? Editing: Post:21.body Save Delete Cancel
Initial sync in progress...

Newest topics

Follow in NewsfeedFollowing
+ Start new topic
Loading...
stickied

Title

Body
^1 ^2 added ━ started by user_name
More topics

 

Follow in NewsfeedFollowing

Censorship-Free Browsers Will Become Rare

Google's Project Veritas and Mozilla's "acknowledgement of Russian interference" AKA not blaming the DNC's failings are concerning. Guaranteed, even the truth will be censored by the brainwashed (through fear), conflicts of interest and the deep state.

We need either sanitized or from-scratch browsers. This will become too big of a threat to free speech for us to ignore.

What are the options? ZeroNet-Browser, Pale Moon, LibreWolf, Tor Browser, Icecat.

BTW, host your git repos on GitCenter and IPFS. You simply cannot trust a third party. Things will get much worse. See ahead of the increasing slope of censorship.

Be concerned.

^9 ^10 styromaniac posted on Jul 03, 2019
Please sign innew comment
Sign in as...
Submit comment
You are running out of your allowed space, please contact the site's admin at unknown to raise your limit.
user_nameadded ^1 ^2
Reply
Body
filipson Jul 22, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

styromaniac: If not, then you'll find more websites only working properly in browsers that are like Chrome, then the uninformed users will blame the browsers that are fully W3C compliant.

This is already happening. There are few examples of this.


One example of this are CSS Scrollbars. There are a few ways to style scrollbars with CSS.

First is to use ::-webkit-scrollbar pseudo-element. Although it is not standard and not recommended (by MDN), it's used by every website that styles scrollbars. Also, even if it is supported only in Webkit and Blink, that is 90% of all existing browsers.

There is also other way with scrollbar-width and scrollbar-color properties. This is standard (currently Working Draft). But it is supported only in Firefox and no website uses it.

This is just some quick and not so important example because websites will work even if they use default scrollbars.


But there is also other example of non-standard APIs in Chrome. And this is Shadow DOM V0.

It was supported only in Chromium (and other 90% of Chromium based browsers) and not standard. And website used it.

Then Shadow DOM V1 came out and which is standard and all other browser support it. But many website still used old V0. This also includes YouTube and other popular sites.


I also read some analyses somewhere that Firefox is most W3C compliant browser. But websites and Chrome are not so web is now broken...

styromaniacon Jul 22, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

An important thing to remember is to inform the web developer that Chrome is made to allow bad coding (hand holding) and that if a web developer is to take their education seriously that they should test their websites in entirety on browsers of a different codebase.

If not, then you'll find more websites only working properly in browsers that are like Chrome, then the uninformed users will blame the browsers that are fully W3C compliant.

xianc78on Jul 12, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

nickwa: People do not realize Google is shady because people do not care. There is so many people I told about Google that still use it. Our problem just like with IE is going to be the normal users who use whatever other people use, as well as laziness. Google uses this to their advantage. Unfortunately, the only ways for things to change like IE: Is for things to get really bad, or another mind share takeover. There is even people who still use Facebook, despite its numerous scandals. Mind share is a hell of a thing. Even if you convince all the technology knowledgeable people to not use anything Google, the non-tech savy outweigh us. [...]

I think switching browsers shouldn't be that much of a hassel even for non tech-savvy users. With something like Facebook, you need friends to use the same service, but with something like a browser, you just need to get use to a new interface.

As for mind share, you just need an aggressive ad-campaign. That's how Sega was abled to take on Nintendo's monopoly back in the 90s. Of course, a non-profit community project may not afford that, but it could be done by it's users.

nickwaon Jul 12, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

geekless: Yeah, it has, and it's also a closed-source technology, so better alternatives are welcome. Adobe could try to open the sources and initiate a standardization process, but they missed the time and lost their market. [...]

Not only that, but there is the #1 thing corporations want the most: Mind share. Once you have that, you can become really anti-competitive and anti-consumer and still be bought. Google, Intel, Nvidia, Facebook, and a bunch of other big corporations do it to this day.

nickwaon Jul 12, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

filips: Google is even more shady. Problem is that people don't realize that. [...]

