EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/09/25/easyjet-under-fire-after-claims-it-refused-let-drum-columnist-mark-leiser-board <comment><USER2> Freedom of speech is about stopping the government from interfering with your speech. AFAIK there's no law which prohibits a company doing business with you because you made a negative comment about them.

In this case it's slightly more grey because the passenger had already bought a ticket and it's not clear if the terms of the sale would allow easyjet to revoke the sale on that basis.

<comment><USER3> The contract you agree to when you buy an airline ticket normally contains a clause allowing the airline to deny boarding for any reason or no reason at all, with the only compensation to you being a refund of the ticket price. They usually don't exercise these clauses, but they are certainly free to do so at will. Had they denied him boarding, perhaps it would have been a bad business/PR decision, but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline.

<comment><USER4> Not necessarily, because clauses can be ruled invalid if they go against the law.

From the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which implements the EC Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (the Unfair Contract Terms Directive):

      Excessive rights for the supplier. Cancellation of a contract by the supplier
      can leave the consumer facing inconvenience at least, if not costs or other
      problems. Where that is so, a unilateral right for the supplier to cancel
      without any liability to do more than return prepayments is likely to be
      considered unfair (see Group 6(b), on terms which exclude even that
      liability).

<comment><USER5> That's one layer of regulation, but the problem with airlines is that there's yet another higher layer of regulations agreed at an international level to specifically govern and regulate air travel. It wouldn't at all surprise me if there's an international treaty governing the terms and conditions airlines can impose that trumps even EC Directives.

<comment><USER6> Unlikely. EasyJet is a UK/Europe based airline, and they mainly travel within Europe. I think they have tried to ignore a few EU directives before and got stung by the European courts, esp around compensation.

I've travelled EasyJet a couple of time, it's a cheap low cost airline. Just don't expect any customer service whatsoever if something goes wrong, it's like talking to a bunch of incompetent monkeys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "It wasn't until I asked him if he'd heard of free speech that the tone changed. He asked me if I was a lawyer and I told him I taught law at Strathclyde.

"He quickly had a word with his staff and then told me I'd better get on the flight because they were waiting for me."

What? So if you are a lawyer things change?

I would have sued the company and the manager personally (not sure this is allowed, still).

Edit: apparently the Social Media team was active during the incident and agreeing with the passenger, not with the manager.

<comment><USER8> Free speech applies to government restrictions on speech. It hasn't much to do with rules and terms of private service. For example, you can't use claims of "free speech" to get HN to reverse a ban on you should that happen.

I don't agree with what a couple of easyJet employees seem to have done without easyJet's approval, but right of a private company or person to refuse service would seem to trump this? It's not like they are refusing service because of a protected category (like discrimination based on race, etc).

Although this isn't even happening in America, so I don't even understand what laws apply. Freedom of speech as Americans understand it do not really even apply in some European countries to the extent it does in the US because of ridiculous slander laws and the ability to be thrown in jail for telling lies (about the Holocaust for example, which is a pretty awful thing to lie about).

<comment><USER9> As you note, the concept of free speech in Europe is somewhat different than in the U.S., but this includes your first sentence not applying in Europe to the same extent. In at least some European countries, the conception of free speech is more of a positive right to speak, subject as you note to limitations (such as an exclusion of racial incitement from the ambit of protected speech). But that may mean that non-governmental entities are also prohibited from interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least some circumstances. The most common is that employers are sometimes limited in whether they can fire people for protected speech. Another case is public accommodations, e.g. using political affiliation to refuse service in a hotel or restaurant. I don't know much about transportation law, but it's not inconceivable that there would be some common-carrier rules there.

(The above written with "some" and "may" qualifiers because European laws differ considerably between countries, and sometimes within countries.)

<comment><USER10> > But that may mean that non-governmental entities are also prohibited from > interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least some > circumstances.

Especially for public accommodations, which an airline servicing a public airport might well be.

AFAIK, even the US put restrictions on what businesses can and can not do when they qualify as public accommodations (CRA, ADA, state-level anti- discrimination laws and state-level breastfeeding protection laws for instance).

<comment><USER9> Some Google-Books perusal suggests that airlines in the U.S., if they sell tickets to the public (rather than operating as private carriers) have an even stronger obligation than public accommodations, as common carriers who are required to provide service to the general public at the stated rates without discrimination, like phone companies, railroad companies, telegraph companies, ferry boats, etc. Whereas public accommodations like hotels are only prohibited from certain enumerated kinds of discrimination (race, religion, etc.). Seems to be a concept in 18th-century English law that crossed over to the early US, and stayed around in limited contexts (transportation and communications).

Admittedly, not specifically related to freedom of speech in that case.

<comment><USER10> > even stronger obligation than public accommodations, as common carriers

Ah yes, I knew there was something beyond public accommodation but could not remember the concept of common/public carrier. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can anyone corroborate this story?

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that gate staff of a delayed flight are monitoring Twitter and comparing it to their passenger manifests in realtime. A more likely scenario in my mind is that the dude was hostile and abusive towards the staff, they perhaps told him that he couldn't say something like that and be expected to board, and he chose to interpret that as with respect to his tweet.

I don't know, I wasn't there. However, before sentencing EasyJet, it would be nice to have a corroboration of the facts.

<comment><USER12> Suppose you are an expert in creating a buzz. One day you want to create a buzz around you. You tweet a bit, discuss it with some people until they say that they're not happy with your tweet. You actually get on the plane fine. But still you fabricate most of the story to get the buzz you were looking for. Far fetched?

<comment><AUTHOR> Copy-pasting the same comment more than once in a post == not cool.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6444903](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6444903)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6444838](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6444838)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Who cares about the legality of them trying to deny the passenger a flight. Whether they were within their rights or not, this was just plain idiocy on the part of the airline's staff. I hope more stuff like this happens. It's called accountability and we all are subject to it.

<comment><USER14> I think it's great, and the company shouldn't have backed down.

It's juvenile to expect an airline to pay for something they didn't cause. We don't know if they caused the delay or not, but it seems likely that they didn't.

If I were running a service and someone spitefully insulted that service on blatantly irrational grounds, I'd refuse them service, too.

And if that's illegal in the EU---well, that's why I'd never run a business in the EU.

<comment><USER13> Sounds like a sure-fire plan, for failure. Turning away money from a customer because you don't like something they said on twitter is not only juvenile in itself, but also a terrible way to run a business. A better way is to address the customer's complaint in a respectable fashion. So it's either be _right_ , win an argument, and don't get the money or take it on the chin and get the money. Seems pretty straight forward. Otherwise, why are you even in business?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can imagine a company not dealing with particular individuals - say, due to an ongoing litigation or some personal conflict, like a restaurant owner telling a rude/disruptive customer "we won't serve you ever again". And that probably would be both legal and morally okay.

However, for airlines that should (must?) be limited to not selling tickets - if they have sold a ticket, then they must fulfill their end of the bargain.

<comment><USER16> I'd go one step further, as air lines are providers of critical infrastructure, they should have damn good reasons to ban me from buying tickets at their airline.

<comment><USER17> Domestic flights in the UK aren't critical infrastructure, they're luxury. We have trains.

<comment><USER18> > Domestic flights in the UK aren't critical infrastructure, they're luxury. > We have trains.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

<comment><USER19> There are ferries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is infantile, I don't want to see this type of content here.

