Shots fired 🔥
those tables usually are wrong or misleading, i don’t like them.
Edge for example has the 3rd party cookie blocking and it works ok, so why it’s “no” and not “somewhat” or similar?
The ‘Enforce users choice’ is just GPC on by default I believe. Which means nothing since it is still voluntary.
I dont see the line “3rd party cookie blocking”
should be “prevent sites from tracking”. Or they carefully chose that sentence in order to give a “no” to edge and “somewhat” to chrome and opera
Precisely why these “feature comparisons” are bogus.
It’s this.
Firefox’ total cookie protection does not block third party cookies, it isolates them in separate jars for each website…
Total Cookie Protection works by creating a separate “cookie jar” for each website you visit. Instead of allowing trackers to link up your behavior on multiple sites, they just get to see behavior on individual sites. Any time a website, or third-party content embedded in a website, deposits a cookie in your browser, that cookie is confined to the cookie jar assigned to only that website. No other websites can reach into the cookie jars that don’t belong to them and find out what the other websites’ cookies know about you — giving you freedom from invasive ads and reducing the amount of information companies gather about you.
Firefox uses a built-in domain blocklist for tracking protection, in addition to blocking third party cookies
Although that would not explain why Chrome and Opera pass that at all to begin with IMO. Maybe these browsers enforce their own additional data silos or other deviations from specs when in Private Browsing mode. I know Chrome for example shrinks the storage provision for various JS APIs down to practically nothing when in Incognito mode, which can break things like Teams Web etc when you start sharing files.
Either way though all marketing ever is, is just a selection of carefully chosen words. In this case, browsers too, as there’s no Brave there (I’m not a fan of Brave anyway, but worth noting)
Does it, though? Or does Microsoft come under the second party label
if i enable it, most websites don’t load ads at all, including MSN news that’s ad-ridden
the ‘msn news’ that most people see is the ‘start’ page that’s baked into the edge browser. ubo does not work on it. for users that actually want that page, i clean up the start page settings and throw a bookmark to msn.com on their toolbar instead so ubo works.
By that logic Linux supports windows because I can run it using wine.
Yeah I’m confused about what tracking Chrome blocks that Chredge does not.
I think this is a shitpost of the highest order. If this appears to everyone (?) it adds nothing, and the crappy table is just astonishingly blatant cherry-picking.
It seems to trigger discussions like yours, so it’s good, a forum is for discussion.
I think it’s a work of love. :)
That’s how all these tables are. If a vendor presents a table comparing themselves to competitors, it’s going to be cherry picked.
Chrome and Google 4 LYFE bro!
Firefox and Chrome are friends. Mozilla is Google’s puppet.
What a weird and false belief to randomly take
Unfortunately it is true.
Mozilla sells your data to google. Why their website has google trackers and neither brave or duckduckgo do not? 500M is big sum…
Source please.
For what? Google trackers? Use uBo, view source, whatever, mozilla uses google analytics. 500M? I think we do not know details and yes if is conspiracy theories only 🤣
Safari needs a tick in “copy urls without site tracking” since ios17 and macOS Sonoma
https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/remove-tracking-information-urls-safari/
Copy without tracking has been hit or miss for me on Firefox
I just gave up and went back to using ClearURLs add-on. Nothing else seems to work as reliably, not even adding rules to uBO.
I don’t use ClearURLs because it breaks some websites and doesn’t implement a blacklist
Really? I haven’t had it break anything at all.
I like using Firefox, but it’s a bit ironic to have google analytics tracking on the page you declare to protect the users privacy.
They never claimed firefox.com was privacy focused. Only your browser.
Just doesn’t sit well But at least it’s open source
i’m the bestest browser guys, i swear. source: trust me bro.
(I use firefox before y’all come for my neck)
Its kind of like Simplex Chat claiming to be more secure and private than everything else. (Solid platform though)
i’m the bestest browser guys, i swear. source: trust me bro.
Microsoft Edge has entered the chat
We Dutchies had a commercial like that.
Loosely translated: “We from WC duck recommend WC duck products.”
Of these type of browser privacy comparisons the best I have found so far is https://privacytests.org/
There’s a line “Insecure website warning” and it says firefox doesn’t have it. My firefox always displays a warning when opening a http site. edit: Isn’t https-only enabled by default?
Sorry, I don’t use Firefox so I cannot check what the default is at the moment. I have Librefox and Mullvad Broswer and https is on by default and they both have a green tick on this test.
Yeah, I also realized that my firefox uses arkenfox.js, so mine is also not a default install.