People do not realize Google is shady because people do not care. There is so many people I told about Google that still use it. Our problem just like with IE is going to be the normal users who use whatever other people use, as well as laziness. Google uses this to their advantage. Unfortunately, the only ways for things to change like IE: Is for things to get really bad, or another mind share takeover. There is even people who still use Facebook, despite its numerous scandals. Mind share is a hell of a thing. Even if you convince all the technology knowledgeable people to not use anything Google, the non-tech savy outweigh us.

This is why I doubt people will care if they will have to pay for a walled gateway for the internet to censor any "harmful" views. People after all, love ease of use and whatever everyone else uses.

For those that do not understand it: "Mind share relates generally to the development of consumer awareness or popularity, and is one of the main objectives of advertising and promotion. When people think of examples of a product type or category, they usually think of a limited number of brand names."

"Kleenex, for example, can distinguish itself as a type of tissue. But, because it has gained popularity amongst consumers, it is frequently used as a term to identify any tissue, even if it is from a competing brand."

geeklesson Jul 11, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

filips: Flash really has many vulnerabilities.

Yeah, it has, and it's also a closed-source technology, so better alternatives are welcome. Adobe could try to open the sources and initiate a standardization process, but they missed the time and lost their market.

But when corporations such as Google or Apple talk about Flash shortcomings, users should understand that corporations really don't care. The only thing they care about is the market share of their own products.

filipson Jul 10, 2019 ^4 ^5
Reply

nickwa: Adobe is a really shady company. You can ask people who use their products in programming.

Google is even more shady. Problem is that people don't realize that.

geekless: They said Flash had dangerous vulnerabilities, but it seems the most dangerous vulnerability Flash had was actually the fact it was invented not in Google.

Flash really has many vulnerabilities.

And there are new, better and modern alternatives for it (HTML, CSS, JS, WebGL...) and I like that it will be replaced. That alternatives are actually good and were meant to be open and standardized.

But there is also Google with then breaks standard technologies, controls them and blames other browsers for that.

diff: Chrome is new IE. Electron is new Flash.

It seems Chrome will be even worse than IE.

IE completely didn't obey standards so people then realized that there is something not OK. But Google has better plan.

They made Chromium open source and they are making some new "standard" technologies. Open sourcing Chromium just helped Google to built monopoly. And making that new "standards" tricks people and developers that Chrome is only modern browser which cares about standards.

Because of all that things, most people still won't realize what Google is doing. So it's even worse than Microsoft in its "best times".

nickwa: I just know Brave's CEO said he will fork Chromium once Google forces no adblocking(Unless something changed, idk)

I won't be surprised if websites then suddenly "stop working" in Brave, just like in Firefox. And even if it's based on Chromium...

nickwaon Jul 10, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

geekless: They said Flash had dangerous vulnerabilities, but it seems the most dangerous vulnerability Flash had was actually the fact it was invented not in Google.

Adobe is a really shady company. You can ask people who use their products in programming.

geeklesson Jul 10, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

diff: Chrome is new IE. Electron is new Flash.

They said Flash had dangerous vulnerabilities, but it seems the most dangerous vulnerability Flash had was actually the fact it was invented not in Google.

nickwaon Jul 10, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

filips: This is actually also problem. Websites block browsers other than Chrome even if they completely work. [...]

I know they already block other Chromium browsers. I get around user agent blockings all the time on many different browsers incluing Chromium browsers, Firefox, etc. I switched between browsers for awhile(and have multiple for website programming reasons for compatibility) I just know Brave's CEO said he will fork Chromium once Google forces no adblocking(Unless something changed, idk)

diffon Jul 10, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

filips: some websites are already blocking non-Chromium or even non-Chrome browsers.

Chrome is new IE. Electron is new Flash.

filipson Jul 10, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

nickwa: You can get around chromium blocking by changing the user agent. A lot of sites work fine on almost every browser anyway.

This is actually also problem. Websites block browsers other than Chrome even if they completely work.

See my comment:

Also, some websites are already blocking non-Chromium or even non-Chrome browsers. And this is not because other browsers don't support some features. It's because of Google's web monopoly. And with usage of Chromium based browsers, you support that. And note that sometimes they sometimes even block Chromium based browsers which are not controlled by Google. Example of this is new Microsoft Edge. And I won't be surprised if they someday block Brave even if it's based on Chromium.

nickwaon Jul 10, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

filips: They didn't fork Chromium. And Google removed ability for ad blocking only for extensions, and Brave's ad blocker is built in. [...]