A low level company manager making a stupid decision, an entitled journalist trying to drum up controversy using his position and the squawks of Twitter responding have no place in 'hacker news' or 'news' in general.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "This is infantile, I don't want to see this type of content here."

Flag it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> What's the problem? His original tweet encourages his followers to "Get right into em!". Oh sorry, you want to whip up an online frenzy about a company AND use their services?

</comment><comment><USER22> Somehow I doubt the story. Boarding personal has better things to do than to check twitter against the list of people baording.

<comment><USER23> Probably he got a call from HQ where some "big data" geek is inordinately proud of his 10-line script for mashing up Twitter with the passenger manifest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think this will hurt easyJet. If it had been Ryanair people would just shrug and say, what did you expect? But easyJet's schtick has always been cheap _and_ cheerful, better value for money than stuffy old BA but good service where it matters. And anecdotally having flown often with all three, neither Ryanair nor BA's typical passengers really care about social media, the former because they just want cheap (or there is no other airline doing that route), and the latter because they get their brand messages via other channels. But easyJet's do.

<comment><USER24> Except easyjet really isn't that cheap any more.

<comment><USER25> Compared to when? What about comparing their current prices to before low cost flights were popular.

I'm flying to Western Europe, with baggage and an extra legroom seat for £120 return. I think that's superb value for money.

<comment><USER24> They launched as a budget airline. Now they're either same price as BA or slightly cheaper (unless you're lucky enough to get their first few cheap seats).

<comment><USER26> Yes, because competition from easyJet forced BA to lower their prices.

<comment><USER24> That as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have some serious doubts about this story. Strathclyde Law School does not have Mark Leiser listed as a law lecturer. Searching for "Mark Leiser Strathclyde" produced a page that seems to indicate that he's a PhD student.

If he's not being truthful about this, then I for one would think that he might not be telling the entire truth. Easyjet have replied to this indicating that he might have been disruptive.

Reading this guy's twitter feed also is eye-opening, he comes across as a self-important prick.

<comment><USER28> From his academic page,

"I am a PhD Student in Cyber-Law at the University of Strathclyde. I am researching the effects, limits and the legitimacy of regulation and law in cyberspace. I am currently researching what "activates" the active dot in the active/pathetic dot matrix within the context of cyber-legitimacy. My interests are governance -Internet and Corporate, copyright, trademarks, social media and Internet Regulation. _I lecture part of Internet Law and am a tutor for Internet Law, Commercial Law, Business Law, Legal methods, and Voluntary Obligations._ "

Emphasis mine. He is a graduate student who also teaches.

<comment><USER27> Sorry to be pedantic about this (I'm an academic), but the fact that he tutors and lectures doesn't make him a lecturer. A law lecturer is someone who has been hired and holds that title. I taught a lot while doing my PhD, and I wouldn't have dared to call myself anything other than a PhD student. If anything, my level of suspicion has gone up.

<comment><USER28> I would not have called myself a lecturer, either - I also have a PhD, and taught while I was doing it. But I also don't know what the customs are in the UK regarding titles, both official and unofficial.

I also think it's worth noting that I think he does have a law degree. He says "was enrolled," but I can't tell if he also means it was awarded. (I also had to look up LLB and LLM, and I admit I'm still confused on if those are equivalent to the JD that is granted in law schools in the US.)

<comment><USER27> The UK academic titles are very specific: Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor), Reader (short of US tenure), Professor. I can't call myself a lecturer unless I have been appointed to that title.

Law degrees are different as well, there's no direct equivalence. The levels are LLB (minor), practice diploma (sort of JD), LLM (masters), and Phd (graduate school). It's possible to write a PhD in law without having received a law degree, although it is common for law PhDs to at least have finished an LLM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Holy cow, this is why I quit all the mainstream social media and never even got on Twitter in the first place... because people treat it WAY too seriously

<comment><USER30> It can be pretty serious. Especially as a tool for consumers to voice their concerns or disapproval of corporations. That can do some damage.

<comment><USER29> Its still just people talking about stuff. Things coming from an official corporate account are different matter, but people should be able to say something sucks without having to fear repercussions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Barbara Streisand effect is already kicking in.

</comment><comment><USER12> Suppose you are an expert in creating a buzz. One day you want to create a buzz around you. You tweet a bit, discuss it with some people until they say that they're not happy with your tweet. You actually get on the plane fine. But still you fabricate most of the story to get the buzz you were looking for. Far fetched?

</comment><comment><USER32> It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry

Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an action that negatively affects the sales of a company and if you expect to benefit from it, in return for which the company doesn't allow you, I think it's fair.

You can't say Mc Donald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be hypocrisy). Well, whether Mc Donald's should let you buy a burger from them AFTER you just said that is solely their choice. I'm sure it must be buried in some TOC bs of theirs somewhere. But you can't be a hypocrite and expect sympathy for it, either. In all fairness, if his money wasn't refunded, then it's probably fair that he fights with them. Otherwise, if he had been refunded already, it's just hypocrisy at best.

And being a hypocrite and being offended doesn't give you any special rights either. Just saying.

Stop thinking of the airlines as someone else and imagine if it was YOUR company. Imagine if you ran a cloud services company and this guy wrote a blogpost about why your company sucks (which negatively affects your sales) and then bought a dozen cloud servers from you (secretly, because you're his only option). I would have no problem in refunding his money and revoking his service with a polite smile and a "Sorry", if it was my company.

<comment><USER33> > _It 's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As > if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a > whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has > no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so > fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry_

Well, as a quote it's quite uninsightful.

Would you say the same thing to a woman that said she was offended by you creepily staring at her at a conference or making sexist jokes in her presense? Would you say the "n" word to an African American and not care if he would be offended? It's just a word after all.

Offending people can be a real problem, not just some imaginary whine. That's because feelings are real too -- not just actions ("sticks and stones", etc).

> _Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you > perform an action that negatively affects the sales of a company and if you > expect to benefit from it, in return for which the company doesn 't allow > you, I think it's fair._

What exactly is fair about it?

Have you thought this through? If you live in a rural area where only AT&T has coverage, albeit spotty, and you tweet that "their coverage is dreadful here" should they cut you off from their service altogether?

What you basically say is that companies should be allowed to punish people (even paying customers), for speaking out about them?

> _You can 't say Mc Donald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be > hypocrisy)._

No, hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. In this case, saying "I would never eat McDonalds" and then eating.

Saying they sucks and then eating it, it's perfectly normal. Heck, I think they suck, and I've eaten several times from them. Lots of reasons.

For one, I was in a country were I ocassionally needed home delivery and McDonalds was the only chain that offered.

Second, sometimes it's the nearest fast food restaurant, or the only one in some small town.

Third, their food might suck, but you find the prices great, compared to the alternatives (or vice versa).

> _Well, whether Mc Donald 's should let you buy a burger from them AFTER you > just said that is solely their choice._

No, they should serve someone who criticizes the same as any other customer. You might not be able to shout it inside their restaurants (that's their business), but they should have no right at all to refuse you based on what you say to your twitter or blog or whatever.

> _And being a hypocrite and being offended doesn 't give you any special > rights either. Just saying._

You keep using that word, "hypocrite". I don't think it means what you think it means.

There was nothing hypocritical about what he did. The guy was scheduled to flight with EasyJet, noticed some bad thing happening a few days before related to the company and twitted about it.

