kbal

Firefox (with good settings, or Librewolf) + uBlock Origin + Decentraleyes + NoScript (with default permissions removed) is probably > 80%.

deleted by creator

Iceraven is one alternative worth considering.

It’s probably related to this: https://gitlab.com/relan/fennecbuild/-/merge_requests/63

F-droid Fennec had build problems lately due to google removing big dependencies from its android package repo or whatever, so it’s well out of date for now. The latest version there has at least that one well-known security problem that was in the news a few weeks ago. I don’t know why you’re getting notified about it now, I have it installed and didn’t see that. But if you’re risk-averse then you probably shouldn’t currently be using it to visit websites that might be malicious.

Recent comments over there suggest that progress is being made at last.

The “you’d have to prove to someone that you’re an adult” is where we disagree. I was talking about parents setting a “user is a child” flag on the devices they let their kids use. They already know who their children are, no proof is necessary. The device can then send an http header to websites for example indicating that it’s a child user. That part could be mandated and standardized by law. It’s 99% of the problems solved (in legal theory; obviously not every website and app in the world will choose to participate in any of these schemes) with 1% of the dangers.

So long as they don’t go overboard with misguided efforts to make it impossible for children to defeat the thing, it seems fine. It’s dismaying that all the proposals end up with all these ridiculously dysfunctional ideas instead.

When I hear about “device-based verification” what comes to mind is a device that can be put into some kind of child safety mode, by parents who want to give their children phones or whatever. The device then “knows” whether or not its user is a child without any kind of biometrics or identification.

It has some problems and could case a lot of harm if it’s badly designed, but it’s the only method that seems close to workable in any conceivable form. Why is it never even talked about in these discussions?

Wait, what? You think they’re not planning on getting paid for providing this data to advertisers?

P.S. It looks like Mozilla’s Data Privacy FAQ is going to need updating. It doesn’t even mention this stuff. As the noyb complaint points out:

20. The Respondent does not provide any information at all in its privacy policy with regard to “PPA”. Neither in the general privacy policy (enclosure 9) nor in the privacy information for Firefox (enclosure 10) is any relevant information apparent.

21. The last update of the Firefox privacy policy took place on May 13, 2024.

I would say it’s more of a desperate attempt to continue the current paradigm of online advertising which deems indispensable the kind of data about conversion rates to which the industry has become accustomed, despite the recognition that their current means of collecting it must come to an end.

But either way, it’s incompatible with the principles of free software. Users are not meant to put up with features that are there for the sole benefit of someone else; someone they might normally consider an adversary. The only incentive we’re given to participate in this scheme is one that resembles blackmail. Except it isn’t even advertisers saying “do this, or we’ll spy on you like usual” — it’s Mozilla saying “do this, and maybe we can persuade a few of them not to spy on you as much, and to give us a cut.”

They are selling behavioural data about their users to advertisers. People are not going to be happy with that no matter how they try to spin it.

They added a feature to track conversions among Firefox users for online advertisers. Selling it as a “paradigm-shifting boost to online privacy” while accusing others of pushing a misleading narrative is absurd.

There certainly are many people who seem suspiciously eager to find fault with Firefox. But it’s not really a surprise when its authors do things like this. They chose not to make this feature opt-in because they know that nobody in their right mind would opt into it. There is no benefit to the user in it, only risk. Mozilla seems to be leaving us to go off and join the advertising industry instead. People feel betrayed, and it feeds the cynical nihilism that comes so easily to social media users under the conditions of late capitalism.

Self-censorship working a little too well.

I would certainly advise everyone to choose a phone with that in mind.

The desktop client is not great, but it works. There certainly are things Signal could do better. Its phone-centric nature is ridiculous and I have no idea why they cling to it. But it’s easier than trying to get everyone to use Matrix or whatever — mainly because more people have heard of it.

Be paranoid in your estimation of how much privacy you have, but diligent in your efforts to get more of it for everyone.

Yeah, Signal is good enough. If people use shitty operating systems like iOS or Google’s version of Android that’s another problem and not really one that it’s my job to care about that much. What matters is the network effect and every user who moves moves from Whatsapp to Signal is one more person who gains the freedom to easily improve their digital lives further if they someday choose to do so without it costing them the ability to chat with all their friends.

What they need to do: Ban the practice of showing ads to people based on surveillance data, for a start.

What they will do: Demand that more data be collected to determine which users are children and therefore worthy of protection.

It might contribute in some small aesthetic way to deterring them, which seems a much better ambition.

deleted by creator

If that is a big problem, one alternative is to get a post office box.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Doorbell.JPG/500px-Doorbell.JPG

1984 was written in 1948, after fascists had already demonstrated that capitalism is quite compatible with totalitarianism.