You can get around chromium blocking by changing the user agent. A lot of sites work fine on almost every browser anyway.

filipson Jul 09, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

geekless: The markdown parser seems to be "smart". :) Can be done in this way: [...]

ZeroTalk should have support to preview comment before publishing. There is already GitHub issue for that.

geeklesson Jul 09, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

filips: I actually tried to put more browsers on second place, but ZeroTalk UI automatically "fixed" numbers.

The markdown parser seems to be "smart". :) Can be done in this way:

  1. Aaa
  2. Bbb
    • X
    • Y
    • Z
filipson Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

geekless: Tor Browser [...]

I actually tried to put more browsers on second place, but ZeroTalk UI automatically "fixed" numbers.

And I also use Firefox with some addons and changed settings.

geeklesson Jul 09, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

filips: Do you trust anyone? 😃 [...]

  1. Tor Browser
  2. Firefox + Noscript

:D

But I have to allow JS for ZeroNet... %-)

filipson Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

geekless: I don't trust to the Pale Moon devs.

Do you trust anyone? 😃

You can always switch settings via about:config or in worst case read and fix source code and compile it yourself.

geeklesson Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

I don't trust to the Pale Moon devs.

filipson Jul 09, 2019 ^4 ^5
Reply

diff: Any problem with Tor Browser? I think this is the only answer.

These are the most private and secure browsers in my opinion:

  1. Tor Browser - Actually the only truly anonymous browser and routes all traffic via Tor network
    • Pale Moon - Privacy fork of old Firefox
    • GNU IceCat - Based on Firefox but including only free software
    • LibreWolf - Firefox with privacy and security fixes (fork of LibreFox)
    • Firefox (with additional configuration) - Firefox is still privacy browser, but it requires some additional configuration to disable tracking (see this and this)
  2. Ungoogled-Chromium - Good for privacy if you really need Chromium based browser, but it will still help Google doing their monopoly
zerone7on Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

diff: They handle (read: intercept) 10% traffic of whole The Internet.

Right

  • 14.19% for the top 1,000 Alexa sites
  • 19.71% for the top 10,000
  • 16.51% for the top 100,000
  • 8.501% for the top 1,000,000

https://www.who-hosts-this.com/Hosts/3-Cloudflare

Or roughly 12%

https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/dns/cloudflare-dns-market-share/

In the Content Delivery Network (CDN) category, CloudFlare has a market share of about 19.5%.


Companies that use CloudFlare, by industry :
Hospital & Health Care 34758
Retail 19498
Restaurants 17411
Computer Software 16546
Real Estate 15651
Information Technology and Services 14987
Construction 14373
Marketing and Advertising 13106
Internet 9685
Nonprofit Organization Management 9576

https://enlyft.com/tech/products/cloudflare

diffon Jul 09, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

mozilla: They try, like Google, to have a finger in every pie. They offer a free MitM service, a free DNS service, a free VPN service, a free CDN service, a free IPFS service, what could possibly go wrong lol.

And a free onion hidden service.

They handle (read: intercept) 10% traffic of whole the Internet.

diffon Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

Pale Moon inherit most spirit of old Firefox, but their developer have some paranoia.

diffon Jul 09, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

Any problem with Tor Browser? I think this is the only answer.

styromaniacon Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

mozilla: I've never understood why people want >720p quality, 360p is enough for most of my use cases. I'll try out IceCat [...]

It makes a difference even on 1440p displays, but I agree there can be diminishing returns around there. Still is sharper than 1080p.

mozillaon Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

I'm really liking Icecat. No listed antifeatures, plus it can actually seek 4K MP4 videos without flaking out. This is a good Web dev target.

I've never understood why people want >720p quality, 360p is enough for most of my use cases. I'll try out IceCat

The first thing that pops up is a "Privacy settings" configuration menu :)

styromaniacon Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

I'm really liking Icecat. No listed antifeatures, plus it can actually seek 4K MP4 videos without flaking out. This is a good Web dev target.

mozillaon Jul 09, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

Thanks, the problem with browsers is that it needs to be compatible with ever changing specifications like HTML, CSS, SVG, Javascript and it requires so many individual components to let a modern site function.

geekless: Yeah, Cloudflare supports IPFS. The next "Don't be evil" corporation?