Being critical of a service doesn't mean you are a hypocrite of using it. That's the silliest notion I've heard all day.

New Yorkers are critical of the status of their subway service all the time, but they still use it. And people are critical and complain about the products they bought ALL the time. That I find a fault with iPhone 4 and tweet about it, shouldn't mean Apple shouldn't sell me iPhone 5.

That is what moves a market forward.

What you're saying essentially amounts to people not being able to critisize products and services they use, for fear of being denied them by the company.

It's completely bollocks.

> _Stop thinking of the airlines as someone else and imagine if it was YOUR > company. Imagine if you ran a cloud services company and this guy wrote a > blogpost about why your company sucks (which negatively affects your sales) > and then bought a dozen cloud servers from you. I would have no problem in > refunding his money and revoking his service with a polite smile and a > "Sorry", if it was my company._

Are you kidding me? People talk about Linode and Heroku and AWS all the time, posting the problems they find using them, how this or that sucks, etc.

If that's your idea of running a company, throwing out customers who complain publicly instead of fixing the issues, then I wouldn't want to be your customer.

<comment><USER32> >If that's your idea of running a company, throwing out customers who complain publicly instead of fixing the issues, then I wouldn't want to be your customer.

You misinterpreted my reasoning and took it somewhere else :)

>No, they should serve someone who criticizes the same as any other customer. You might not be able to shout it inside their restaurants (that's their business), but they should have no right at all to refuse you based on what you say to your twitter or blog or whatever.

If you do something that negatively affects my company, without giving my company a fair chance/benefit of doubt, but ironically try to benefit from it, then I would have no problem revoking you of my services. Even If I'm the only available option to you. Of course I am welcome to constructive criticism and bashing me on your blog is totally fine. I will try to fix my mistakes. But it is different if you mis-inform your readers that I'm a bad company and if you use my company's services behind the scenes because it's one of the best options for you, then that is hypocrisy and the day when I find out it's basically game over for you. Because what you essentially did was:

1) Abuse of power. (You had hundreds of followers on your blog and negatively marketed my company to them on purpose)

2) Absolutely zero journalistic integrity. (for the same reason as 1)

>Third, their food might suck, but you find the prices great, compared to the alternatives (or vice versa).

3) Backstabbing and hypocrisy. (You betrayed your readers, my company and tried to benefit in the process).

At the end of the day, every company needs to profit. If you seem to be in it's way, I don't think it's wrong to get you out of it's way. And companies don't need such customers either. It would be shooting in their foot, literally.

>Saying they sucks and then eating it, it's perfectly normal.

Seriously? If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what else is.

<comment><USER34> > then that is hypocrisy and the day when I find out it's basically game over > for you

Hypocrisy is not illegal (nor should it be). Not honoring contracts, on the other hand, is (and it should be).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If a consumer has parity with a service provider it may be hypocritical to both publicly criticize and use the service. However, when a service provider has leverage over the market; e.g. Microsoft 10 years ago; there is no hypocrisy.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think this is a case of the employees acting out and not a corporate policy or corporate retaliating. Nevertheless, EasyJet will be taking most of the brunt of the bad PR

</comment><comment><USER37> He did actually get on the flight so the title is misleading.

</comment><comment><USER38> Initially I read "to let communist on board"...

<comment><USER39> 10 years too early or 60 years too late.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> how about throwing passengers out from the flying plane for doing the same via onboard wifi? or, at least, denying them right to use toilets.

</comment><comment><USER41> Not letting lawyers on board sounds perfectly ok for me...</comment>


Kandeh Yumkella: Energy chief on a mission to end poverty - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/africa/kandeh-yumkella-energy-poverty/

<comment><AUTHOR> "Rather than a bunch of feel good projects for Africa, Work hand in hand with African Countries to create a brighter future"</comment>


Business card-sized Japanese phone bucks the giant-phone trend - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/?p=1396657 <comment><USER3> All I want is an iPhone 3G with an all screen front. It would fit 4.2-4.5 inch screen with ease and it's the size of my wallet. iPhone X specs in the iPhone 3G body. Thicker is fine, just make the battery last a long time. Honestly, there must be people like me out there. I'll gladly pay $1k for a 4ish inch version of iPhone X.

Large phones are fine, to each their own. But some of us what small phones. And I have large hands, but I want to be able to comfortably use a phone with one hand.

Typed in iPhone SE.

<comment><USER4> SE owner here. Total tech nerd, but I just want a small phone that fits in my back pocket when I'm cycling. It makes me very sad that they're all getting enormous.

When I'm out, I'm just sending messages. Maybe a bit of maps and _occasionally_ Safari. But all of my proper browsing is done at home, on an iPad or my Mac. When I'm out, I'm out. The phone is a tool, it's not the thing I'm doing.

<comment><USER5> I understand your point of view, but from a market standpoint you're a niche of a niche of a niche.

I feel you, because I have the same feeling about many mass produced products. I find that the real problem with phone and electronics is that their nature prevents the development of "artisanal" alternatives, which, market-wise, are the only option that can takle the need of a small pool of users like in your case.

<comment><USER6> Iphone SE users aren't a small pool of users.

The decision by Apple is either based solely on making more money short- term/mid-term while ignoring a part of their customer base, or waiting for the right entry point with introduing a new bigger full screen but overall smaller model.

Many things Apple did in the early days weren't making sense from a market standpoint, like giving away software for free. At least that's what MS would have told you at that time.

That's why it's hard even for Apple to really price in the economic long-term cost of not supporting high-income and higly influental niche groups - <USER2> isn't only monocausality to consider when calculating ROI.

<comment><USER7> A lot of iphone SE users just bought it because it was cheap though. That's the "niche of a niche" comment above.

I like smaller phones, so we'll see how much people care about them now that the iphone 8 is the smallest good phone apple sells. Am hoping they do make a smaller iphone X style phone, but....we'll see.

Btw, for anyone reading this, popsockets go a long way to making larger phones more comfortable.

<comment><USER8> > A lot of iphone SE users just bought it because it was cheap though. That's > the "niche of a niche" comment above.

The SE was not a cheap phone. It might be considered so in some high-income bubbles, but for most people it isn't/wasn't.

<comment><USER9> The SE was a cheap phone. $399 or ~$16 a month.

In the US, that's a cheap phone.

<comment><USER10> It started at $499, IIRC, then was downpriced in its second incarnation(?)

There was a period where storage was doubled, but IIRC it seemed that options went down again in the SE (maybe when the price dropped)?

<comment><USER10> Can't edit - but I was thinking of the larger size(s) - the original base price was $399...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is hard to believe that Apple, of all companies, does not understand how customers build their "device portfolios":

• one device = biggest phone

• two devices = 13/12 laptop or iPad Pro 12 + medium phone

• three devices = 13/12 laptop, iPad 10.5 + smallest phone

• four devices = three devices + watch / AR glasses

It does not take a genius to see that the iPhone SE form factor is the logical choice for Apple customers with three or four devices. These are the customers spending the most money in Apple's ecosystem.

In the absence of a product visionary at the helm, large companies may want to ask why US/EU customers purchased a product developed for the Indian market. Abandoning emerging markets' low-cost phones does not require abandoning the global market of customers buying a coordinated portfolio of fit-for-purpose devices.

On a secondary footnote, the creation of "Screen Time" is likely a pre-emptive defense against future lawsuits for smartphone health consequences, ranging from eye health to psychological effects on developing brains.

