You do realise reloading 100 images in JS would be easy for the browser to detect and just disable JS when it finds that happening. I.e. similar to how pop up blocking works. Detect misbehaving, prevent it, ask user to allow it. Same goes for canvas misuse same goes for bandwidth misuse.
Fighting that too is exactly what we need. Don't be such a push over.
For what it's worth, disabling JS today is actually more reasonable than it was 10 years ago. CSS and HTML actually gets you most of the way there now. (Talking about news style/blog sites, not web apps)
> You do realise reloading 100 images in JS would be easy for the browser to detect and just disable JS when it finds that happening.
Your proposal breaks Google Maps, as well as thousands of other sites, in order to implement an ineffective heuristic that pages can easily bypass by disguising image data as other data.
> For what it's worth, disabling JS today is actually more reasonable than it was 10 years ago. CSS and HTML actually gets you most of the way there now. (Talking about news style/blog sites, not web apps)
> Maybe we should be aiming for that?
Trying to use 10% market share to push the Web to disable JS is a good way to make that market share 0%.
So come up with another way, maybe rate limit changing an image's source? Rate limit creating new, visible, image nodes? Just because ad pushers will try to work around something doesn't mean we should just give up. At some point the worsening user experience will negatively impact a site's reputation and people's willingness to view/use it.
The other assumption here is that the bad actors are actually ad pushers. In fact somewhat reputable news sites like SFGate often push auto playing videos that take a few seconds to stop/close. The likelihood of SFGate, WaPo, or the BBC going to such lengths to display videos seems low — especially since the more aggressive solutions require more bandwidth.
> At some point the worsening user experience will negatively impact a site's reputation and people's willingness to view/use it.
You'd think so, but the same argument is used to claim that blocking isn't needed at all. "Obnoxious ads will negatively impact a site's reputation and people's willingness to view/use it."
Another problem with adding rate limits or other ever-increasingly complicated heuristics is that it makes the Web platform ever more difficult to deploy applications on. You may not see that as a problem, but it pushes app developers to support only native platforms --- where you can't block anything. More unintended consequences.
Web browsers are part of a complex ecosystem where seemingly straightforward actions have all kinds of unintended consequences. Browser developers think about these things all the time and have, in some cases, decades of experience dealing with them, yet they constantly get lambasted by armchair strategists who've thought about these issues for five minutes and decided it's all easy.
Your argument from authority doesn't really add any weight here.
We have already mostly solved the problem by playing whackamole for a few years. Ublock mostly have things solved now. Sure some lists are over the top but for the most part it just works.
Maybe you're just jaded and thing it's too "user land" or something but from my perspective the browser should be urging developers toward non shitty user experiences.
Because I know the ad pushers are basically never content with n-1 ads.
Native server side ads would be brilliant by the way. The ad quality drastically shoots up when the buyers have to trust the people pushing their ads.
Fighting that too is exactly what we need. Don't be such a push over.
For what it's worth, disabling JS today is actually more reasonable than it was 10 years ago. CSS and HTML actually gets you most of the way there now. (Talking about news style/blog sites, not web apps)
Maybe we should be aiming for that?