Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mullvad Browser

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 434 posts

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#151

Post by jraph »

haswell wrote: post #147
jraph wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need an umpteenth discussion about this here, it has already been discussed to hell. This is getting old. Just search Brendan Each on HN [1], this discussion happens any time he is mentioned here. Or just read the summary on Wikipedia [2]. There's a lot of material on this topic, it's easy to make up one's opinion on this if you are genuinely interested. edit: please people, don't feed this. [1] http…

As a bi man, the next paragraphs excuse nothing. But if these details are to play a factor in browser selection, one should reflect on the myriad of undesirable associations involved in going about daily life. Just typing this reply involves an entire supply chain associated with individuals and organizations of questionable character. To apply this same level of sensitivity to daily life would be to mostly unhook on…

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with you and this is actually an interesting philosophical topic to discuss (I mean it, I'm genuinely interested in this and have been wondering where to put limits on this kind of stuff).

But wondering whether is Eich homophobic? Meh. Bored of these discussions. I have set my opinion on this. It's been discussed enough.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#152

Post by tomcam »

asddubs wrote: post #133
tomcam wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eich being a homophobe Wut? Citation needed. I’m sure you don’t mean his support of Proposition 8 in 2008, because Barack Obama professed the same belief in 2008… making him, in this formulation, a homophobe.

so someone being against gay marriage is not a homophobe in your eyes? Why can't Obama just also be/have been a homophobe

One can have a principled opposition to gay marriage without being a homophobe.

Declaring someone else is a homophobe without their making such an assertion is mindreading.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#153

Post by jraph »

tomcam wrote: post #150
jraph wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need an umpteenth discussion about this here, it has already been discussed to hell. This is getting old. Just search Brendan Each on HN [1], this discussion happens any time he is mentioned here. Or just read the summary on Wikipedia [2]. There's a lot of material on this topic, it's easy to make up one's opinion on this if you are genuinely interested. edit: please people, don't feed this. [1] http…

That has nothing to do with my comment. You libeled someone without providing any proof at all.

> That has nothing to do with my comment

It has everything to do with your comment? I'm inviting anybody interested on the topic to go read about it themselves instead of rehashing the same subject again and again, since I believe everything about this has already been said already?

> You libeled someone without providing any proof at all.

On the contrary, please notice how I carefully and deliberately stated nothing about Eich, not given my opinion on this and not taken sides here.

It would not be smart, it would invite people who have opinions on this to further push this discussion.

Did you confuse me with another commenter?

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#154

Post by axus »

haswell wrote: post #147
jraph wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need an umpteenth discussion about this here, it has already been discussed to hell. This is getting old. Just search Brendan Each on HN [1], this discussion happens any time he is mentioned here. Or just read the summary on Wikipedia [2]. There's a lot of material on this topic, it's easy to make up one's opinion on this if you are genuinely interested. edit: please people, don't feed this. [1] http…

As a bi man, the next paragraphs excuse nothing. But if these details are to play a factor in browser selection, one should reflect on the myriad of undesirable associations involved in going about daily life. Just typing this reply involves an entire supply chain associated with individuals and organizations of questionable character. To apply this same level of sensitivity to daily life would be to mostly unhook on…

What are your thoughts on Chick-Fil-A. I will sometimes choose them on the merits of their product.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#155

Post by jonfw »

fefe23 wrote: post #144

Why should I put any faith in this VPN company if I don't even trust my own ISP?

Mullvad's entire business is based around privacy, so they have a strong incentive to not collect your data. Your ISP does not have that incentive

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#156

Post by anotherhue »

crop_rotation wrote: post #82

I am disappointed to see that it doesn't integrate with Mullvad VPN at all. I have Mullvad VPN but I use it too less because I don't want all traffic on my mac going via VPN (e.g all kinds of random IDEs and websites). All I want is one browser which always uses VPN. But Mullvad has no split tunneling on mac AFAIK, and on windows also you can only block some apps from VPN, instead of saying that only this application…

It bundles their extension which allows for socks5 connection, so you should be good.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#157

Post by mistrial9 »

enlyth wrote: post #105
thejosh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite like Mullvad. I haven't needed to use them much (mostly when my ISP has wonky routing and I need something semi-urgent), but their service is pretty good, their website feels like it's designed for the more "techy users". Their billing is the least sketchiest of VPN providers, with no ticking clocks, no upsell and other nonsense. I also like they provide a Wireguard file and a way to filter it, so it's super…

I share a VPN subscription with my father, I use it for torrenting so my ISP can't snoop on me, and he uses it to bypass geo blocking to watch UK shows (things like BritBox, Netflix, BBC etc.) in another country. Unfortunately, there is no way to legally pay for most of these services and watch them from abroad. I tried to get us to use Mullvad, as it was perfect for me, but for him it was constant problems with the…

how are people supposed to react to this ? Those are two reasons why legal providers make life so difficult for innocent people. The response will be to enable more intrusive record keeping and more very-low bandwidth for me, because of you.

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#158

Post by np1810 »

jraph wrote: post #20

I guess why not. This is an open source, rebranded Firefox and Firefox-like browsers could use some publicity. It promotes privacy and privacy can use some publicity too. Tor too. Mullvad seems to be honest in the fact that their business model is selling VPNs and it's nice they are saying it's not enough. They are not saying that you might not need one though. We need a Firefox with good defaults and it seems like t…

> We need a Firefox with good defaults and it seems like this browser is such a thing.

If you're looking such option for Android, you can check out Mull [1] which is available on F-Droid [2] as well and use it along with uBlock Origin.

[1]: https://gitlab.com/divested-mobile/mull-fenix

[2]: https://f-droid.org/packages/us.spotco.fennec_dos/

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#159

Post by paulryanrogers »

MikusR wrote: post #113
zamnos wrote: post #13

Hm that seems like a mistake. If I'm reading the docs right, the Mullvad browser will let you browse the web without using their/any VPN, which mean that it's entirely possible to accidentally surf to a site without having your VPN up, and reveal your IP address to that site. To contrast, there's no way to use the Tor Browser without using the onion network so it's ~impossible to accidentally browse to site and revea…

They advertise their VPN as having a working Split tunnel feature. That is also false, at least on Windows.

Citation?

Re: The Mullvad Browser

#160

Post by asddubs »

tomcam wrote: post #152
asddubs wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so someone being against gay marriage is not a homophobe in your eyes? Why can't Obama just also be/have been a homophobe

One can have a principled opposition to gay marriage without being a homophobe. Declaring someone else is a homophobe without their making such an assertion is mindreading.

actions speak louder than words. by that logic you can never declare anyone anything.
Post reply on HN