What reduces screen time? A small phone like the iPhone SE that can still be used with headphones for audio. So there is a legal argument to be made for small phones: the presence in a corporate product line allows liability to be shifted to customers — if you suffer negative consequences from screen time, you should have bought the small phone to discourage screen use.

On the other hand, if companies only offer large phones, and we find out years later that they knew the health risks of excess screen time were increased by large phones, they would have contributed to the problem instead of possible solutions (like the iPhone SE).

<comment><USER12> I think screen time is a very clever play by apple against Facebook/Instragram, who are known as having time used per day as their core metric. With screen time, users see that they again spent several hours on those useless apps and start thinking about how they spend their time.

Overall a win/win for people who get pulled too much into social media.

<comment><USER13> Or maybe it's just Apple's way of pointing out that battery life correlates to the amount of time the screen is on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _It also has no camera. It has built-in apps, though, including a Web browser, a calculator, and a calendar—so sure, it 's technically a smartphone_

The established term for a phone with that functionality is "feature phone". In fact, it's even in the URL:

[https://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/product/feature_phone/ky01l/](https://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/product/feature_phone/ky01l/)

<comment><USER15> I don't think I can survive without a camera. I would take a feature phone with a high quality camera. Sacradkce everything else (except battery) and I'll buy it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What actually happened to the market for 4" phones? I came across my old Droid Incredible II the other day and it felt so much better in my hand than any other smartphone I've held in the last 3 years. I could comfortably type on it with one hand, something I couldn't dream of doing well on a 5" or larger phone.

<comment><USER17> I honestly believe the market is still there, as is so often the case the lack of choice is nothing to do with market or sales.

The SE was far from a failure.

So I can only conclude that the makers would prefer everyone on larger phones for some reason.

<comment><USER5> How do you honestly believe that? Market is not a feel. Companies with multi- billion dollar revenues invest gazillions into researching the market. They can't afford to come up with a product based on "honestly believing". Then they apply resources to tackle a potential need. As much as I would like that my feelings could overlap with the markets, I'm aware that I'm a niche, and I don't think that judging market choices through the lens of what I'd like can lead to anything but a skewed personal view of a market problem.

The SE was far from a failure not because of the size, but because for the first time it let people into the iPhone realm at a much lower price (without being just an old phone with a lower price). It had the "new" tag on it, although it was basically a product that Apple could generate by mixing up a couple of production lines with much lower assembly costs. By any measurement, the iPhone SE is an old and technically lacking phone with a superior and hyper-sticky software ecosystem. It was also the workhorse of carriers who could sell expensive plans with a lower device subsidization fee.

Apple's marketing is best in class when it comes to framing the complexity of market tactics and vendor-carrier relationships within a simple and clear narrative. The underlying mechanism are still as intricated as they can be.

<comment><USER17> Yet companies do precisely that all the time, in many markets and niches. They lead rather than respond to the market. Such is the nature of companies that get large enough to be multinationals. Customers count for not that much, so take it or leave it.

Almost no one wanted headphone sockets actually removed because anyone who actually wanted bluetooth already had the capability, and countless surveys reveal a wish to keep them. Most recently Oneplus finding 80%+ of their customers wanted to keep it, so their next phone removed it. Almost every company has now followed suit, so it's damn clear they are not researching the market, unless it's to ascertain the extent of what they can get away with.

Same with Google+, almost no one wanted it, yet for several years there was insistence one would have it.

So I maintain the presence or absence of a product or service is often little or nothing to do with market sales. Or one can believe in perfect markets and perfect filling of opportunities.

<comment><USER18> Of course sales matter. What doesn't matter is people pissing and moaning (e.g. over headphone jack) if they end up buying your product anyway. Apple has always been in the forefront of removing legacy features before the market was really ready for them to be removed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Twenty-somethings today don't remember a time before the smartphone era when there was a race for phones to be smaller.

Cell phones were initially huge. Actually, first they existed as "car phones". They were heavy boxes the size of a big bottle of laundry detergent, bearing a handset with a number pad. They operated on AMPS (analog mobile phone service). After that cell phones then became smaller and more portable, but still huge, resembling household cordless phones. There was a race in the 1990's and early 2000's for smaller and smaller phones. Having a smaller phone than the next person was a status symbol.

Smartphones have disrupted that trend, because small touch screens suck. The trend has not entirely been disrupted: smartphones cannot be _too_ large. Then they turn into tablets. And, _thin_ matters, still.

<comment> another-cuppa Phones started to get too small in the 2000s. I can't remember which phones in particular but some definitely had buttons too small for most people's hands.

<comment><USER20> My old Nokia (don't remember the model) had buttons so small I had to use my nails instead of my fingertips!

<comment><USER21> I had a phone that had almost no buttons. At least there were gaps.

[https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0S0AAOSwaB5Xp- lT/s-l300.jpg](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0S0AAOSwaB5Xp-lT/s-l300.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This looks somewhat similar in purpose to the light phone 2: [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/light- phone-2#/](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/light-phone-2#/) .

I've been looking forward to that phone because their ethos seems to be in line with what I want: all the "directed" tools you want (phone, text, contacts, alarm, maps, Uber/Lyft, etc) but nothing that lets you get into "mindless scroll" mode like social network apps or a browser.

<comment><USER23> The Nokia Classic phones are probably the closest released phone that fits this criteria so far.

I recently got a Nokia 105 (2017) for my parents as the bespoke charger on their old phone broke, and it was cheaper to get a new phone. I played with it a bit, and as far as a phone goes it's top notch for making calls, but the lack of even basic apps like maps or messaging (other than SMS) make it pretty limited.

The phone has a grand total of 4MB of RAM in contrast with the latest smart phones which have up to 6GB. Android is too bloated as an OS for feature phones, but I'd love to see a new platform come out designed for limited RAM (maybe a few hundred megabytes) which it's easy to develop apps for, yet still produces devices that last for a week or two on a single charge. In developing countries these phones are still pretty popular, and from the comments people are posting here would go down pretty well with the HN croud.

<comment><USER24> It is all a matter of what you want a device to do (I know it seems obvious).

I had a couple of what you could call a "smartphone" before "smartphone" existed (Sony Ericsson P900/P910), which anyway had a battery that normally lasted a couple days.

I have an (ageing) Samsung Note, but what I now use daily (since a few years) and carry with me at all times a Nokia 1280:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_1280](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_1280)

I can make and receive calls and SMS', it is tiny and extremely robust, it has been dropped countless times without any damage (shell and battery just "explode" and you have to find all the pieces and then reassemble it), battery lasts days, it simply fills most of my needs, without having to carry with me at all times a (bulky and fragile) smartphone.

<comment><USER25> > I have an (ageing) Samsung Note, but what I now use daily (since a few > years) and carry with me at all times a Nokia 1280

Curious to hear what carrier you use it on. 2G options in the US at least are severely limited.

<comment><USER24> In EU 2G is just fine (yet?), Italy here, but never had problems in EU and near countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Wish these were not as expensive as they are. This, the new Palm phone and similar devices could potentially start a minimalist (and "cute"?) revolution where devices focus on some core aspects with battery life closer to that of feature phones.

