101–110 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the only two browsers, Chrome and Brave
That doesn't make a bit of sense. There's plenty of browsers, there's chrome, brave, firefox, opera, edge and safari, those are the big ones. There's also a ton of spinoffs like ice weasel or that browser Kagi is developing that I can't remember the name of. Way more than just two chromium browsers in existence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or your favorite websites won't work If my favorite websites stop working with Firefox, they won't be my favorite websites anymore. I'll just stop using them instead.
I'll just stop using them instead. Easily said, until it's your bank, or a government entity, or the electric company, or any of the thousands of other entities that have started blocking Firefox. Firefox should really camouflage its user agent, or make it trivial to do so.
That seems the obvious result of this sort of thing. > Related Website Sets (RWS) is a way for a company to declare relationships among sites, so that browsers allow limited third-party cookie access for specific purposes. So the website itself gets to declare other "blessed" domains that can bypass third party cookie blocks? Big websites are constantly looking for ways to abuse users by bypassing their attempts at p…
No, the website itself does not get to declare this. There’s a master list that they have to submit their site to and go through an approval process. But as the article details, the contents of that preliminary list is already disconcerting. The whole “Google as the arbiter of all things ads” concept is a bust. But the alternative isn’t great either - today’s system of third party cookies allows for far worse. We nee…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is wrong. All settings in Brave with an impact on user privacy are opt-in. They even inform you of their product metrics, when you first start it, despite having a paper on how they anonymize that data. Versus Firefox, which never bothered. Firefox, which also added metrics for ads, similar with Privacy Sandbox, without informing users. I've never seen a browser with such a strong focus on privacy, the only cont…
> Brave has received negative press for diverting ad revenue from websites to itself,[30] collecting unsolicited donations for content creators without their consent,[43] suggesting affiliate links in the address bar[49] and installing a paid VPN service without the user's consent.[58] These are the primary issues I hear about regarding Brave on this forum. It's also founded by Brendan Eich who was forced out of Mozi…
Have been using Firefox for a long time, no issues, though long ago when I had little memory, Chrome was using less of it. Firefox also has HTTPS-only mode, encrypted DNS without fallbacks, supports SOCKS and Encrypted Client Hello (although almost no website support it). However, it is better to just buy more memory (unless you are lucky to use Apple products). Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take use…
> Every new web API should guarantee that it doesn't provide more fingerprinting data or hides the data behind a permission. FWIW, it's practically impossible to provide that guarantee because the API necessarily provides at least the data point of, "Did they select an option in the permission notification?" ("If yes, what option was selected?" etc.) It's often said that the only solution to this is regulation and th…
Wrong. The status of permissions should not be visible to the page in most cases. Instead, fake data should be returned from them. That would be practical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the recent antitrust ruling against Google might see Mozilla lose like 80% of their revenue...
A sane company would then give the boot to their overpaid CEO and hire back talented developers. https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5053290/mozilla-2023-annual-...
---
I remember reading news in 2005 saying that Mozilla has established its Corporation subsidiary - and I had a bad feelings about it at that time. And years later we can see the effects - what's the revenue, how browsers market share looks like. Now, every time I'm reading that project, foundation xyz is creating "for profit" branch, subsidiary I know that this most likely won't end well. Profits will go over users needs, wishes each time and those at the project will change as well. It's like a magic wand appears and turns open-minded contributors into some mindless corporate drones with an arrogant attitude.
I want to still like Firefox but in last 14 years Mozilla managed to seriously deteriorate trust in its capabilities of handling their main product. And I also cannot fathom how they managed to screw up promotion of the browser and let Google dominate the market. That didn't happen overnight but Google at some point started to bundle their browser as "additional offer" in almost every software installer for Windows, while Mozilla did nothing similar.
Have been using Firefox for a long time, no issues, though long ago when I had little memory, Chrome was using less of it. Firefox also has HTTPS-only mode, encrypted DNS without fallbacks, supports SOCKS and Encrypted Client Hello (although almost no website support it). However, it is better to just buy more memory (unless you are lucky to use Apple products). Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take use…
> Every new web API should guarantee that it doesn't provide more fingerprinting data or hides the data behind a permission. FWIW, it's practically impossible to provide that guarantee because the API necessarily provides at least the data point of, "Did they select an option in the permission notification?" ("If yes, what option was selected?" etc.) It's often said that the only solution to this is regulation and th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is wrong. All settings in Brave with an impact on user privacy are opt-in. They even inform you of their product metrics, when you first start it, despite having a paper on how they anonymize that data. Versus Firefox, which never bothered. Firefox, which also added metrics for ads, similar with Privacy Sandbox, without informing users. I've never seen a browser with such a strong focus on privacy, the only cont…
> Brave has received negative press for diverting ad revenue from websites to itself,[30] collecting unsolicited donations for content creators without their consent,[43] suggesting affiliate links in the address bar[49] and installing a paid VPN service without the user's consent.[58] These are the primary issues I hear about regarding Brave on this forum. It's also founded by Brendan Eich who was forced out of Mozi…
I can't remember all of the details but Mozilla made a blog post regarding 1/6 and their commentary didn't align with a browser that would try and protect users from state, NGO and "just research" edu adversaries.
Have been using Firefox for a long time, no issues, though long ago when I had little memory, Chrome was using less of it. Firefox also has HTTPS-only mode, encrypted DNS without fallbacks, supports SOCKS and Encrypted Client Hello (although almost no website support it). However, it is better to just buy more memory (unless you are lucky to use Apple products). Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take use…
But anything more precise would be uncomfortable.