They try, like Google, to have a finger in every pie. They offer a free MitM service, a free DNS service, a free VPN service, a free CDN service, a free IPFS service, what could possibly go wrong lol.

Oh they have a feel-good motto as well:

Helping Build a Better Internet

filipson Jul 09, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

mozilla: Thanks @h3bhkj5gqz4n3pjm that's a nice list of wrong-doings by Mozilla, what browser do you use or recommend?

Probably Pale Moon or Tor Browser. Both of them are based on Firefox, but with (real) privacy features. Or use LibreWolf which is Firefox with additional privacy and security features.

Also, even if Mozilla done many bad things, it's still better than Google and Chrome based browsers. At least better for open web that isn't completely controlled by Google and Chrome.

xcape2net: The Tor browser with extra privacy settings turned on was about as private as Firefox with uMatrix

Tor Browsers uses Tor network so it is more private than Firefox (and of course a very more private than Chrome).

geeklesson Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

xcape2net: I noticed Cloudflare is now hosting a large percentage of the Interplanetary File System. I don't know what to think about that.

Yeah, Cloudflare supports IPFS. The next "Don't be evil" corporation?

styromaniacon Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

xcape2net: I noticed Cloudflare is now hosting a large percentage of the Interplanetary File System. I don't know what to think about that.

That just means P2P file sharing tech is going mainstream.

mozillaon Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

xcape2net: I noticed Cloudflare is now hosting a large percentage of the Interplanetary File System. I don't know what to think about that.

How did you notice that? By accessing stuff through their gateway I guess, or checking the IPs against Cloudflare's IP ranges.

mozillaon Jul 09, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

Here's another article worth reading titled "Mozilla - Devil Incarnate": https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html

Even though Mozilla asks for donations from its users, this is what the "Executive Chairwoman" of Mozilla Mitchell Baker received in monetary compensation:

In 2017 she received a total of $2,346,026 in compensation from Mozilla.[14]

Thanks @h3bhkj5gqz4n3pjm that's a nice list of wrong-doings by Mozilla, what browser do you use or recommend?

xcape2neton Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

h3bhkj5gqz4n3pjm: On apparence, verification sites like:...

I noticed Cloudflare is now hosting a large percentage of the Interplanetary File System. I don't know what to think about that.

styromaniacon Jul 09, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

xcape2net: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html highly recommended Palemoon and the uMatrix addon. [...]

I would block clearnet access completely. I don't know the desktop OS equivalent to Android per-app firewalling apps, but if there were a way, I'd hope to find it. It seems you can't reasonably trust browsers. There has to be a reason why they do this, and not for suiting the user's need for privacy.

xcape2neton Jul 08, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html highly recommended Palemoon and the uMatrix addon.

Results from my privacy testing:
The default configuration of Palemoon failed every test on panopticlick.com and froze on ip-check.info.
Selecting more privacy settings for Palemoon caused it to pass 4 of the 5 tests on panopticlick.com (still failed the 5th test, fingerprinting)
Firefox with uMatrix was fairly private, but not perfect.
The Tor browser with extra privacy settings turned on was about as private as Firefox with uMatrix (or maybe a little better; there are so many tests on ip-check.info that it's hard to compare).
None of the above blocked fingerprinting.

xcape2neton Jul 08, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

simplex: I've had no issues running it on Mint. I have it installed on several systems I own.

There are a couple of different versions of Brave for Linux Mint (if that is what you were referring to). The version for Mint 17 that I tried didn't work. Others say the version for Mint 18.3 works, but I haven't tried it, because Mint 18.3 for some reason seems to have problems running on all three of my laptops. It will work fine for a while, and then about a minute after I boot up, it will freeze for 2 to 4 minutes and then come back to life. This annoys me too much, so I don't use it. It seems later versions of Linux appear to be evolving to be like Windows, in that they think they should have priority over user usage? I hope I'm wrong about that.

simplexon Jul 08, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

xcape2net: Ungoogled Chromium

I've had no issues running it on Mint. I have it installed on several systems I own.

xianc78on Jul 06, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

There is also GNU IceCat, but the emphasis on freetardism prevents certain sites from working correctly due to their JS.

styromaniac: All the more reason to dislike Mozilla, Claiming trademark over the word fox.

