351–360 of 411 posts
I would happily use another IM, but the bad thing about network effect is that one would need to convince everyone else to make the switch, too.
In order to take over, freedom-respecting services need to become _better_ than the non free ones not only on a technical level, but on a UX one, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that money goes to the Mozilla Foundation, which uses it on the initiatives you can see at https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/ Although the Foundation wholly owns the Corporation (we call them MoFo and MoCo internally), money donated to MoFo does not go towards paying MoCo employee salaries as far as I am aware.
Is that not because Firefox currently pays for itself (via Google search revenue)? If the idea is to change that equation, there's surely no reason why money couldn't flow the other way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. The linked mozilla blog post clearly talks about the fingerprinting settings, and the comment I replied to did not specify anything related to "blocking underlying techniques".
This entire thread is filled with people comparing browser results on a site that breaks down underlying fingerprint techniques, while asking questions like, "is there a way for me to disable WebGL?", and "I wonder if they block localhost port scanning?". I understand what the original posted link is talking about, but the specific thread you're currently on is very clearly talking about more than whether or not Pano…
I had assumed it did, cause why else would we be discussing it here, and neither the OP post nor the FF setting are very clear about what it does. So I would have been thinking it was protecting me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can change the default to any other search engine you want. Just a few clicks away.
Yes, that is true. But the hypocrisy is how Firefox criticises Google (either directly or indirectly), but is paid by Google to have them as the default search engine. The emphasis is on the word default, not that you can't change it. The same thing goes for Apple with Safari. They disabled 3rd party cookies and promote privacy, but Google is still the default browser, for which Google pays a very large amount of mon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have one which picks a bunch of random single-digit numbers and a math operator, then asks you to type the result. I spent days trying it out with screen readers and tweaking it to work with as many as possible.
This seems like it would be very easy to game
Whatsapp web does not show the authentication QR code if resistFingerprinting is on. This is annoying at minimum. I would happily use another IM, but the bad thing about network effect is that one would need to convince everyone else to make the switch, too. In order to take over, freedom-respecting services need to become _better_ than the non free ones not only on a technical level, but on a UX one, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A possibly relevant distinction for DDG ads is that (I believe) they're anonymized and tied only to the search, not to your identity.
You're right but I can't shake the feeling that if they ever become really popular the temptation to change that model will be huge. Maybe the DDG of today is principled enough not to do that (and it's also probably in their best interest at the moment since their most obvious feature compared to other big search engines is its privacy) but what about 10 years from now? Or 20 years? What happens if their growth start…
DDG may change how they do things, but I expect that if they do there will be someone else that shows up to make money by providing a value-added anonymizing wrapper on top of search performed by a larger company - and it may not even be on top of the duopoly as it exists right now (are there actual search providers in the US not wrapping Google or Bing?). This may particularly happen if a new company grows in India or China then its able to start spreading coverage to other parts of the world.
I worked in the ad industry. Every web-browser including brave, tor,safari is uniquely identifiable even on same hardware. All the public computer researchers and browser vendors are years behind the techniques to fingerprint devices (probably 5+). Canvas, WebGl etc are techniques of the past. There are much more advanced ones, than can identify devices with completely uniquely (on both desktop and mobile) Also we kn…