<comment><USER27> That new Palm phone sounds like exactly what I've been looking for for two years, except for the carrier exclusive and the part where it only goes with another phone, not on its own-which might not be so bad, except for the extra $20/mo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm surprised at all the disappointment about no small smartphones existing. I'm typing this on a Sony Xperia Compact (XZ1) I just bought. It's cheap, battery lasts two full days after 1-2 years of usage (I lost my last one, that's why I bought a new one). It works great and have a pretty clean version of Android.

Instead of complaining, why not just go buy a small phone? I thought people in here knew better than to complain without doing any research.

<comment><USER29> Does unlocking the bootloader still erase the DRM keys for the camera's image processing and turn it into a piece of garbage? That's how it worked on my Z3C. Other than that, decent phone if not a biiit too big still.

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2014/10/02/unlocking-the- bootl...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2014/10/02/unlocking-the-bootloader- on-sonys-xperia-z3-and-z3-compact-causes-poor-low-light-camera-performance- thanks-to-drm/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I thought the iPhone 5 was the last decently sized phone made. I recently held an older iPhone model and it was actually smaller and even better. I understand that most people, like my wife, use their phone for everything and a bigger screen makes sense. But I spend my day in front of a computer and my phone is for calls, texting, and photos. Throw in directions/maps, and I would gladly live without almost everything else.

</comment><comment><USER31> Now that all the phones coming out have a bezelless display, why aren't manufacturers reducing the whole phone's size instead of extending the screen to the top and bottom. Take OnePlus 5 and OnePlus 6 for example. The OnePlus 6 could've easily been equal to only the screen size of OnePlus 5 but they chose to extend the screen to top and bottom instead.

<comment><USER32> I don't understand the quest for bezel-less designs. It makes all phones look the same. It has meant that all but one manufacturer have moved the fingerprint reader to the back, or removed it. For someone like me who often use my phone while it's laying flat on the table, it means that I can't easily unlock it. Even FaceID wouldn't help, because it can't see my face in that angle.

Then there's the notch. Come on, that just stupid, just add the 4 or 5mm of bezel a the top, it's fine. Why would I need the extra two top corners of screen, the screen is big enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Not sure why this is news. There are a whole host of credit Card size phones available in China and you easily buy them on Aliexpress/Taobao at around < USD$30. Here's one example: [https://www.aliexpress.com/item/ultrathin-mini- metal-credit-...](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/ultrathin-mini-metal-credit- card-phone-3-5mm-jack-remote-camera-MP3-3-0-bluetooth- BT/32841185000.html?spm=2114.search0188.8.131.52cd539ebduxE6P&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_4_10065_10068_318_319_317_10696_450_10084_10083_10618_452_535_534_533_10307_532_5023915_204_10059_10884_323_10887_100031_320_321_322_5727615_10103_448_449,searchweb201603_45,ppcSwitch_0&algo_expid=66247b9f-a1b8-4f5d-a523-bdd3e1f72f24-32&algo_pvid=66247b9f-a1b8-4f5d-a523-bdd3e1f72f24)

<comment><USER14> Those don't have an eink display (yet), so battery life and sunlight readability won't be as good.

(Battery life might not be all that much better since the display of a feature phone is going to be used far less than a smartphone, but the readability certainly can be.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I just wish you could find pocketable 4.7" phones in the US. They exist but are either not imported or don't support domestic LTE bands and not worth it. Older flagships are guaranteed to be Chinese knockoffs and not worth the bother. We don't all want a phablet.

<comment><USER35> The iPhone SE was a dream come true, though even smaller than 4.7" and obviously an iPhone which could be a dealbreaker for some. Funny enough, I feel like basically any smartphone with current flagship internals in any 2-3 year old flagship form factor would be ideal for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I really like the idea of an e-ink display so that the battery will last longer, but they are also not so strong and I'm afraid it won't last long if you treat this phone like other phones (toss into your backpack or put it in your back pocket).

</comment><comment><USER37> To help break my addiction I'm looking for a phone with good camera, basic apps like uber and email, but small enough that surfing the net isn't great and clash of clans is unusable. :) Any small phone recommendations?

<comment><USER38> I think the best phone you can get today, regardless of price, is the iPhone SE, even though it's not being sold by Apple anymore.

<comment><USER39> Sadly iphones aren't an option. It disrespects my freedoms in pretty glaring ways.

<comment><USER40> Ironically, the Apple phone ecosystem is the only viable option, if you care about data privacy.

<comment><USER41> I would argue that an Android phone without Google apps (e.g. LineageOS) is just as good; perhaps even superior, as you don't have to rely on an arbitrary gatekeeper in order to install software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Might consider it if it wasn't so expensive. In a world where feature phones that are marginally larger cost under twenty dollars it's hard to justify.

</comment><comment><USER43> Would love to switch to a phone like this, only problem I have is text messages are inherently insecure and I would have to create a convoluted setup of texting from a devices with apps like signal and forwarding calls to this dumb device...wish there was a simple phone with a restricted build that only included signal and WhatsApp or something similar, in addition to the basic phone features.

<comment><USER44> If only you could hack signal on to whispernet...

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Oh god yes. I have a 5 inch phone going on 2 years now and it's about as big as I can tolerate. I dread the day it dies and I have to get another, because I literally don't see (mid to high end) phones below this size anymore (gsmarena shows... 6 fitting this bill released in the past year).

</comment><comment><USER45> For me the larger screen has much more value than the ability to have a small phone with me. For typing reasons and for doing research on a larger screen or reading news or ebooks.

Also, I use my iPhone more like a PDA, the telephone feature is used lesser and lesser. And if I do use it to do phone calls I do it in combination with my AirPods while my iPhone is in my pocket. And in that case perceptionally my AirPods + Siri ("Hey Siri, call my wife") are my telephone.

The way I see it a small(er) phone or even a small dumbphone makes sense for people who use their devices mainly for doing phonecalls.

Having said that I must add that going for a run with my iPhone 7 Plus is cumbersome because it's too bulky. I need it to listen to music while running. Cant't load music on my running watch from Garmin (Fenix 5)

</comment><comment><USER46> The market wants mobiles phones and PDAs to be the same device. That is what phones with large screens are.

</comment><comment><USER47> Reminds me of the Franklin REX (which I had in my wallet for a while -- eventually donated them to the CHM)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REX_5000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REX_5000)

<comment><USER48> That's good. I can't think of anything but the SNL skit - last minute of this video: [https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/jeffreys- with-...](https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/jeffreys-with-sean- hayes/3505971)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> What's needed is a carrier offering which allows you to have a small phone on an account in addition to a big one, at no extra charge. Both ring on the same number, and you can't have independent calls on both at the same time, and there's some limitation to prevent using both for major data at the same time.

Then you should be able to get a $49 feature phone as a spare, or for when you don't need a big phone.

(Yes, you can kludge this up using Google Voice, or Twilio, or running Asterisk on your home Linux server, but it needs to be easier than that.)

<comment><USER25> > What's needed is a carrier offering which allows you to have a small phone > on an account in addition to a big one, at no extra charge. Both ring on the > same number, and you can't have independent calls on both at the same time, > and there's some limitation to prevent using both for major data at the same > time.

Why would a carrier offer for free something they can easily monetize? A proxy for this would be how Verizon charges customers a monthly fee for the "soft" sim present in Apple watches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> >It has a 380mAh battery, which sounds abysmal, but the ePaper display should not use very much power, so we wouldn't be surprised if its battery life is just fine regardless.

It has a LTE radio in it. Battery life is not going to be fine. The 80g phones of the '00s era with 2 week battery life are just a fond memory. The technology is degrading over time.