They could've at least rename it. At least Mozilla is not like RedHat/IBM with SystemD where they break API compatibility in every update, killing compatibility with forks in the process. But with that said, I really think the whole "just fork it" mentality does jack shit. I only ever see it working when a project becomes abandoned. The popularity of the vanilla software will overshadow the forks especially if it is trademarked or do that SystemD practice I mentioned earlier. I bet most Firefox users aren't even aware that forks even exist.

madroadon Jul 06, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

styromaniac: All the more reason to dislike Mozilla, Claiming trademark over the word fox.

What does the fox say xD

styromaniacon Jul 06, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

yu82: It is just stupid. I wonder if they really have trademarked the word "Fox" in the browsers market, I doubt it. There has been a long-time fork of Firefox called Waterfox which is much closer to the "trademark" but they haven't done anything about it, I think this shows that Mozilla doesn't want privacy-friendly forks of their browsers to exist, or maybe it was a mistake from one of their employees.

Lawyers got their own agendas. Disney sues itself.

xcape2neton Jul 06, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

yu82: Here are some lists to make a better choice: ...

This looks useful. Thanks.

yu82on Jul 06, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

styromaniac: All the more reason to dislike Mozilla, Claiming trademark over the word fox.

It is just stupid. I wonder if they really have trademarked the word "Fox" in the browsers market, I doubt it. There has been a long-time fork of Firefox called Waterfox which is much closer to the "trademark" but they haven't done anything about it, I think this shows that Mozilla doesn't want privacy-friendly forks of their browsers to exist, or maybe it was a mistake from one of their employees.

styromaniacon Jul 06, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

yu82: I haven't used either of them, but I know LibreFox is simply Firefox + sane configuration. Mozilla killed LibreFox by the way.

All the more reason to dislike Mozilla, Claiming trademark over the word fox.

yu82on Jul 06, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

xcape2net: There doesn't appear to be a Linux binary for LibreWolf.

I haven't used either of them, but I know LibreFox is simply Firefox + sane configuration. Mozilla killed LibreFox by the way.

@colbycdev Mozilla, contacted me to avoid copyright and trademarks violation, i still did not have a final answer from them until then i would prefer minimizing the edit and forks, they are watching ;)

Here are some lists to make a better choice:

https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html

https://clarkycat.neocities.org/browser.html (Only lists Icecat and LibreFox and some addons)

https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html

xcape2neton Jul 06, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

There doesn't appear to be a Linux binary for LibreWolf.

yu82on Jul 06, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

FYI: LibreWolf is a fork of LibreFox, LibreFox is no longer in development.

styromaniacon Jul 06, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

filips: I think that Brave shouldn't be listed in OP. Based on Spyware Watchdog it is in same (Spyware: High) category as Firefox. Except that Firefox risk can be mitigated by following their guide and Brave risk can't be. Also, usage of Brave isn't good for web because it encourages Google's monopoly... [...]

Done

yu82on Jul 06, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

I like Ungoogled Chromium better than Brave, it doesn't include an ad-blocker but it's not hard to install uBlock Origin from .zip file.

But since Google doesn't want people to move away from Chrome it blocks the Chrome Web Store for Chromium browsers, I think.

I've never used Pale Moon.

filipson Jul 06, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

styromaniac: Editing into OP, both Brave and Pale Moon.

I think that Brave shouldn't be listed in OP. Based on Spyware Watchdog it is in same (Spyware: High) category as Firefox. Except that Firefox risk can be mitigated by following their guide and Brave risk can't be. Also, usage of Brave isn't good for web because it encourages Google's monopoly...

Instead, you should add Tor Browser and Librefox or it's fork LibreWolf which are Firefox with more privacy settings.

styromaniacon Jul 06, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

xianc78: It's based on an old version though and it's now running on its own engine so I wouldn't call it a fork anymore.

Good to know. Editing into OP, both Brave and Pale Moon.

xianc78on Jul 06, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

styromaniac: Based on Firefox.

