I assume the point is to exclude phoneposters OP? I think this is an excellent idea tbh. Maybe you can look at the user-agent from incoming clients?

Put the website inside a <noscript> tag.

Look for ways to detect touch screens with javascript. There's a 0% possibility that a phoneposter has JS disabled. There is however >0% possibility that someone is browsing from some gay laptop that has a touch screen, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made. If you want to get rid of ALL faggots and not just phoneposters, use JS to delete the document or redirect to reddit or something. Don't do this shit though >>3088 There's privacy reasons you might want to spoof noscript tags on your browser.

>>3089 If you disable javascript entirely you both get the website and privacy :^) Anyway the point is that barely any mobile browsers allows the kind of tricks that would trigger the display of a <noscript> tag (I only know Firefox with an extension), so I don't see what privacy is being sacrificed.

>>3090 >I don't see what privacy is being sacrificed. The fact that the website can put some unique resource into a noscript tag and then track requests to it to detect noscript visitors specifically. They could even serve different content or redirect your browser if they detect you're loading that resource.

>>3091 Ah, of course. But it has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The guy asked how to forbid phonephaggots from reaching his site, and I gave an aswer. And besides, using javascript to check if the device has a touch screen can also be used to track the visitor, but you don't claim any invasion of privacy with your method.

You could do a media query that would only allow screens bigger than a certain size.4

>>3093 >do a media query that would only allow screens bigger than a certain size https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_mediaquery.asp

Rewrite your website into a desktop program, which is what 99% of websites should be. >impossible for ifaggots >Androids don't have easy access to xorg and wayland

Pretty sure most web browsers can detect and report to websites on the battery status of mobile devices. https://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/ Probably wouldn't work for detecting laptops unless you're using a chromebook.

user agent, phone niggers don't know how to spoof a user agent

>>3097 Desktop users will though, and might be targeted by your user agent check as a result.

>>3099 then change the user agent back to something that is not a niggerlicious phone user agent

>>3100 >haha just change your spoofing settings just change your user agent just change all your privacy settings to suit my website I hope you never make anything at all.

>>3102 >he doesn't have a way to select certain settings only for a specific website Look at this person using junk web browsers.

>>3102 why on earth would you be using a mobile user agent on a desktop? do you like loading shitty mobile sites or something? I don't get it

>>3095 >which is what 99% of websites should be. why would I want to install a desktop program for every blog I want to check?

>>3109 Why do you install an "app" for every dumb website then?

It is semi-related to the thread's topic, but do you know where to get a good, privacy-enforcing user.js for mobile?

>>3111 I don't. Not quite sure what strawman you have me confused with.

>>3129 >privacy >mobile Pick zero. >>3111 To be fair, there's a category of websites that if they were to be 100% converted to mobile applications and the website retired, everyone would benefit greatly. So installing an app for every website would be the ideal world here.

>>3146 If you read the thread, that's the reason why I asked. Some things can be standardized, not all. "General" standards are the worst of all. http://harmful.cat-v.org/standards/ Most websites should be rewritten into real programs.

>>3086 Living example (with the exception being that it only allows phoneposting): https://wilchan.org/b/

>>3198 >cuckflare no thanks you!!

>>3198 >wilchuj it's not only bad, it's also full of dumb polish femboys

>>3205 >full yes >polish yes >femboys yes Where is the bad part?

>>3086 have a 1000 pixel wide left margin

>>3086 I take it the goal isn't so much to exclude phoneposters but retards who very frequently use phones. In which case I concur with simply checking whether JS is enabled or not. Can be as simple as a line of code deleting the entire document body. Disabling JS isn't hard but it'll filter at least 99% of retards. You can take it further with CSS abuse but there's ways around it too, including "desktop mode". t. Phonefagging