</comment><comment><USER51> I'd like to see a flip phone again. Large screen, small size (and would actually justify the modern trend to make everything incredibly thin).

Having said that I'd like to know if this small phone is a success or not. If no one buys it then maybe everyone is happy with phablets.

<comment><USER32> Flip phones was never really my thing, I like the old school Nokia designs better.

I have some really weird wishes for a new phone. Something like the Nokia 104, but with 4G and wifi for tethering support. Oh, and a Google Authenticator app, for work.

If possible I would also like the option of having an Linux or Mac OS app for writing SMS messages on my laptop, so I can have a real keyboard.

<comment><USER51> Flip phones were huge in Japan from about 2000 up to the iPhone. Nokia-style chocolate bars were never really popular there. I think a new flip phone which folded out into a large flat screen (rather than having a physical keyboard) might be an interesting proposition.

For what you describe in your message above, have you thought about buying a laptop with built in SIM card support or alternately USB 4G SIM card modem?

<comment><USER32> I have, I've also considered a authenticator application on my laptop to solve that issue. Now I just need to convince my employeer to save $500 - 1000 by not buying me a new smart phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Impeccable timing as I witness my iPhone 6 crash opening the phone app. You had one job, iPhone.....

</comment><comment><USER53> No discussion of tiny phones is complete without reference to John's Phones:

[https://www.johnsphones.com/store/johns-phone- bar/item46](https://www.johnsphones.com/store/johns-phone-bar/item46)

<comment><USER54> Site appears to be pretty broken.

<comment><USER55> Yeah I got a file download prompt clicking on that link. Kinda sketch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> >>> It has a 380mAh battery, which sounds abysmal

It is truly abysmal. Can it even last a full day being idle?

Contrary to what people may think, it's not the screen that consumes the most battery (unless actively used) but the radio.

</comment><comment><USER57> I predict that within the next five years, the dominant form factor will move away from large, thin, shiny devices toward smaller, rounder, thicker (but less dense) devices that fit more comfortably into a human palm.

</comment><comment><USER58> Keeping a cell around at all times is about as good for your sanity as smoking is for your lungs.

They could reduce it all the way down to a "Jitterbug", and the problem would still be there.

</comment><comment><USER59> The best sizes and felt phone I ever owned was the HTC Desire. I'd love a teeny bit larger successor to thatvwith the same build quality and better battery life.

</comment><comment><USER60> as a galaxy user I wondered why they dont make smaller phone that i can control with one hand without fear of dropping it?

im okay with a smaller reddit is fun app.

</comment><comment><USER61> Nice idea if you have to carry a second phone. Especially nice if the phone is passed amoung different people, like for pager duty.

</comment><comment><USER62> I love this design. All I want is a 4 inch e-Paper display with a browser that can open epub files.

</comment><comment> Const-me Awesome idea, but $350?

I've recently bought another Lumia 930, brand new, for $100…

</comment><comment><USER63> I'd rather buy some old Nokia.</comment>


Ask HN: 2FA Contingency During Phone Service Outage - <AUTHOR> Several sites use text message as 2nd Factor Authentication. Given the ongoing service outages (https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/15/t-mobile-calling-outage/) what other alternatives do we have when phone service is down? I was unable to access my bank account today because I never received the 2FA code via text. Although I had no critical tasks this seems ripe for havoc. <comment><USER2> Ideally, use a hardware token instead. They implement many different algorithms, so you should be able to find one that does what you need with your bank. See [https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-security- keys/](https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-security-keys/) for one good list.

Alternatively, there are TOTP apps you can get for your mobile device. See [https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-two- factor-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-two-factor- authentication-app/)

<comment><USER3> this, also in general SMS authentication is known to be insecure anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No one should rely on SMS for 2FA! Phone numbers are bad authentication tokens (they can change hands, be diverted etc).

Proper 2FA should either be TOTP codes and apps for those or hardware tokens. Any of these should also have backup codes.</comment>


175 translations of of the Tao Te Ching - <AUTHOR> http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/tao-te-ching.htm <comment><USER2> Great! Reminds me of TTC.tasuki.com which only has four translations but was a great joy to discuss together in class and compare the translations.</comment>


Show HN: Five promising Evernote alternatives - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@attilaorosz/five-evernote-alternatives-to-suit-any-workflow-714be108e2d9#.gzw5y5dxp <comment><USER2> Even better, see all the alternatives:

[http://alternativeto.net/software/evernote/?license=opensour...](http://alternativeto.net/software/evernote/?license=opensource)

To be fair though, TagSpaces isn't listed, and I think it's really interesting. Another one not listed is [http://elephant.mine.nu/](http://elephant.mine.nu/)

Personally, I favor emacs org files with version control, but I admit sync across devices might be an issue for many on that front. I also live in the terminal more than most.

<comment><USER3> Nah, people don't like too much choice. That's why articles like 5 this, 7 that are popular, but if you do something like "247 alternatives", or "All the things that are like...", nobody will read it. Also, to go to that site and do an actual search requires doing something for it, rather than having results delivered without having to search for it. Or even think about searching for it.

Emacs, oh gawd. I don1t see many people using it in place of something with fancy flat design and a bloated UI (aka Evernote) ;)

(I'm the author btw.)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Bypassing ad blockers for Google Analytics - <AUTHOR> https://analytics-bypassing-adblockers.netlify.com/ <comment><USER2> Those who would consider doing this deserve a special place in hell right next to devs who don't respect user privacy and the crooks in the advertising industry who turn a blind eye to the fact they're distributing malware. By installing an adblocker I've made a conscious decision to not have your BS running inside my browser. Forcing it on me will at the very least result in me disabling JavaScript on all your pages.

<comment><USER3> If we're going to use ad blockers, at least let's admit to what we're doing and not claim a moral high ground.

You're implying the creator of the website is okay letting you receive the service or content on your terms. They are not. Ads and tracking are there because they earn the creators some amount of money.

One day when our tech will limit you to a binary choice of ads+tracking versus paying money, which way are you going to swing once your hand is forced?

<comment><USER4> This is quite silly. Am I also supposed to compulsorily watch all the ads that come up on TV in the commercial break and not mute it or leave the room?

<comment><USER5> Just like ads on your TV you can "leave the room" by closing the page.

Whats with this entitlement that you shouldn't have to endure ads but also get to have the content too?

<comment><USER4> I said "leave the room during the commercials". If what you meant is that I can't leave ONLY during the commercials, then this comes across as extremely user-hostile approach.

Should a user be forced to NOT mute the commercials? I'm clearly in the "NO" camp on this issue.

<comment><USER5> Can you fast forward through commercials? All you can do is mute the TV and/or leave the room. Even in systems like TiVO where you can rewind and fast forward they still mostly block you from fast forwarding commercials... No different than circumventing adblocks, but nobody complains about that.

Hell even TV networks track you. They know how many viewers are on certain shows and that. That's how they're able to garner high prices too.

Advertising is just something we always had to deal with. You don't have to watch commercials. You do that by not going to channels that have commercials, or using different services that you pay to not see commercials.

My point is, you are entitled to not be tracked. You're entitled to not have to see ads. But you are _NOT_ entitled to the content without those if the website decides the trade-off of you getting that content for free is by enduring those ads.

Close your window. Go somewhere else for content if the site you're visiting displays ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Meh.

