2/11/2026 at 3:32:08 PM
I cut traffic to my Forgejo server from about 600K request per day to about 1000: https://honeypot.net/2025/12/22/i-read-yann-espositos-blog.h...1. Anubis is a miracle.
2. Because most scrapers suck, I require all requests to include a shibboleth cookie, and if they don’t, I set it and use JavaScript to tell them to reload the page. Real browsers don’t bat an eye at this. Most scrapers can’t manage it. (This wasn’t my idea; I link to the inspiration for it. I just included my Caddy-specific instructions for implementing it.)
by kstrauser
2/11/2026 at 5:15:58 PM
I remember back when Anubis came out, some naysayers on here were saying it wouldn't work for long because the scrapers would adapt. Turns out careless, unethical vibecoders aren't very competent.by QuiDortDine
2/11/2026 at 8:04:23 PM
I still think it is just a matter of time until scrapers catch up. There are more and more scrapers that spin up an full blown chromium.by tuhgdetzhh
2/11/2026 at 8:12:46 PM
It seems inevitable, but in the mean time, that's vastly more expensive than running curl in a loop. In fact, it may be expensive enough that it cuts bot traffic down to a level I no longer care about defending against. Like GoogleBot had been crawling my stuff for years without breaking the site. If every bot were like that, I wouldn't care.by kstrauser
2/12/2026 at 3:56:36 AM
Serious question, in 2026 you can actually have a successful crawler with just curl? I just had to create one for a customer - for their own site - and nothing would have worked without using Chromium.by raw_anon_1111
2/12/2026 at 4:23:07 AM
Probably not for most sites. Example of a site where it'd likely work: a blog made with a static site generator. Example of one where it wouldn't: darn near anything made with React.by kstrauser
2/12/2026 at 5:00:05 PM
It works for the majority of things a text mining scraper would care to scrape. It's not just static sites but also any CMS like wordpress, as well as many JS apps that have server-side rendering. SPA-only sites aren't that common anymore, especially for things like blogs, news and text-based social media.by franga2000
2/11/2026 at 11:23:46 PM
Cool, if they're running full blown chromium maybe the next step can be mining bitcoin on any pages served to bots.by solid_fuel
2/11/2026 at 10:04:35 PM
Even that functions as a sort of proof of work, requiring a commitment of compute resources that is table stakes for individual users but multiplies the cost of making millions of requests.by hxtk
2/11/2026 at 10:58:56 PM
AFAIK you can bypass it with curl because there's an explicit whitelist for it, no need for a headful browser.by gruez
2/11/2026 at 10:56:49 PM
Well it's a race, just like security. And as long as anubis is in the front, all looks brightby cantalopes
2/11/2026 at 8:43:29 PM
> Turns out careless, unethical vibecoders aren't very competent.Well they are scraping web pages from a git forge, where they could just, you know, clone the repo(s) instead.
by Elfener
2/11/2026 at 5:49:06 PM
"Turns out careless, unethical vibecoders aren't very competent." well, they rely on AI, don't they? and AI is trained with already existing bad code, so why should the outcome be different?by wolfi1
2/13/2026 at 2:06:43 PM
600K request per day is ~ 400/minute. That is very low number. But seems to me that many webapps are so bad that even that small number causes significant load for them.by zajio1am
2/13/2026 at 6:04:48 PM
Couldnt you just set a cookie and send a redirect back? Avoiding the need for js.by Akronymus
2/11/2026 at 6:21:27 PM
> I set it and use JavaScript to tell them to reload the pageWhile throwing out all users who opt-in to javascript, using Noscript or uBlock or something like it, may be acceptable collateral damage to you, it might be good to keep in mind that this plays right into Big Adtech's playbook. They spend over two decades to normalize the behavior of running a hundred or more programs of untrusted origin on every page load, and to treat users to opt-in to running code in a document browser with suspicion. Not everyone would like to hand over that power to them on a silver platter with a neat little bow on top.
by xorcist
2/11/2026 at 7:03:48 PM
Oh please. That ship has sailed. I'm marginally sympathetic to people who don't run JavaScript on their browsers for a variety of reasons, but they've deliberately opted out of the de facto modern web. JS is as fundamental to current design as CSS. If you turn it off, things might work, but almost no one is testing that setup, nor should they reasonably be expected to.This has zero to do with Adtech for 99.99% of uses, either. Web devs like to write TypeScript and React because that's a very pleasant tech stack for writing web apps, and it's not worth the effort for them to support a deliberately hamstrung browser for < 0.1% of users (according to a recent Google report).