Off the top of my head https-only is an available setting but is not enabled by default. Although “insecure website warning” would suggest to me that the certificate is expired or invalid, and Firefox is usually the easiest web browser to push past a self-signed certificate warning for local services
Looking at that, why do some browsers block media query screen size by default??
The browser window size is an easy way to fingerprint. You might be the only person viewing web content in a 1916x988 window who also has a certain font installed.
Yes, but that probably also prevents websites from adapting to your window size better.
So, I haven’t done any html or css since around when the mobile web was in its infancy but by my understanding responsive websites don’t need to know the exact screen resolution to be responsive. You anchor elements to certain parts of other elements and some are anchored to certain regions of the screen and change the arrangement if there’s not enough space to fit them all on that axis
It’s in the “Fingerprinting resistance tests” section so it would be one of the ways of preventing a browser from being uniquely identified by various reported variables, screen height, width etc. It’s worth taking a look at this site that someone else here mentioned to see what information your browser is giving up about itself: https://www.amiunique.org/
Sure, you can get fingerprinted if you have a unique window size, but do you really want to disable that at the cost of disabling all responsive websites?
I am using Librewolf and Mullvad Browser as daily drivers, both of which pass the fingerprinting resistance tests, and the only problem I have experienced was with Twitch and that was solved by changing the user agent.
That’s not what I mean by responsive. Look at the first image in the article, and now resize the window. By disabling media queries, that probably doesn’t happen anymore.
That image is responsive on both my browsers. I used the Twitch example only to make the point that that was the only problem I’d experienced, not that it was necessarily related to responsiveness.
Im just over here using firefox since it was still netscape navigator 2.0.
Another update? Okay
I’d rather them just put up the results of the chrome lawsuit rather than a marketing table lol.
Feel free to test your fingerprinting resistance on a stock Firefox-install. https://www.amiunique.org/
So it says that the fingerprint is unique. What information do I gain from that?
It means that you are not protected. The fingerprint resistance failed. Firefox has very weak fingerprint resistance out of the box, I don’t know why they advertise it as being effective. If your fingerprint is unique, it means every site you visit knows exactly who you are and share your visit and actions on that site with all their friends so that you can be tracked through the internet.
To be clear, a unique fingerprint doesn’t have to mean you can be tracked. You can set up your browser to randomise attributes, which means you can have a unique fingerprint, but not an unusual fingerprint, and not the same fingerprint on any two visits. That way you can’t be singled out from the other users who set up their browsers like this, and if done well, can’t be singled out from any first-time visitor.Is there anything I can do to mask the fingerprint to a degree or am I fucked?
You do have resources to limit fingerprinting, including beating many techniques, but it’s involved and I don’t have any useful links for you right now. On the site I linked, they provide resources to help you – including showing you exactly how they fingerprinted you. The easiest-strongest change is disabling javascript (The noscript addon makes this toggle-able and configurable), but of course that breaks all websites.
The information that Google iframe gains on almost every site is that it is you visiting that site, as verified by your unique fingerprint. Into your profile it goes.
Yeah it actually really bad that they can identify every single unique user like this.
They need to add a row for
“Owned by a foreign superpower”“Owned by the Chinese government” and a check for Opera.Everyone knows the world is divided into:
- United States
- Everyone Else
How is Mozilla owned by the US government?
On one hand, yeah. On the other hand, that could be a point in its favor, depending on your threat model. After all, if you’re American, China can’t prosecute you for secrets it learns from Opera the way the FBI could prosecute you for secrets it learns from Google.
On the third hand it’s pointless cause they all buy each other’s data anyways.
Literally every single entry is owned by a foreign superpower.
Honestly I don’t see the reason they put that there. I already own Firefox why are you trying to win me over?
People tend to have multiple browsers. You might have FireFox installed but still not be aware why you should use it over other browsers on your computer.
This is a very good reason to put this kind of page in. For less computer savvy people, they may vaguely know “if I click this fox icon it takes me to the Internet and so does this colorful circle and this blue swoosh, so it’s all the same” but when they accidentally open one they use less often, seeing something like this might push their preference a little for which one they open
i do the multiple browsers thing, but it’s firefox, firefox developer, and librewolf (i also have a seamonkey and a waterfox on one system). and they can all run at the same time without conflicting with another.
the few instances where i need a chromium-based one, it’s a fresh ‘install’ of a portable ‘alternative’ like vivaldi or opera from portableapps (or via appimage on linux) and then deleted when i’m done with it.
You’re not a typical user or the target audience.
For the newbies
Conveniently excluding Vivaldi browser.
And Brave too, which inconveniently beats firefox hands down in independent privacy checks. The mozilla foundation finally needs to step it up.