If you're using GA to prove your site's worth, e.g. in some M&A deal, this is useless - your proxying means that you can fudge numbers and thus is no better than anything else you say. (This is a significant use case among looking-for- exit startups).

If you're using GA to get insight about your website, it would be somewhat useful, but not really - because GA would not be able to correlate the cookies to figure out the demographics, etc (and I don't know how much it would trust Via / Proxy-for headers, so other statistics it gives you are also limited).

Also, if you have non trivial traction, you're going to get flagged by their fraud filters.

You're probably better off running a local Piwik or whatever it's called these days.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could you please expand on fudging numbers and fraud filters?

The original question that I was trying to answer was if the numbers that I was seeing for mobile users were skewed by how much more difficult it is to get an ad blocker for mobile.

<comment><USER7> Fraud filters is about GA not expecting such a large number of events from a single IP. You'd be sending _all_ your visitors' events from that single IP - at some point GA will ignore your traffic or give you a captcha (effectively blocking the analytics because it's not designed to handle the captcha response).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is akin to bypassing antimalware protection by hosting the malware on your own reputable site.

What are you trying to achieve here? Your entire domain will just end up blocked if you do this at scale, not to mention Google themselves would ban your reverse proxy's IP because of too many queries (since you'll be proxying all your visitors' requests from a single IP).

<comment><USER8> To be fair, self-hosted ads are a thing on some sites and often don't get blocked by adblockers. I know I don't specifically go out of my way to block such ads because they're generally on sites that I'd like to support.

<comment><USER7> Do these self-hosted ads also embed malware (stalking/tracking code)? If they do not then I'm 100% with you and would totally support this kind of self- hosted advertising.

However this example is a bit different, the site in question is going out of their way to being a reverse-proxy for a spyware command & control server, and the entire domain should be considered & blocked as such.

<comment><USER8> If we're just talking about tracking then they don't need to because the site already gets all of your requests. They inherently know what pages you're viewing on their site because they gave them to you. A great many sites run this kind of analytics (often including client-side ones to track user actions - think medium.com's "most highlighted paragraph) and it's not considered malware.

If you're talking about them selling the data gathered by these, then that'd be less common but certainly not unheard of. If you're talking about them doing something more nefarious on your machine (keylogging/cracking) then hopefully that's pretty hard to do against a modern browser and any site caught doing so would never get any traffic from me again.

<comment><USER7> The problem we're discussing here is not about the site having a record of all the _legitimate_ requests needed to load a page.

The problem is that the site is now serving a piece of (third-party, but that's besides the point) malware explicitly designed to monitor events that would normally not cause a network request (and thus wouldn't be logged), and then sending that to a malicious third-party through a reverse-proxy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're hosting the analytics on your own domain, is it really even something an ad blocker should be blocking? It's not coming from a known third-party service domain (for ads or tracking or otherwise) so there's no real reason a blocker should be blocking it. It's first-party analytics on your own website. The fact that you're implementing it via reverse proxying is kind of an implementation detail, because at any point it could stop being Google Analytics, or an existing first-party analytics solution on a website could become GA.

It is kind of unfortunate that third-party tracking can 'hide' this way but in this case there's not really much you can do if the content author is going out of their way to pull a fast one...

<comment><USER10> > The fact that you're implementing it via reverse proxying is kind of an > implementation detail, because at any point it could stop being Google > Analytics, or an existing first-party analytics solution on a website could > become GA.

I think you (probably unintentionally if I understand you correctly) actually just pointed out a good reason why those who really really care should block analytics even from the same domain as the site they are visiting : )

Not that it will help against a determined web site owner trying to track though: Very much of the tracking can be done one the server side (and even proxied from the server side to another third party).

<comment><USER9> Right, my point is essentially that I don't think it's realistic to try and block first-party trackers. They're indistinguishable from page content. The closest you could get would be the 'disable javascript' hammer but there are non-script-based ways to do first party tracking pretty well, I'm sure.

I get why people would want or expect tracking blockers to work on reverse proxying but it seems silly to try. On the bright side, if the tracking is being done first-party it makes it much clearer who's taking your data and who's responsible for where it goes - it's going through them even if they're just bouncing it to another server.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice try but doesn't work on Kiwi Browser ;) Shows "This content should be overriden by GTM". This is because an heuristic is used instead of a blacklist. So to answer, yes this can be blocked easily.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting, and good to know! I wonder if the heuristic can be bypassed by changing the code (e.g. adding a semicolon) or changing the URL further.

<comment><USER11> Of course it can be bypassed and it's not very difficult. It's just that the way of filtering is different (many browsers / extensions are just Easylist/Disconnect clones)

To go further on the proxy idea, I think that the best strategy could be to actually do server-side calls to GA: [https://ga-dev-tools.appspot.com/hit- builder/](https://ga-dev-tools.appspot.com/hit-builder/) (yes there is an API for server-side hits).

The minus of the proxy idea, is that since you don't have access to *.doubleclick.net (which should be blacklisted by any decent track/adblocker) you don't get demographics info back into GA.

But after all, like other comments said, aren't you simply a first party tracker ? GA is just a more evolved storage point than, let's say using goaccess on raw logs.

<comment><AUTHOR> > To go further on the proxy idea, I think that the best strategy could be to > actually do server-side calls to GA: [https://ga-dev-tools.appspot.com/hit- > builder/](https://ga-dev-tools.appspot.com/hit-builder/) (yes there is an > API for server-side hits).

Yes, probably big players would like to use server side analytics! But that's a bit too involved for small websites.

> The minus of the proxy idea, is that since you don't have access to > *.doubleclick.net (which should be blacklisted by any decent > track/adblocker) you don't get demographics info back into GA.

When I pull down Google Analytics I also change its content to make it point to the reverse proxy itself. I didn't find any call to that domain being blocked, so I didn't do it for that particular case.

I think that the data collections is done via [https://www.google- analytics.com/r/collect](https://www.google-analytics.com/r/collect), which I do proxy. Notice however that sometimes an easy list filter kicks in and blocks that just because it happens to match "r/collect". I think there is a race condition somewhere that makes it not work sometimes, because I couldn't replicate it consistently. Anyways, it would be as simple as changing that domain specifically to something else. I tried doing so, but Netlify's redirects where playing up (possibly because I'm on the free tier) so I gave up. The concept of masking the domain/url still applies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since it goes through a reverse proxy, wouldn't it _not_ leak personal data the way using it directly would? If using GA directly, the browser uses my google-session data which GA can track between sites/domains. But here the proxy only gets the unique session for this proxy, so it doesn't know who I am. Or?

<comment><AUTHOR> I checked the analytics dashboard yesterday and updated the website: the only data that I'm not getting though is the users country/city and their provider. So in a sense it's better for your privacy: the IP is not your own!

I'm not an expert of Analytics but I'm also assuming that since the cookies are different (because the HTTP call to analytics happens on a different domain than usual) it shouldn't be able to track you just as well: G Analytics don't know your IP and have no trace of your previous anonymous IDs set in your cookies!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's an ongoing cat-and-mouse game. This is like the inverse of people using VPNs and proxies to get around filtered Internet, except it's now the _server_ that does the tunneling instead of the client.