See also: feel free to disable PNG rendering, but I'm not going to lift a finger to convert everything to GIFs.
by kstrauser
2/14/2026 at 1:04:54 AM
Just you wait, I'll get... What's the name of the LLM thing again? ClawFish or something? I forgot — and the LSP is down, so that's that. Anyways, I'll tell the MoltClawde (???) to skillfully vibe code a skill for generating vehement anti-blackpill diatribes, then equip it and reply to your post with a such vehement — but, you know, sort-of lyrical — anti-blackpill diatribe, your pill will shine so much, it will make post-balrog Gandalf look like pre-balrog Gandalf and your own LLMthingmaclaude will wax poetical about not surrendering to generalized societal stupidity while it publishes balrog-related CVEs about curl's GAND_ELF() preprocessor directive.by replooda
2/11/2026 at 11:33:57 PM
There are many reasons to accommodate non-JS users beyond accommodating people who have intentionally disabled it, and most of them are in accessibility territory.Be careful with using percentages for your arguments, because this is not that different from saying that 99.99% of people don't need wheelchair access.
by forgotmypw17
2/11/2026 at 11:49:21 PM
This used to be true, but now I don't think it is anymore. Modern frameworks and modern screen readers have no issue with acessibility.Some survey from WebAIM found that 99.3% of screen reader users have JavaScript enabled.
So... are they really in accessibility territory still? Only people I still see complaining about Javascript being required are people that insist the web should just be static documents with hyperlinks like it was in the early 90s.
Can you find a modern source with valid reasons for accomodating non-JS users?
by greiskul
2/12/2026 at 4:30:54 PM
Slow/lossy connections: JS may not load, but site still works.Users that prefer non-animated pages and disable JS for this reason.
Users who prioritize security.
Users of older devices in which your JS can trigger errors. Yes, these exist. Not everyone can upgrade their older device. Many people do not even have their own device to use.
by forgotmypw17
2/11/2026 at 9:05:53 PM
> JS is as fundamental to current design as CSS.I think this hits the crux of the trend fairly well.
And is why I have so many workarounds to shitty JS in my user files.
Because I can't see your CSS, either.
by shakna
2/11/2026 at 11:57:07 PM
Yet you use CSS on your own website?by chipsrafferty
2/12/2026 at 1:22:20 AM
Yup. I do. And JS, too.Because neither are _required_ for anything. There is a well-specified data tree.
Progressive enhancement is not some sign of conflict in my reasoning. It is a demonstration of it.
by shakna
2/13/2026 at 3:05:25 PM
> that's a very pleasant tech stack for writing web apps99.9999% of websites shouldn't be apps in the first place.
Anyway have fun fighting AI bots and enshittifying your site in the process. In your case, I'm sure the both operators will have as much sympathy for your plight as you show others.
by account42
2/11/2026 at 10:28:38 PM
the recent google report claimed that less than 0.1% of users have javascript disabled ... like for every website, or just some, or?your PNG/GIF thing is nonsense (false equivalence, at least) and seems like deliberate attempt to insult
> I'm marginally sympathetic
you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else. outside of these three words, you actually seem to see anyone doing this as completely invalid and that the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.
by qwery
2/11/2026 at 10:44:19 PM
It would be literally impossible to know whether a user disabled JavaScript on another site, so I'm going to say that they meant that for their own sites.> you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else.
I was literally responding to someone referring to themselves as "collateral damage" and saying I'm playing into "Big Adtech's playbook". I explained why they're wrong.
> the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.
Unless someone is making a site that explicitly targets users unwilling or unable to execute JavaScript, like an alternative browser that disables it by default or such, mathematically, yes, that's the correct course of action.
by kstrauser
2/12/2026 at 3:57:50 AM
You mean all 3?I could care less about serving users who don’t want to enable JS in 2026. They aren’t worth my development times
by raw_anon_1111
2/11/2026 at 11:54:57 PM
Not enough people opt out of using js for it to matter to anyone. If a page doesn't work because you have js disabled, get over itby chipsrafferty
2/11/2026 at 7:38:59 PM
[dead]by draw_down
2/12/2026 at 8:48:55 AM
Those poor users. If they want to remove the fourth wheel from their car, they will bump into some issues. Who cares.by 7bit
2/12/2026 at 6:36:48 PM
I do but shitty web devs don'tby albuic
2/12/2026 at 11:44:32 AM
IIRC 2 is included in the "go-away" program which is similar to Anubis but without the PoWby trumpdong