Padme: So then Brave isn’t going to be based on Chrome anymore, right?
They have software engineers, I’m sure they plan on just turning off that portion of the code and moving on with life like they do with so much of chrome engine
Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
121–130 of 329 posts
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
How do you feel about ${INCOME}, ${SEXUAL_PREFERENCE}, ${RACE}, ${WEIGHT}, ${RELIGION}? Those categories are at least as broad as the ones you mentioned and are absolutely profiled.
Fine enough, if the ranges for each value are wide enough. Compare:
- $120-140k, hetero, white, 190-220 lb, broadly Christian.
- $137,500/y, prefers tall redhead females, Irishman originally from Cork, 197 lb, observant Catholic.
The first one is too unspecific, while the second could suffice to identify a particular person in a neighborhood.
What makes a butter knife safe is not that it's completely devoid of an edge, but that its edge is sufficiently blunt.
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave is a Chromium derivative, not Chrome. Can't imagine why any of this would imply they would need to stop deriving Chromium: they can develop and deploy whatever cookie policies and defaults they want.
Not to disagree with you specifically, but this seems a good context to make this point: Maybe I missed the memo that we stopped hating monopolies? Every browser worth considering, except Firefox and Safari, is based on Chromium. Firefox and Safari make up about 20% global market share, meaning Chromium in about 80% [0]. A bug in Chromium is a bug in all of them. A backdoor in Chromium is a backdoor in all of them. A…
This is one of those situations where "monopoly" is a very overloaded word in terms of what it means to different people in different situations, causing confusion when it gets broken down into specifics.
Most people were never worried, and probably will never be worried, with the points you're listing there. That's not to say they've stopped hating browser monopolies, just maybe not your definition of what a browser monopoly is or why they're problematic.
In general (not just browsers) most people treat "popularity" and "monopoly" as completely orthogonal concepts. I.e. something unpopular can still be a monopoly, something with 99% usage can still not be a monopoly. There is typically just a tendency for extremely popular things to also happen to be a monopoly.
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla is slowly turning to ad company too. Let's see what future brings us.
I mean...they have to fund operations somehow. There's no money in pure open source in today's society.
Mozilla has a lot of money, almost none of which is spent on Firefox/Servo.
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#125Have 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…
> Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take user's side and do not cooperate with marketing companies
Browsers were supposed to act as agents working for the user. User-agents. These days it's getting harder and harder to find a browser that doesn't work for an ad company at the expense of the user.
Chrome's entire reason for existing is data collection. Firefox can, for now at least, be hardened to work for the user (and prevent a lot of fingerprinting), but Mozilla is an ad-tech company too now. They've made their lack of respect for Firefox users clear by making Firefox spy on users by default so that Mozilla can sell that data to marketers.
Currently, you can disable that spying in about:config by setting dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled to false (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41311479 and also https://web.archive.org/web/20240827185708/https://make-fire...). No idea how long that will continue to be an option or how often you'll have to go back and reset that back to false following updates though.
We really need a new browser that actually works in the interest of the users.
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I've heard that fake data, like from AdNausium, just becomes noise as the advertisers know the patterns to filter them out. Assuming that's true, it seems to waste everyone's time and bits to fake it instead of just not answering or a minimal denial.
> I've heard that fake data, like from AdNausium, just becomes noise as the advertisers know the patterns to filter them out.
It's actually much worse. That fake data is dangerous because data brokers don't really care how accurate their data is. Even the fake data AdNausium stuffs into your dossier will be used against you eventually, just like the real data will be. If you get turned down for a job, or your health insurance rates go up, or you have to pay more for something than you would have otherwise, you won't even be told that it was because of data someone collected/sold/bought. You sure won't be told if it was fake or real data and you won't be given any opportunity to correct it.
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#127Earlier 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.
It's always better to give no data (aside from leaving them with "we couldn't collect that data") than it is to give fake data because that fake data will be used against you just as often as real data would. Don't hand companies extra ammo to use against you, or think that you're safe just because they've written an incorrect assumption about you on the bullet. You're still going to be taking the hit.
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#128Have 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…
> Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take user's side and do not cooperate with marketing companies Browsers were supposed to act as agents working for the user. User-agents. These days it's getting harder and harder to find a browser that doesn't work for an ad company at the expense of the user. Chrome's entire reason for existing is data collection. Firefox can, for now at least, be hardened to work fo…
Mozilla is a Google vassal and nothing more. Google analytics? Check. Firefox Safebrowsing sending your private tab traffic to google? Of course!
https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox
Mozilla only has their Google billion$ in mind, not you. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/articles/mozilla
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#129[dead]
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#130Have 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…
> Have been using Firefox for a long time
It allows long lived first party cookies so isn't that much better.
Only Safari clears them after 7 days to prevent tracking.