It's based on an old version though and it's now running on its own engine so I wouldn't call it a fork anymore.

madroadon Jul 05, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

h3bhkj5gqz4n3pjm: i thought i wasn't necessary, apparently i am.because you're still asking.

More daddie

madroadon Jul 05, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

Any thoughts? https://about.riot.im/

madroadon Jul 05, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

brianhanson2nd: I'm using Brave on Linux Mint 19.1 without any issues, just followed the instructions here: https://brave-browser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/installing-brave.html#linux

Brave Browser is a Chromium fork with many interesting features not found elsewhere, such as built-in Adblock and other extensions, fingerprinting protection, cleaner Preferences menu than other Chrome forks, and the (opt-in) ability to automatically support (pay) the websites you visit. The developers describe it as

"A browser with your interests at heart."[1]

, and the built-in privacy protections would seem to agree with that, but let's see how it stacks up when we take everything into account.
Spyware Level: High

Auto-updates that can be turned off only by hacky workarounds. Google as default search engine. Analytics on Brave's home page. Two other requests made at each start of Brave. Whitelisting spyware from Facebook and Twitter.[5] Has some decent privacy protections built in, but uMatrix is still better. Some privacy features are there by default, but, it's still trying to work with advertisers (same as Mozilla did with their Sponsored Tiles). Despite claiming to be "A browser with your interests at heart."[1], it has Google as default search engine, as well as shitty forced updates. Anyway, despite the privacy protections, you should stay away from this browser - it seems to have a "mission" to switch the internet to its version of "user-respecting" ads, (we know how that turned out for Mozilla), and that's slimy and suspicious. Beyond that it has repeatedly shown itself to be dishonest and disingenuous about what it's mission and goals and operations are.
Whitelisting spyware from Facebook and Twitter

On it's website, Brave claims that "Brave fights malware and prevents tracking, keeping your information safe and secure. It’s our top priority."[6]. Yet despite this claim, Brave actually disables its tracking protections for Facebook and Twitter's spyware scripts that allow them to track people across the web.[5] Brave's spyware protections, and any claims that it makes to work in the interests of it's users, cannot be taken seriously. Brave is actively working against its users while lying to them about supposed privacy protections that it offers. This problem becomes even more serious when you take into account Brave's response to this situation:

"Loading a script from an edge-cache does not track a user without third-party cookies or equivalent browser-local storage, which Brave always blocks and always will block. In other words, sending requests and receiving responses without cookies or other means of identifying users does not necessarily create a tracking threat." [7]

This statement is just, completely wrong. Just because a website isn't able to store cookies, does not mean that it cannot uniquely identify you. Executing JavaScript spyware from Facebook and Twitter is more than enough. Blocking cookies is not going to stop them from tracking you. This isn't even information that is difficult to verify. There are many websites that you can visit, right now, to see just how much information a JavaScript program designed to track you can get. Here are a few:
https://browserleaks.com/
https://panopticlick.eff.org/

INFO SOURCE:
https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html

madroadon Jul 05, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

h3bhkj5gqz4n3pjm: don't worry i don't need you. but you need me to make your life more miserable 'that it already is lol'.

I assume millenials like you belive way too much in yourself. Nice of you to assume my life is misarable, hehe.

madroadon Jul 05, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

brianhanson2nd: I'm using Brave on Linux Mint 19.1 without any issues, just followed the instructions here: https://brave-browser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/installing-brave.html#linux

I'm not sure if this is facts... because internet tells lies... But from what I know / read. I've understood that Brave Browser is spying on it's users. Like I said I might be wrong. But if i'm right.... then brave browser is nothing but a RAT...

madroadon Jul 05, 2019 ^4 ^5
Reply

I can easily see from what h3bhkj5gqz4n3pjm is writing everywhere on Zero that either he is the greatest troll Zero have seen OR he is a "know it all" person that HAVE TO rant about it "online"... Cuz you know.... 127.0.0.1 xD

filips: I want to say that Firefox has better privacy than any of Chromium based browsers. Even if some "tracking features" are enabled by default, you can disable them, unlike in Chrome. [...]

xcape2neton Jul 05, 2019 ^4 ^5
Reply

[filips] Also, Google has monopoly in web with Chrome, and with usage of Chrome you encourage this.

