Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I wouldn't say that it'd be strictly impossible, however if it can be done then it would come at a considerable cost to useability, versatility, etc.
One adjacent concept that comes to mind is the use of the
:visitedCSS tag to extract a user's browsing habits. I remember seeing a demonstration of this where an "are you human" captcha was shown but the choice of image in each box was controlled by the:visitedtag. I can't find that post, but this medium article demonstrates a similer concept. There are mitigations to this luckily, but a fullproof solution would be to remove the tag's functionality altogether, which would make certain websites (like the one we're on right now!) much more inconvenient to use.It seems trivial to me for a website to detect user behaviors that indicate the use of an adblocker. For example, if a request for a page is immediately followed by a request for a video on that page, rather than after 5-60 seconds, then they're likey using an adblocker. If there is an ad placed between two paragaphs in an article, but two distant paragraphs are visible at the same time, it is more likely (although not guaranteed) that they are using an adblocker. If a user triggers an abnormal amount of those heuristics then they get flagged as an adblocking user.
What you're saying makes sense about detection. I think my theoretical model might work around some of those, but then there are the user behaviors you're talking about that could still give it away.
I'm having trouble finding it again, but I remember seeing some articles a few weeks / months ago that Google wants to start using some kind of "3rd party authentication" service to make sure you are using an approved and unmodified browser. They want to roll this thing out to as many sites as they can. Of course they will pretend it's for your security / protection but it's really to block add-ons / extensions that they don't like.