nero355 wrote: ↑2023-02-12, 14:20
I just clicked on a link to a forum that uses Discourse and had the same issue as the TS did so I thought let's go the Pi-Hole Forum since that has always worked without any issue and yep... same issue!
For now, you ought to try altering the Modify HTTP Response filter workaround to address the particular forum that you want to access.
See this post.
So, for example, try
Code: Select all
[["/global\\.discourse-cdn\\.com|community\\.freedom\\.nl/",["/browser-detect-/",["/.*/g",""]],["/vendor-/",["t.discourse.hoisted??={}","t.discourse.hoisted??(t.discourse.hoisted={})","n??=[]","n||(n=[])","t[e]??=[]","t[e]??(t[e]=[])","r||={}","r||(r={})"]],["/discourse-/",["e.draft||=t.draft","e.draft||(e.draft=t.draft)","n||={}","n||(n={})","f[e]??=[]","f[e]??(f[e]=[])","t.__registry__._typeInjections.service??=[]","t.__registry__._typeInjections.service??(t.__registry__._typeInjections.service=[])","e??={}","e??(e={})"]]]]
and see whether it works or not for the first site that you mentioned in your post.
nero355 wrote: ↑2023-02-12, 14:20
Should we as the users of Pale Moon e-mail Discourse about this and complain ?
There is little point in doing that, particularly given the statement quoted from their official website in a post earlier in the thread. I can also personally attest that someone who has contact with Discourse told me some weeks ago that they would communicate with them about this issue (not mentioning to Discourse that a workaround has been developed, of course). That person said that if there were a positive response from Discourse addressing the issue or otherwise giving helpful advice, they would let me know. I assure you that that person meant that when they said it.
If Discourse has responded, their response hasn't contained anything within it that warranted the person enquiring to inform me. So it can be presumed that they either did not respond, or had nothing good to say when they did.
They do not want to be browser agnostic. From their own statements, they have essentially made clear that they have no interest in that.
Now, of course, even if they don't want to be browser agnostic in the way that the forum software is coded, that doesn't necessitate them locking out browsers. It is not as if they are endangered by, for instance, Pale Moon users or Basilisk users accessing Discourse forums. And if locking out non-whitelisted browsers were intended to be some sort of catch-all safety measure, I'd have thought that they would've chosen to word their lock-out banner differently than they did. As noted in the original post, all that the banner says is:
"Unfortunately, your browser is unsupported. Please switch to a supported browser to view rich content, log in and reply."
I would bet you that the reason that they do it is to demonstrate their contemporary Net philosophy bona fides. They say that they are
"designed for the next 10 years of the Internet," and it is apparently their judgement that any browser that is not on their personal whitelist has no rightful place on either today's Internet or tomorrow's Internet.
To the extent that the Discourse development group knows about Pale Moon users, and has any opinion on us, my suspicion is that they probably consider us to be unjustified diehards who need to get it through our thick skulls that Chrome is king, and that's the way it's going to be, and that we need to give up and just embrace Chrome or a Chrome-like browser.
If we refuse to accept that (and, obviously, we refuse to accept that) then they don't want us near their product, and make no bones about playing gatekeeper in order to keep us out.