The WiFi routers in most of the hotels/airports block certain sites (e.g. Reddit). Facebook itself isn't blocked at the national level, unless this is somehow different.
I can't open the dev console right now, but it appears there's far less JS and "responsive design" on basic mode. m.facebook.com is more dynamic. It's like the Facebook of 2005.
Seems like many of the features of the full Facebook are there. I wonder if they are leveraging their React components to render the same stuff on the server...
I'm not quite sure this is necessarily the case - I noticed that on the regular FB site, it has one notification for two friends having a birthday, and yet in this basic version, it claims I have two notifications for the same notification.
I was stuck with notifications I can't delete on one of my fanpages and couldn't find any solutions to fix this bug (anyone who has ever tried to find support on FB can easily understand that we're the things in "break things" )
Until I use Facebook with this old UI. It solves this bug right away (Indeed it doesn't solve anything, it works as expected.) So if you have a problem with Facebook maybe you should try this UI.
Ive been using the basic site ever since I saw since I saw a talk by RMS about the "javascript trap" of unintentially running non-free code in your browser on an otherwise free machine. I have since grown accustomed to it and instead of finding it to be fast, I rather just find the regular site to be horribly slow.
Yes. You can use the noscript addon in firefox to be sure. On Android, I use the tinfoil for Facebook app (
Via F-Droid) which additionally blocks a variety of privacy intrusions.
I am a musician and to some extent need to use Facebook at some minimal level as it is generally expected in my town. RMS made the argument that if you must use kindred services like youtube and Facebook, that you should at the minimum use the javascript free versions.
I've been playing with Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey plugins and using them to tear out content I dislike in facebook. I currently replace Trending/Suggested For you sidebar with random pictures from /r/aww. I'm sure you could do similar things if you cared to.
It requires a special kind of engineer and PM to dedicate the time and skill required to make things like this work when most of the rest of the company is working to take advantage of the bleeding edge of technology.
This is their mid-quality mobile web version (predominantly for smartphone users with non-native apps), they actively maintain it alongside all of their other platforms (including two other quality mobile web versions for less and greater bandwidth).
I think the mentality is about accessibility, not technology, it's just that a lot of what gets focused on coming out of the company is from the high-tech side.
I wonder why they bother segregating it like that though. I would love to give it a spin, as i have found their main app to be hogging the CPU one too many times lately.
You can download the apk and it will work on any phone. So you can either trust somewhere like http://www.apkmirror.com/ or use one of the various methods of ripping the apk from the play store.
I use lite for notifications because my phone has limited space and I find the website to be good enough.
I think this version of the product makes sense if you're making a mega-mass-market product, which for the web pretty much means Google and Facebook. I doubt it would be worth a Pinterest or even an Airbnb to try to squeeze this much juice out of their product.
37 comments
[ 776 ms ] story [ 1000 ms ] threadI can't open the dev console right now, but it appears there's far less JS and "responsive design" on basic mode. m.facebook.com is more dynamic. It's like the Facebook of 2005.
This one seems to have much less JS. It looks like the old school static Facebook page.
But on my phone (Windows Phone), https://m.facebook.com looks like https://x.facebook.com and https://touch.facebook.com from desktop while https://mbasic.facebook.com looks like the very basic mobile site.
Previously I own and used a Nokia E-72 (around 2010-2014), and from its default browser it serves this basic kind of Facebook for its m.facebook.com
Until I use Facebook with this old UI. It solves this bug right away (Indeed it doesn't solve anything, it works as expected.) So if you have a problem with Facebook maybe you should try this UI.
Genuinely curious: why are you using Facebook in the first place?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/facebook-begins-testing-fac...
Hats off to that person or team!
I think the mentality is about accessibility, not technology, it's just that a lot of what gets focused on coming out of the company is from the high-tech side.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.l...
I wonder why they bother segregating it like that though. I would love to give it a spin, as i have found their main app to be hogging the CPU one too many times lately.
I use lite for notifications because my phone has limited space and I find the website to be good enough.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.opera.mini...
Not sure i am a fan of their new interface though, and it is a proxy browser (pages get pre-processed on a Opera run server).
Here's hoping that web hipsters will start a similar trend.