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

If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#91

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

caslon wrote: post #90
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally on F-Droid if an app talks to a non-free server component, the app is labeled "this app promotes non-free network resources", but the majority of Free Software-loving nerds install that app anyway. After all, it still beats using stuff like the Google Play Store. So why is Firefox doing the same thing so heinous that people would completely refuse to use it, and use one of the proprietary browsers instead?

There are other non-proprietary browsers, and Firefox is not innately better than any of them. Icecat for example. Or Epiphany. I really, really dislike Brave, and despise the person responsible for it, but even it's freer than Firefox in this regard.

Icecat (like Fennec F-Droid, too) is simply a rebranding of Firefox, and so dependent on Firefox’s ongoing development. My concern is that if people keep attacking Firefox so vehemently, that will weaken its long-term survival, and there will be less chance of the Firefox forks, too, surviving.

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#92

Post by Keirmot »

questionErAll wrote: post #85
oneplane wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be, as you point out, the primary thing for _you_. At the same time, Safari updates plenty of times, just because they don't shout about it doesn't mean it's not happening. Same goes for the backing engines (including Blink and V8 in Chromium and derivatives like CEF and node; but also WebKit and the likes). The web would be better if it wasn't dominated by a very small set of platforms. Adding 'a few more…

> That might be, as you point out, the primary thing for _you_. I'd be willing to bet that most people would consider that the primary characteristic of Safari that reminds them of IE. The market share was important to the IE hate but it wasn't because "everyone had it" it was because "everyone had it and it sucked" (sucked~= lagged/slowed development/entrenched users with shitty and unique experiences). Don't get me…

Safari is in no way any slower that chrome. Sure you might have some features that dev care about, but 99% of the sites works in safari as well as they do in chrome.

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#93

Post by caslon »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #91
caslon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other non-proprietary browsers, and Firefox is not innately better than any of them. Icecat for example. Or Epiphany. I really, really dislike Brave, and despise the person responsible for it, but even it's freer than Firefox in this regard.

Icecat (like Fennec F-Droid, too) is simply a rebranding of Firefox, and so dependent on Firefox’s ongoing development. My concern is that if people keep attacking Firefox so vehemently, that will weaken its long-term survival, and there will be less chance of the Firefox forks, too, surviving.

I know IceCat is a rebranding of Firefox. It doesn't include the Pocket integration, and therefore is an upgrade.

If Firefox dies, it honestly wouldn't be a massive loss for the open web at this point. Webkit and Blink are sufficiently divergent that we would more or less be in the same position we were when Firefox was introduced.

Mozilla's been giving their executives raises while laying off the people who actually make the thing for years now, anyway. It above everything else has sabotaged its ability for long-term survival; no amount of internet rage will change the fact that Mozilla itself does not want Firefox to survive. And its forks would likely survive; Pale Moon has somehow been able to keep at roughly feature parity for ages now despite having forked off a long time ago.

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#94

Post by oneplane »

questionErAll wrote: post #85
oneplane wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be, as you point out, the primary thing for _you_. At the same time, Safari updates plenty of times, just because they don't shout about it doesn't mean it's not happening. Same goes for the backing engines (including Blink and V8 in Chromium and derivatives like CEF and node; but also WebKit and the likes). The web would be better if it wasn't dominated by a very small set of platforms. Adding 'a few more…

> That might be, as you point out, the primary thing for _you_. I'd be willing to bet that most people would consider that the primary characteristic of Safari that reminds them of IE. The market share was important to the IE hate but it wasn't because "everyone had it" it was because "everyone had it and it sucked" (sucked~= lagged/slowed development/entrenched users with shitty and unique experiences). Don't get me…

I suppose I use macOS about 40% of the time, Windows 10% of the time and the rest is various Linux/Unix/BSD systems. Not sure how that matters.

I'm also of the opinion that for the vast majority of 'users' a locked down, managed device is the best option. To clarify: with the internet we have a vast amount of interdependent and interconnected systems, which in itself depends on everyone operating and maintaining those systems while they are part of this larger 'whole'.