I 100% agree. The prevalence of Chrome on the internet has given Google the power to set the rules for how developers create websites. Google is forcing us to create websites in ways that benefit Google, not us. https://cheapskatesguide.org/articles/what-i-learned-about-the-internet.html

filipson Jul 05, 2019 ^4 ^5
Reply

h3bhkj5gqz4n3pjm: it's the problem there is none [...]

I want to say that Firefox has better privacy than any of Chromium based browsers. Even if some "tracking features" are enabled by default, you can disable them, unlike in Chrome.

Also, Google has monopoly in web with Chrome, and with usage of Chrome you encourage this.


automatically playing videos

Firefox 66 now blocks autoplay by default.

ENABLED "reader view"

What's wrong here?

screenshot tool ENABLED

What's wrong with that?

brianhanson2ndon Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

xcape2net: This is depressing. So, other than Lynx, what can we use? I couldn't even get Brave to download to Linux Mint today. I tried it about a year ago on Linux, and it immediately crashed. I guess everyone knows the TOR browser is based on Firefox.

I'm using Brave on Linux Mint 19.1 without any issues, just followed the instructions here: https://brave-browser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/installing-brave.html#linux

filipson Jul 04, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

temp1: An example: [...]

and

h3bhkj5gqz4n3pjm: "privacy" dah!?? [...]

You can disable those "features" if you want. Also, website you linked says that you can follow mitigation guide to prevent this.

If you want privacy settings "out-of-box", you can try Librefox or it's fork LibreWolf. Also, Tor browser uses most of privacy settings by default, so there is no reason why it could be bad.

This is why think Firefox is good. It's not good as it should be, but you can easily disable any feature that you don't like. In Chromium-based browsers (specially in Chrome), you don't have ability to easily disable something that you don't like. You have to depend on Google, or developers of browser that you use (if it's not Chrome).

Also, if you don't like Firefox, what browser do you think is privacy-friendly. And I don't consider any of Chromium-based browsers as privacy-friendly.

styromaniacon Jul 04, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

xcape2net: This is depressing. So, other than Lynx, what can we use? I couldn't even get Brave to download to Linux Mint today. I tried it about a year ago on Linux, and it immediately crashed. I guess everyone knows the TOR browser is based on Firefox.

In great irony but to no surprise: CP will remain on the clearnet and deep web, but oh my God if you question authority then you must be a Russian troll. Here comes the ban hammer.

xcape2neton Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

This is depressing. So, other than Lynx, what can we use? I couldn't even get Brave to download to Linux Mint today. I tried it about a year ago on Linux, and it immediately crashed. I guess everyone knows the TOR browser is based on Firefox.

temp1on Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

https://spyware.neocities.org is a pretty decent site in general.

temp1on Jul 04, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

filips: Are there any special concerns? [...]

An example:

Firefox phones home about almost every single interaction you have with its UI
Firefox will send information about almost every basic operation that you do back to Mozilla. This is tagged with a unique client ID and an ID for your current session, and any relevant information related to this action. By default, the following uses of the UI are reported to Mozilla[5]:

  • Performing a search
  • Clicking a top site item
  • Deleting an item from history
  • Blocking a site
  • Bookmarking a link
  • Removing a bookmark from a link
  • Opening a link in a new window
  • Opening a link in a new private window
  • Opening the new tab preferences pane
  • Closing the new tab preferences pane
  • Acknowledging a section disclaimer
  • Adding or editing a new TopSite
  • Requesting a custom screenshot preview
  • Session end
  • Impression stats
  • Click/block/save_to_pocket ping
  • Addon initialization failure
  • Domain affinity calculation

https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html

filipson Jul 04, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

styromaniac: True. Still not liking where things are going.

Are there any special concerns?

Because I think that Mozilla still cares for privacy and related things. And will probably also in the future.
For example, they embedded tracking protection and mining blocing into Firefox, supported DNS-over-HTTPS and many other things.

styromaniacon Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

filips: But it is still better than Chromium based browsers. [...]

True. Still not liking where things are going.

filipson Jul 04, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

styromaniac: We're worried about Mozilla's direction, so browsers based on Firefox bring up the same concerns.

