Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

Post by FMecha » Thu, Aug 29, 2024, 10:21 PM UTC

radlad wrote: post #81

bad_user wrote: post #63

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…

Post by mbb70 » Thu, Aug 29, 2024, 10:25 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #110

codedokode wrote: post #85

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…

BTW I don't understand the anti-tracking absolutism. I don't care about being profiled as long as the profile lands me in a group of thousands of people like me. Yes, I live in ${CITY}, identify as ${GEDNER}, am approximately ${AGE_RANGE} years old, run ${BROWSER} under set to ${LOCALE}. This does not allow to easily harm me. If it allows ad networks to target their ads, so be it, uBlock Origin still works well. But…

Post by paulryanrogers » Thu, Aug 29, 2024, 10:27 PM UTC

SpaghettiCthulu wrote: post #106

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.) 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.

Post by factormeta » Thu, Aug 29, 2024, 10:29 PM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #85

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…

Post by EasyMark » Thu, Aug 29, 2024, 10:33 PM UTC

alyandon wrote: post #103

reaperducer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My soon-to-be-not-current insurance company. https://imgur.com/a/7WMuu7c