've seen a lot of these "I can't see the article until I disable my 40 extensions" complaints recently, but they all work fine with my combination of Disconnect and ABP.

[r0h1n]

Thanks. I will try Disconnect. [Edited: I'm curious to know why you say Ghostery isn't good for users, and why Disconnect is better?]

To clarify, I wasn't complaining specifically about this article but in general while browsing the web.

Click to Plugin seems to be a Safari plugin, while I am a Firefox/Chrome user. As for ditching NotScript altogether, I'm not sure I'm ready for that yet, especially when I see sites that seem to be loading scripts from an dozen or two domains in addition to their own!

My paranoia comes with a (discomfort) cost attached, I know.

[npongratz]

Ghostery might not be as bad as the headlines suggest, but their tracking seems to be opt-out rather than opt-in:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5897682

http://lifehacker.com/ad-blocking-extension-ghostery-actuall...

http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/31/ghostery-a-web-tracking-bl...

A few months ago, Disconnect's founder (byoogle) spoke about why Disconnect is better:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5898165

Disclaimer: I used Ghostery for a long time and liked it, but now use Disconnect.

[rosser]

Ghostery's anonymized data sharing is opt-in.

Source: current, updated Ghostery user.

[npongratz]

Thank you. I appreciate the correction.

[yareally]

Oddly, I can see it just fine with JavaScript disabled. I do not use NoScript (I use Opera 12 and whitelist sites to allow JS or not via per site settings[1]). I also have Disqus added to my hosts file (but disabling JS will have the same effect). I would guess perhaps NoScript decides to partially allow some scripts and not others, making for chaos? That just seems like a mess waiting to happen that no developer can 100% predict. No JS or all JS is much easier, but half blocking is not so much when there's dependencies.

However, I realize when sites fail (re-enable JS) and adjust accordingly as anyone that does such things should if they're blocking content (though I'm used to adjusting since I've been using a browser with a minority user base for years). Alternatively, view it via Google cache search (and add strip=1 to the end to remove all images and JS) and run it through readability. While I would prefer all sites to not assume, that's not going to happen and comes down to if I care enough to work around to see the site content or just move along and deem it not worth it.

[1] http://help.opera.com/Windows/12.10/en/sitepreferences.html

[lukeschlather]

I only use Noscript, and I can view the content.

I primarily use NoScript because it does a really good job of blocking modern popups.

[Amadou]

I use NoScript because essentially every browser exploit in the last decade has had javascript as a necessary component. Running the minimum amount of javascript protects against even zero-day attacks.

I say web developers who put their convenience ahead of my security are bastards.

[r0h1n]

> I use Opera 12 and whitelist sites to allow JS or not via per site settings

May I ask how to arrive at what 3rd party domains need to be whitelisted for a site to load properly?

[yareally]

I block everything or not (if I site has that much stuff, I probably don't want anything loading from it since it's not just third parties that could be problematic as the site probably performs like crap with local stuff too). If I don't trust a certain third party, I just add it to my hosts file as it's probably common on a lot of sites.

Finding them involves using Opera Dragonfly, Firebug in Firefox or Live HTTP headers a Firefox Addon (or whatever similar in your browser of choice). Granted that's not easy for everyone to do, but I think most on HN could do that if they wished. Though that's what works for me and I'm just sharing in response to your request :)

[yareally]

Too late to edit my previous post, but if you would like to see my host file list, I can paste it somewhere. Some of it is from other lists and quite a bit is things I add.

[rosser]

but it's not actually good for you

[citation needed]

[jedunnigan]

>it's not actually good for you.

Can you elaborate? As in it decreases your privacy because it makes your browser uniquely-identifiable? Or something else...

[joosters]

I can see that article fine with Ghostery + Adblock. I wonder what URL is causing the problem?

[maggit]

Disabling JavaScript lets me read the site without enabling the social stuff. I noticed that the content seems to be there, but then gets removed, presumably by JavaScript.

(Ghostery+Chrome here)

[nodata]

I have Ghostery on (with all filters up-to-date and enabled), and also didn't see the content.

I had to click the "play once" discus button to get the _content_ (not the discussion) to appear.

[patrickg]

"me too", I had to use the URL in another browser to read the story. Ghostery + Adblock + Chrome

[HeXetic]

I see everything OK with NoScript enabled and blocking everything except google.com, googleapis.com, and blogger.com.

[leephillips]

I can see it. Does that mean I have some "social media plugin" enabled? I don't even know what that is, but I don't like the sound of it.

[jarrett]

It means you don't have a social media blocker plugin installed. Ghostery is one example of such a plugin. With Ghostery enabled, the article content on this particular page is invisible. (That's not how it's supposed to work, and I suspect it's due to a mistake on the website's end.)

[sp332]

I have Ghostery and RequestPolicy on, and I can see the content fine.

[alcari]

I see it fine with JS disabled in Firefox 23.