But it is still better than Chromium based browsers.

Also, Firefox has many advanced privacy features to prevent tracking.

styromaniacon Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

filips: Yes. And?

We're worried about Mozilla's direction, so browsers based on Firefox bring up the same concerns.

filipson Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

styromaniac: Based on Firefox.

Yes. And?

styromaniacon Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

xianc78: PaleMoon

Based on Firefox.

xianc78on Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

PaleMoon

filipson Jul 04, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

brianhanson2nd: Chromium is open-source however so somebody could fork it if that ever became necessary.

But how many browsers do you think will fork and maintain Chromium? Most (all?) will just follow Google decisions.

brianhanson2ndon Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

filips: They didn't fork Chromium. And Google removed ability for ad blocking only for extensions, and Brave's ad blocker is built in. [...]

I stand corrected. I must have mis-heard somebody talking about it, or they were misinformed and passed on mis-information. Chromium is open-source however so somebody could fork it if that ever became necessary.

filipson Jul 04, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

styromaniac: Also, all but Firefox are performing in non-standard ways that help to break pages for non-blink browsers. [...]

Yes, this is how it works:

  1. Google makes some new feature (that is nothing special but still useful) and builds it into Chrome.
  2. Developers start to use it.
  3. New version of this feature is proposed and accepted as W3C standard, but it contains come breaking differences from first version.
  4. Other browsers (Firefox) add support for new standard version, but Chrome still uses old one.
  5. Developers use old non-standard version because it's supported by Chrome (and chrome is always the best browser :)).
  6. Users complain that other browsers (Firefox) are outdated, non-standard, bad...

Example of this was Shadow DOM V0 which was supported only by Chrome. Then standard V1 came out and all other browser supported it. But web developers still used old V0 on many websites (including YouTube and other popular sites) and complained that Firefox is bad because it doesn't support it.

zeroconfigon Jul 04, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

Google also makes their reCAPTCHA much slower in Firefox than in Chrome:

https://grumpy.website/post/0RzW4elEN

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20147015

Edit: though this is only one example, not really definitive.

styromaniacon Jul 04, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

filips: They didn't fork Chromium. And Google removed ability for ad blocking only for extensions, and Brave's ad blocker is built in. [...]

Also, all but Firefox are performing in non-standard ways that help to break pages for non-blink browsers.

I've learned myself how that works. You don't notice your CSS is not correct. Blink holds the web dev's hand so they don't realize their mistakes.

filipson Jul 04, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

brianhanson2nd: They've already done that, as Google is going to remove the ability for ad-blockers to work. So Brave decided to ship their browser with an ad-blocker built right in.

They didn't fork Chromium. And Google removed ability for ad blocking only for extensions, and Brave's ad blocker is built in.

But it is still controlled by Google. If Google decide to block websites or do something else directly within Chromium/Blink core, it would be harder/impossible for dependent browsers to remove this.

Also, some websites are already blocking non-Chromium or even non-Chrome browsers. And this is not because other browsers don't support some features. It's because of Google's web monopoly. And with usage of Chromium based browsers, you support that. And note that sometimes they sometimes even block Chromium based browsers which are not controlled by Google. Example of this is new Microsoft Edge. And I won't be surprised if they someday block Brave even if it's based on Chromium.

brianhanson2ndon Jul 04, 2019 ^2 ^3
Reply

filips: Brave is based on Chromium. So if Google decide to censor something, Brave will have to follow it, unless they fork Chromium.

They've already done that, as Google is going to remove the ability for ad-blockers to work. So Brave decided to ship their browser with an ad-blocker built right in.

zeronetixon Jul 04, 2019 ^3 ^4
Reply

xezoverse: yandex?

hahaha lol

xezoverseon Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

yandex?

filipson Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

brianhanson2nd: Brave browser, and I think GAB is making or has a dissenter browser.

Brave is based on Chromium. So if Google decide to censor something, Brave will have to follow it, unless they fork Chromium.

brianhanson2ndon Jul 04, 2019 ^1 ^2
Reply

Brave browser, and I think GAB is making or has a dissenter browser.

This page is a snapshot of ZeroNet. Start your own ZeroNet for complete experience. Learn More