I think most people neither know, nor want to know how this works or how this is done, and as such, taking part in a system that is dependant on this would be a risk for everyone involved.

Coming back to the 'the internet would be better with more diversity' (as that seems to contradict my earlier statement): diversity can come in many forms and apply on many ends. Having multiple server implementations, multiple client implementations and multiple transport implementations would benefit the quality of every implementation as it would need to be robust and tested to the point where it integrates properly. That does, however, not mean that all those differences need to be present at every layer of every implementation. Having a combination of many vendors all vending a single device with a single implementation would add plenty of diversity, same as a few vendors vending many devices with lots of device-specific variations.

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#95

Post by nickthemagicman »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #8
nickthemagicman wrote: post #2

Just install ghostery and ad block pro extensions. It gets you like 90% of the way there and you don't have to use a less polished browser.

Ghostery, at least in the past, has sold user data. ABP allows companies to pay to whitelist their ads[1], and is somewhat bloated in my experience. I highly recommend uBlock Origin. Their manifesto[2] most closely aligns with my beliefs on how my browser should behave: "The user decides what web content is acceptable or not in their browser." 1: https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization 2: https://github.com/gor…

Install whatever. You can check how good your set up is.

https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#96

Post by nickthemagicman »

franklyt wrote: post #4
nickthemagicman wrote: post #2

Just install ghostery and ad block pro extensions. It gets you like 90% of the way there and you don't have to use a less polished browser.

Ghostery? Owned by Cliqz? Seems a bit questionable.

Just check your setup here.

https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#97

Post by smitty1e »

t-writescode wrote: post #67
smitty1e wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Ridiculous' is unfair. Google has enough technical chops and market heft to set new internet standards and not look as silly as Redmond did in the 90s in the process.

I think you’re equally being unfair to who Microsoft was and employed in the 90s.

Very possibly so, especially on an individual basis.

Yet the echos of a bazillion BSODs that have seemed less prevalent with Chrome are there.

To your point, comparing an OS to a browser is lame.

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#98

Post by HWR_14 »

smitty1e wrote: post #97
t-writescode wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re equally being unfair to who Microsoft was and employed in the 90s.

Very possibly so, especially on an individual basis. Yet the echos of a bazillion BSODs that have seemed less prevalent with Chrome are there. To your point, comparing an OS to a browser is lame.

I'm not sure how you expected MS to prevent BSOD, which often derived from behavior of programs or drivers. The worst BSOD timeframe seemed to predate computer resources being so vast that common OS protections were viable. And when programs were more hard-crash prone in general.

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#99

Post by HWR_14 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #8
nickthemagicman wrote: post #2

Just install ghostery and ad block pro extensions. It gets you like 90% of the way there and you don't have to use a less polished browser.

Ghostery, at least in the past, has sold user data. ABP allows companies to pay to whitelist their ads[1], and is somewhat bloated in my experience. I highly recommend uBlock Origin. Their manifesto[2] most closely aligns with my beliefs on how my browser should behave: "The user decides what web content is acceptable or not in their browser." 1: https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization 2: https://github.com/gor…

Does uBlock Origin have, like NoScript, an easy way to toggle whether scripts (and other resources) from various domains are loaded straight in the browser? Or is it "modify a config text file and reload".

I figured out how to block specific elements, but I do miss the ease of just turning off sources from a GUI of "everything that loaded".

Re: If you care about privacy, it’s time to try a new web browser

#100

Post by HWR_14 »

izacus wrote: post #17
franklyt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t believe this was overlooked by a prestigious publication.

Honestly, I find NYTs privacy articles to be full of errors and deliberate omissions to drive the agenda. It's seriously made me question about their reputation.

It's far more likely that the errors are because the editors are non-technical and they seem to have one primary author. It could reflect his bias or his ignorance.
Post reply on HN