Who’s Site Is It Anyway?

There’s been an uptake in 3rd party apps interacting with websites in ways previously unthought of this year. Two of the biggest known are the Google Content Rewriter and now, Greasemonkey.

What both these things do is alter aspects of a website. The onus in each of these caes is slightly different. Google does it mostly, it seems, for Google whilst Greasemonkey does it for users. The end result is the same however – sites are altered.

This for me throws up lots of interesting questions about sites and the various aspects that can be ‘owned’ and who the various people are that ‘own’ these aspects.

At its most basic level a web page is comprised of three things: markup, design elements and content. Greasemonkey and Google can alter all three of these things. The question then is: should they be allowed to do so? Who ‘owns’ the site?

I take the view that all aspects of my site are owned by me but that by explicitly allowing others to access the content and the design then they have at least a part ownership in that aspect of the page(s). Once its downloaded to their browser then they should be able to alter is as they see fit to suit their needs. In this respect I have less of an issue with Greasemonkey than I do with Google. Greasemonkey is to help users. Google’s little tool is to help Google – they can make money from my content.

You’ve probably noted that in the above paragraph that I didn’t include markup in my list of what I personally find acceptable to alter. This is because I don’t find it acceptable for anything other than me to alter the code used on my site. Changing my code can have implications for how the site does/doesn’t work on the most basic of levels. For example, I use semantic code as I think its important. I use various bits of Javascript to do various things (the comments form spell checker for example) and whilst I can appreciate that users might want to have more control I don’t think that altering my code is acceptable.

At some point there has to be an element of trust. I don’t serve ads, I don’t track anyone with cookies or sessions (except in as much as I do for the comment form details). I don’t use hidden frames and I don’t think users have the right to alter the most basic building block of how I choose to serve content.

I serve content in two formats – markup and RSS. Those, to me, are your options as a user. I think a mutually respectful relationship where I trust you not to make unwanted changes to the functionality of my site and you trust me not to flood you with spam or other ads is important.

Dean Edwards recently wrote a script to disale Greasemonkey.

…GreaseMonkey broke my site. I didn’t realise what the problem was at first. I use a JavaScript syntax highlighter to make code on this site look slightly less boring. It uses some regular expressions and a little bit of DOM scripting. After installing GreaseMonkey I noticed that some of my code samples were completely broken in Firefox.

I entirely agree with Dean here. OK, he’s talking about design elements which I don’t have such an issue with but the fact remains that this Greasemonkey script is interfering in coded elements of the page Dean published. That to me is not acceptable. I find it as annoying as I do Google’s attempt to rewite my content – even if it is much more benign in intent.

There are also a few scripts here that apparently totally disable Greasemonkey. I don’t think anyone really wants that but I can sympathise with site owners wanting their sites to be presented as they intended them.

As a point of note, I installed the script to disable Google rewriting my content straight away. I’m still wavering as to whether or not to install a Greasemonkey killer. I’d be very interested in others opinions on this.