Everyone’s just trying to strike a balance between protecting privacy and preserving usability - it’s not as simple as just enabling the strictest privacy protections, consequences be damned. Case in point: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/brave-to-end-strict-fingerprinting-protection-as-it-breaks-websites/
That heavily depends. Brave may have better advice/tracker blocking by default, but they send more telemetry. Them being an advertising company also doesn’t speak for them. Brave is a decent browser and on IOS/IPadOS a good option for open source + Adblock, but max privacy would be reconfigured Firefox or Librewolf.
I have no idea why you were down voted. These are facts, not opinions
Fact: Brave is a protection racket wrapped in a crypto scam.
Fact: your opinion is based on snippets of things you heard online and doesn’t actually match reality 🤷
Sadly its not just “heard”. Just google it, you will find enough “incidents” brave had.
Fact: your opinion is based on snippets of things you heard online and doesn’t actually match reality 🤷
My facts come directly from Brave’s own claims, so fuck off with your condescension, fanboi. Your dismissive trolling isn’t welcome here.
Find me a claim from Brave’s that it’s a protection racket.
Find me a claim from Brave’s that it’s a crypto scam. NOT just that they use crypto, but that it’s a scam.
And before you start, a blanket statement of “all crypto is a scam” is not a fact. It’s hyperbole and your opinion.
So do you actually have “facts”? Or did you just present opinions as facts?
Of course criminals aren’t going to admit that they’re criminals. But when they describe their behavior (in this case, man-in-the-middle replacing sites’ ads with their own and then extorting them to participate in the crypto scheme in order to replace the revenue) anybody objective would recognize that it is, in fact, criminal.
Even if it weren’t for the crypto, Brave’s CEO is one sleazy, untrustworthy motherfucker. I’d never put my privacy in his hands. Just an absolute dogshit reputation.
I figured there was enough to criticize without needing to resort to ad-hominem attacks against the CEO. However, if we’re going there, then I’d be remiss not to point out that he’s also the motherfucker who inflicted Javascript upon the world when we could’ve had a decent language like Python or Scheme in the browser instead. Not to downplay the significance of his bigotry, but that’s almost the greatest sin of them all!
Homophobes always come bundled with a lot of other problems. There’s no way anyone can trust a homophobe of any kind.
Anyway, blocking you. Have a great life, asshole.
Edit: Bonus fuck javascript
Edit 2: This was so wrong of me, I’m sorry. I’m an ass. Leaving my comment for honesty’s sake.
Hey Linky… friendly fire!
That guy was agreeing with you:
- Brave bad
- JavaScript bad
- Bigotry bad
:)
It’s also yet another Chromium fork which if there’s one thing the world does not need more of, it’s Chromium forks
They are bots.
Everyone who disagrees with you is.
And DuckDuckGo Browser
They included the biggest browsers. They don’t need to include every single browser in existence.
Youch, that’s just mean!
I know, right? Where’s my entry for
lynx, dang it?!Holy crap, do people still use lynx? (asked in an endearing tone)
yes, I do! helps me to quickly search for information without leaving my beloved terminal. in fact, I have added a custom theme to it(Dracula). I’ve aliased it to open mojeek by default.
if i’m feeling fancy, then only I fire up librewolf.
You are too cool for school if you use lynx!
mojeek and lynx together, love this combo!
If it’s going to be about privacy, they should at least include the privacy oriented browsers even if they aren’t the biggest ones out there.
You love it?
I bet you hate Google doing self ads?
Yet this is also just a self ad. And spammy, because it pops open a tab, something browsers are supposed to suppress unless specifically enabled.This is a false equivalence.
If Google advertises the merits of their browser within their browser, like Mozilla is doing here, then that’s fair enough, I have zero complaints about that. Why not have a welcome page when you install the browser, highlighting the benefits of using your product?
If Google is utilising their other products to unfairly give themselves a leg up in advertising their browser, then yeah, I’m against that.
If I search on Google (the de facto standard), I shouldn’t have popups telling me to use Chrome. If I watch a YouTube video, Google shouldn’t be allowed to place Chrome ads there.
Same goes for MS relentlessly advertising Edge in Windows and forcing it into other Microsoft programs.
Those are examples of companies abusing their monopolistic market position to gain a business advantage, which is illegal. It’s nothing like Mozilla having a Firefox ad within Firefox.
I tend to agree here. It’s like Netflix showing banners of what content they have, on their own site.
“Here are some features of this product you have!” Intrusive, maybe, but not like they’re directing you away to pay more money.
But what about Duckduckgo advertising its browser on its search homepage? Would that be a problem too? Or is it only because Google has a dominant position in search?
