The hell is this bullshit, MIT?
@matt What the actual fuck? How is this actually detectable?
This is very simple.
https://gist.github.com/cou929/7973956
A simple reason for this could be that at some point the website uses the browser's local storage, which does not work in private mode.
@jaltek @vfrmedia @jkb I don't understand why a private browser window should function any differently than a normal one. Just do the exactly the same thing, but delete everything when I close the window. That's all I need. I share a work computer and don't want to have to remember to log out of everything at the end of the day.
It's a bad design and shame on MIT for exploiting it.
@jaltek @matt @jkb the technical explanation makes sense, but really an organisation of size/reputation of MIT *should* be transparent about why they have done this (maybe simply to cache images?)
That it doesn't occur in UK immediately post GDPR makes me more suspicious.
The again the IEEE website insists on trying to deliver full page ads (that Ublock Origin at least keeps at bay..)
@matt @jaltek @jkb whatever they are doing, its not something I've ever seen before even on UK and European local "newspaper" websites that are riddled with trackers etc.
Sometimes they might block you from the content if you use adblockers (some even randomise the element tags to try and defeat blocking), but they do not try at all to distinguish between normal and private mode browsing, as that is certain to unnerve many endusers..
@jkb @matt
there are many scripts to detect private mode on browsers (with varying degrees of success),
just checked and whatever MIT use either doesn't work or deliberately isn't implemented for the UK (maybe it might conflict with GDPR).
Of more concern is *why* MIT does that in the first place without any transparency, even many other USA sites explain (or whine at you) that privacy tools reduce their ad revenue (techdirt read from Europe is an example)