Personally, I've found that JS off and all the GA/GTM domains (along with many others) blacklisted is sufficient in daily use; no JS gets rid of most of the crap, and the blocked domains clean up the rest. My goal is not to become completely untrackable (I believe that's next to impossible), but just to stop slow-loading pages full of junk I don't care about (which is what I suspect most people using _ad_ -blockers are aiming for.)

</comment><comment><USER14> > Hello from Google Tag Manager. This text is being added by a tag running > from GTM.

One should note that this inclusion, without an opt-in consent banner for instance, is not GDPR compliant. The URL [https://analytics-bypassing- adblockers.netlify.com/proxy/htt...](https://analytics-bypassing- adblockers.netlify.com/proxy/https://www.google-analytics.com/r/collect?..). sends personal data to a third party (Google) without my explicit consent. See Article 7 and Recital 32 of the GDPR:

> Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely > given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's > agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as > by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement.

<comment><USER15> > One should note that this inclusion, without an opt-in consent banner for > instance, is not GDPR compliant.

IANAL but as I understand GDPR, this is incorrect. The paragraph you cite discusses _personal_ data. Google's FAQ on GA is instructive (emphasis mine) [0]:

> When using Google Analytics _Advertising_ Features, you must also comply > with the European Union User Consent Policy.

They admittedly keep things as vague as they can, but to me it kind of reads like: using GA to collect site usage analytics is actually fine and requires no explicit consent as long as you've configured it to anonymize the IP addresses (toggle this in GA) and you're not tracking e.g. user IDs and such.

Similarly, using GTM to deliver a paragraph like OP did is also fine.

In both cases the spirit and the letter of the law would seem to be respected if you add some notice about tracking going on in your footer. No explicit consent is needed here, because no personal data is getting tracked.

Edit: clarity.

[0]: [https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2700409](https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2700409)

<comment><USER14> This website does collect personal data. Google's FAQ on GA simply states that the first party should obtain consent before transferring data to a third party (and transfer of consent might not be GDPR compliant, but that's another issue).

Here, the first party (analytics-bypassing-adblockers.netlify.com) has to obtain consent before collecting personal data. And IP addresses are not the only personal data that GA can collect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I remember when modern telemetry gathering practices were labeled a malware/adware..

<comment><USER17> Especially the phone home of ZoneAlarm, that blew up quite big. And to think that's what basically every application does nowadays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> [https://rrregain.com](https://rrregain.com) does this as a service. There are others as well but most do not use your own domain.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, do you know if they rely on the same principle of using several domains, making it harder to block?

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure, it uses your own domain, thus www.google-analytics.com becomes yourdomain.com/analytics.js. Not all requests are proxied, only the ones blocked by adblockers.

Taking this further, you could have your server send an event to GA when /index.html is requested, this can even be from tail -f access_log. No one will know GA was requested.

<comment><USER19> In general, you wouldn't be able to access third-party cookies this way, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I implemented something like this on a site visited almost exclusively by developers, assuming that developers must have amongst the highest adblock usage, and that my real visitor numbers according to GA would be much higher.

I saw a boost of about 7-8%. Remember, most adblockers (like Adblock Plus) don't block Google Analytics. uBlock and Ghostery are probably the 2 main GA adblockers, but as a % of adblockers as a whole they're not that large.

It's probably not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is unfortunate, but it simply means that we have three options:

\- Block entire domains \- Prevent javascript from running \- Use the internet less, read books, use your local library.

Happily, I was able to get my browser from the default message: Hello from Google Tag Manager. This text is being added by a tag running from GTM.

To the blocked message: This content should be overridden by GTM.

But, how far will this game of cat and mouse go?

</comment><comment><USER22> No personal offence intended, but I hope this project dies on its arse.

It's malicious software, circumventing the protections afforded to me by my ad/tracker blocking software.

I'll contribute in any way I can to adblocking tech, and to any impotency of this kind of technology.

<comment><AUTHOR> None taken. Believe it or not I'm mostly on your side. I published this because I've managed to do this in 4 hours, for fun. It exploits the url based blocking which is so prominent but so easily subverted, and If I've done it anybody can, so I wanted people to know.

Having said that, I must add, I don't think this is malicious software. Beside the legalities and the GDPRities which I may have overlooked, when you ask a website for its content that comes with analytics, but you want to block analytics. I don't think you can complain about the content provider bypassing your attempt at blocking it. Don't get me wrong, when I come across websites that stop me from browsing them because I use uBlock I usually bypass their block, or close the tab, but I can hardly complain at their attempt, or deem it as malicious, IMHO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Would like to know, does Google Analytics actually use data for tracking/ad targeting? I thought it would only track users if they embedded the AdWords script. If so, why is it blocked by UBO and Ghostery?

<comment><USER24> I've always just assumed it does, in the same way I assume Facebook's like etc. buttons do plenty of tracking even if you don't interact with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I blocked GTM and GA with Little Snitch... your bypass doesn't work

<comment><AUTHOR> Please explain, I use Little Snitch too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> :popcorn:

</comment><comment><USER27> > [ This content should be overridden by GTM. ]

lol... pages look better if you send the actual document instead of _assuming_ you have permission to run software in my browser.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a proof of concept. If it doesn't work for you then you are meant to know that :)

It's not a bug, it's a feature!</comment></comment>


Good JavaScript front end libraries? - <AUTHOR> I'm interested in finding a way of organizing our frontend code. Right now, it's a C# backend with a jQuery plus view/presenter pattern frontend, and the complexity has sufficiently grown that it's not the way forward.
I'm looking for something to replace our frontend, with one-way data flow (so no Angular/Ember).
Things I'm looking at right now:
- React + Redux: seems to have a lot of traction, an existing ecosystem, and a relatively small surface. Not to impressed over the fact that it looks like very watered-down FRP
- Cycle: looks interesting but seems to have very little mindshare comparatively. Don't know how it behaves without Node <comment><USER2> React + Reflux + Immutable

\- React, for obvious reasons.

\- Reflux, a simplified Flux architecture.

\- Immutable, eliminates the temptation of mutation.

\- Write in ES6+, take advantage of the new shorthand syntax and features.

And plan your architecture and convention in advance. You don't want to be discussing tabs vs spaces, 4-char vs 2-char indents, naming components, generic vs specific components, tooling and deployment strategies that midway of development.

</comment><comment><USER3> Dart + w_flux would be a great combo for C# devs!

\- Strong typing

\- No build times

\- One-way data flow

\- React for views

[https://github.com/Workiva/w_flux](https://github.com/Workiva/w_flux)

</comment><comment><USER4> take a look at Ractive.js . It is minimal, you can write custom js code as you like for getting data from the server and you don't need to spend weeks learning it.</comment>


Mark Twain in the time of cholera - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/05/04/mark-twain-in-the-time-of-cholera/ <comment><USER2> Twain found himself in this boat ( _cough_ ) more than once:

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2921690?seq=1](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2921690?seq=1)

The first page preview is enough background to get an idea. If you have access, the plague material ends after about 2 pages IIRC.

</comment><comment><USER3> "When the cholera was raging in Naples; when the people were dying by the hundreds and hundreds every day; when every concern for the public welfare was swallowed up in selfish private interest, and every citizen made the taking care of himself his sole object, these men banded themselves together and went about nursing the sick and burying the dead. Their noble efforts cost many of them their lives."

The parallels of today are striking. It is fortunate this time around that we know considerably more about the communicative properties of bacteria and viruses to at least provide some semblance of protection for doctors and nurses.</comment>