What Is a Dickover?

This stuff is only feasible if the surveillance/ad target is using one

I know this because I don't use a popular browser and I never see any of it

I prefer making HTTP requests outside the browser and using text-procesing utilities on the response body. To do this, I use comparatively small, simple, resource-efficient software that's been around since the www first went public

This traditional approach does not seem to be compatible with online advertising because the user, cf. the web developer, has total control over what they request. Unless I want ads I do not request them; I don't make requests for telemetry or tracking purposes either

Perhaps the internet was not designed for advertising. It only becomes possible with a popular web browser running Javascript and CSS

My experience was probably exactly as intended. Click on the "What is a dickover?" link trying to come up with things that it might be. And a brief moment after the page loaded (this little pause is crucial) I am hit in the face with a big annoying popup saying "This is a Dickover" followed by immediate understanding.

Now at least I know what to call it the next time I visit Substack.

So the developers and bosses all think they're doing a great job and they've got a carefully curated homepage, even though the regular users get a cloudflare captcha, then a cookie modal, then a newsletter modal, then an install-our-app modal, all blocking their access to the 'buy product' button.

[1] https://kagi.com/smallweb

"And this is our design for the Dickover."

"Guys, I'm not sure we should Dickover the customers."

"You know, when you say it that way...."

Epilogue: six months later, the site is dead because they converted nobody to their newsletter.

Then these are especially frustrating because I have to zoom out to find the close button. Its a chase every time, and sometimes I give up.

How are these allowed to exist when there are the EU Web Accessibility Directive ?

Fortunately, for those sites where either JS is required for the content or to remove the dickover, browsers still have an Inspect Element tool that makes deleting this and other annoyances not too difficult and rather cathartic.

In the old days, JS allowed window.open() which would create a new window on the user's sceren. That naturally was abused horribly, leading to pop-up-blocker extensions and then built-in browser permissions. We need the same thing for pies/dickovers, which are at root a workaround to the presence of pop-up blocking.

My first reaction to "dickover" was that it sounded like another Marion Zimmer Bradley fantasy fiction series...

``` javascript:(function()%7B let i%2C elements %3D document.querySelectorAll('body *')%3B for (i %3D 0%3B i < elements.length%3B i%2B%2B) %7B if(getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position %3D%3D%3D 'fixed' %7C%7C getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position %3D%3D%3D 'sticky')%7B elements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B %7D %7D %7D)() ```

Sometimes, this one is needed to fix scrolling after using the previous one:

``` javascript:var r="html,body{overflow:auto !important;}"; var s=document.createElement("style"); s.type="text/css"; s.appendChild(document.createTextNode(r)); document.body.appendChild(s); void 0; ```

[YES, I DO, THE IMPORTANT TRACKING ONES] [YES, I DO, ALL OF THEM] ⁿᵒ ᵃⁿᵈ ᶜˡᵒˢᵉ ᵈᶦᶜᵏᵒᵛᵉʳ

It's the first thing I did. Recommended.

In my opinion, any decent browser should make impossible both dickovers and also other related hostile actions, like the possibility for a Web page to modify the right-click menu or to prevent text selection.

Unfortunately completely disabling scripts is rarely a solution, because many sites do not work at all. But the kind of actions mentioned above never serve a useful purpose for the user, so they should be ineffective and their should be no way for the hostile site to determine whether they work or no.

Modal windows may sometimes be useful in applications that are controlled by myself, but it should always be possible to override them in externally-controlled applications, like when browsing Internet sites.

The dickover is a big, immediate distraction that you can't help but deal with.

But the dickbar is insidious because you forget it's even there. You just get used to always seeing whatever banner is there and think it's just a permenant piece of the interface and you adapt to not having 25% of your viewport.

[ ] Yes

[ ] Maybe later

Alternatively, you have another browser with javascript permanently disabled and keep it minimized in the tray, or in the background.

A lot of websites that demand subscriptions, post nagscreens or use other blocks whereby the website can be read by simply toggling off javascript.

Javascript in websites has become what corporations use to manipulate & control us and do things like post nag screens & demand subscriptions.

When I run across websites that demand javascript before they will load I just shitcan them and eliminate them from viewing forever.

Yeah, about that, news websites who want to sell me a subscription. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but can you please wait until I've read at least one or two sentences (let alone the short preview of your paywalled articles) BEFORE you dickoverslap me to consider subscribing?

By the time the thing comes up, I haven't even been able to tell whether your writer can form a coherent sentence. "Subscribe PLZ" at that point will make sure I barely even consider staying for the rest of it.

They've made it useless for quick manual sharing with llm.

Browser personalization tools or extensions ...

A combination of User stylesheet (stylus) or User scripts (greasemonkey) -- superpowered by AI models that can let users target screen elements and shape webpage display and behavior without having to manually deal with precise DOM elements or CSS JS syntax

Best useful tweaks could become part of a curated list like uOrigin ad block lists

Oh, I absolutely care about cookies and whenever I have the option I do not allow the website to place them. That said, I would much prefer an architecture where I express that once in a browser setting and the browser relays that information on to any website somewhere in the background.

So they're popovers.

Seriously. I've never seen a popover used for any legitimate purpose. If it was the content the user wanted, you can put it in the page where it goes.

But please increase the font size.

dickover n. : a modal panel, popover, or curtain presented by a website or app, deliberately obscuring its own content to frustrate the user with an unwanted, unnecessary, mandatory interaction

I usually just toggle Firefox's reading mode whenever a dickover like this pops up and they magically go away, allowing me to continue reading in peace.

My own blog has none of that crap. No Google analytics, no tracking. If someone visits my site, I have no idea. And I don't care.

Why would I say that in front of any female colleage or any non-technical layman? We already have a name for this and it is a "popup".

Which sounds better?

"Remove this popup" or "Remove this dickover"

Be honest.

We need to define the things we hate. Give them words. Use the words as weapons.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently with "watermarks" of the statistical and non-visible kind used to track image creators. (Google embedding "this image is AI but also here's the user ID".)

I've been thinking that practice needs a new word too. It's not watermarking, it's signals-math based tracking, so maybe sigtracked.

That might not sound gross enough though.

They are necessary, as in: without them the creator perhaps wouldn’t be able to justify running the website.

As long as users visit websites with poor ux and show no preference versus websites with good ux, there will reliably be websites with poor ux.

This shouldn't be the user's problem, but this is the market working. The dickovers are there because someone somewhere is making money because the dickovers are there. Saying you want the content without the spam is more or less saying you want other people to do the work and you don't want to pay for it.

If you don't like ads/dickovers, you don't have to use the site/app. The provider has decided you're not worth it. To be fair, you probably aren't making them money.

There are exceptions, but you shouldn't feel entitled to use the thing without paying the "dickover price" that the provider has decided to charge.