Would it be an issue for Apple to advertise its browser on macOS? Every time I get a system update on macOS, I get a “what’s new” thing for Safari, even though I never use it (Firefox is my default browser on my work computer). Is that okay? Is it okay if Microsoft does it as well?
What about Mullvad advertising its browser on its webpage, which is selling a VPN service? Mullvad Browser integrates Mullvad VPN features, so it’s directly related, kind of like how Chrome integrates Google Search features and Safari integrates macOS features.
I’m not sure where I stand here. Saying company X can’t do what company Y can do just because company X has a dominant position just feels wrong. I’m all for attacking abuse of dominance, I just think this argument is a little weak.
The abuse of market position makes it far worse, and I’d argue illegal under existing competition law.
Your other examples are annoyances for sure, but not straight up anti-competitive/probably illegal.
The way you describe the MacOS one makes it sound like a system update change log, an entirely different thing.
Saying company X can’t do what company Y can do just because company X has a dominant position just feels wrong
Why?
One would be abusing monopolistic power, the other isn’t.
The way you describe the MacOS one makes it sound like a system update change log, an entirely different thing.
Yeah, it’s a “what’s new” OS update, but that includes Safari features, which isn’t strictly an OS thing. Microsoft got a lot of flak for including IE with the OS (well, a bit more than that, they tried to block Netscape from accessing “private” APIs that IE had access to), and it seems to follow that Apple should get a similar amount of flak for having an unfair advantage with Safari having access to OS features before anything else.
One would be abusing monopolistic power, the other isn’t.
Is advertising “abusing monopolistic power”? I get Microsoft getting hit with anti-trust because they actively prevented competition, but both MS and Apple advertise their other products through their OS (e.g. IE and Safari, Office 365 and iCloud, etc).
Google should absolutely get hit with anti-trust when they are shown to make their sites perform worse on other browser engines (happens a lot w/ Firefox, where just changing user-agent improves perf). But I’m not so sure that they should be hit with anti-trust for advertising their other products, because that’s an establish practice.
A changelog is a changelog. If safari updates are in OS updates, then yeah that’s where the changes will be listed.
Microsoft got a lot of flak for including IE with the OS […] Apple should too
In a completely different market.
At the time, browsers were sold as standalone software. MS including it was an unfair advantage in that context.
Nowadays browsers aren’t distributed in that way, installing another browser takes seconds and they’re free. It’s nowhere near as anti-competitive.
Is advertising “abusing monopolistic power”?
Please don’t distort my words. I never said that. You know exactly what I said and the meaning behind it.
Google using their position in Search and on YouTube and Gmail to push you to install Chrome is an abuse of market position.
I never said advertising is an abuse of monopolistic power and you know that.
I don’t know why you’re being so needlessly combative here?
I’m not trying to be combative, just wondering what the policy would look like.
A changelog is a changelog
Sure, and I would expect to see the Safari changelog when I launch Safari. But I get it when I upgrade my OS, and Safari (in my eyes) isn’t an OS feature. I don’t use Safari, so seeing Safari changelog is an ad. Likewise for Edge on Windows, I don’t use Edge, so seeing an Edge changelog from an OS update is an ad (not sure if MS still does that, I haven’t used Windows in years).
Google advertises its products on its search page. Microsoft advertises its products on its OS (initial run, pretty much every update). Apple does the same with macOS.
So what exactly is the proposed change? Do we block advertising for other products if you have a certain share of the market? Or does it come down to the manner of advertising?
In my mind, “monopolistic behavior” means doing something to undermine competition. If you’re merely pushing your own services and not interfering with other options, I don’t think that’s anti-competitive. For example, is Valve’s pushing of its Steam Deck on their store anti-competitive? Valve is dominant on the PC gaming market and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re dominant in handheld PC gaming as well (e.g. compare to Ayaneo, Asus ROG Ally, etc). That sounds similar to how Google is dominant in both search and browser market share. I don’t think Valve should be treated as a monopoly though since they’re not really doing monopoly things (no exclusives except a handful of Valve-made titles, no special discount for using Steam Deck, etc).
I get it, Google is bad, but what exactly are they doing that’s bad that should be restricted? What exactly should the law look like? We can’t punish companies because we feel they’re doing bad things, we need a system of laws that specifically lays out what’s not okay. AFAIK, Google doesn’t meet the current standard, so what exactly should that standard be?
Tell me about it. I use nothing but Firefox right now and I hate these intrusive ads. Of course, there’s no built in way to disable it, when it could very easily be a toggle.
Every brother has one of these on their site, and somehow that browser always wins
So does Simplex Chat.
be sure to run on top of linux otherwise…
