Did you just group Brave with LibreWolf and Tor Browser lol
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
-29 points (32.5% liked)
Privacy
31609 readers
173 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Mozilla needs funding. By taking money from Google and DuckDuckGo specifically for search it allows Firefox to remain independent and the software it produces is underpins lots of other even more independent privacy respecting software.
The eco system around Firefox needs Firefox to survive. Unless a better funding source comes along Firefox would be in jeopardy. Having. Said that Thunderbird has been successfully turned around due to a well run community pursuing donations and volunteers.
It would also be good if countries stumped up some of the funding Mozilla and other crucial open source projects like Linux need, to maintain a strong software ecosystem. Similar to how many European countries fund national broadcasters to maintain media diversity.
this is the (un)fortunate reality.
unfortunate in that keeping a modern browser up to date is a serious task when you need to compete with the agenda and scale of google etc
fortunate in that its a relatively simple solution, the community needs to fund the software.
its tough though as i can imagine if they pulled the kind of popup shit wikipedia does, it will just drive people away. what people don't realise ofc is that with chrome you are paying for it (with your data), but for some reason they're not viewed in the equivalent light.
Most people still don't understand how paying with their data affects things. Even "fuck the govt they're tracking us" types don't care that....... They're literally doing exactly that.
Nobody wants to listen to us and call us crazy until Google decides one day after you move that they don't like your new wifi and permanently lock you out even though you still know your password.
Until people are willing to give up convenience for privacy, we're stuck with these financial models unfortunately.
LibreWolf and the Tor browser would not exist as they do today if Mozilla was not taking money from Google and DuckDuckGo and all those ad companies to develop Firefox as free open source software that could be forked by privacy-forward groups.
So sure, it would be nice if Mozilla made a privacy-focused Firefox version natively, but if a handful of concessions (that I can continue to turn off) are what it takes to have a performant, full-featured, modern FOSS web browser, I'll take that deal.
I'll emphasise that the "handful of concessions" are concessions to usability, not to having to share data with Google or DuckDuckGo. Firefox is still an incredibly private browser, especially if you consider the rest of the landscape.
Excuse me, you can't simply have a nuanced and fact based opinion on the internet.
360° turn?
Used to use arkenfox, then switched to LibreWolf. Eventually switched back to Firefox w/ Betterfox cuz i got annoyed with some websites and QR codes breaking
QR codes breaking??
What is betterfox?
You can check out Betterfox here, its a user.js file that focuses having a balance between privacy and convenience (with less website breakage cuz it's not as strict like something like arkenfox)
I'm OK with a custom script editing Firefox after install. As long as Google supplies them money they shouldn't budge at all. Yes, maybe they could be a bit more directed, but the day Google doesn't want to fund them anymore is the day we're royally screwed.
Do what you're doing FF, just maybe be more determined in your actions.
Havent you heard that Google will probably not pay Firefox again? Their contract is soon over.
Once this happens, they have to really offer different arguments, and ootb privacy is not currently one of them.
I understand that speed etc is important. But it seems Firefox is worse here, as "google caching everything" will always be faster. In Chrome and Edge I think the search engines always load in the background to show results so blazingly fast. Like 5 seconds on FF, 1s on Chrome both Google.
Its obvious
How are they going to get any funding from now on?
Its not clear if it ends, but if, then well. My post.
All this "I like Firefox because it allows me to use Librewolf" makes no sense here. It needs to be THE browser people donate to, because it actually does what people need.
it could be me, but I think your link is broken.
Hmm, its the correct site probably not approved to their walled garden yet
Mullvad for when I’m just browsing, and then if I want something in bookmarks synced everywhere, or if it’s a site broken by Mullvad, I’ll copypaste to Firefox with the possible privacy issue features turned off.
Firefoxes Bookmarks are privacy respecting
Oh I meant all the features that might needlessly send things to a server like checking spelling as you type, recommending extensions and features as you browse, turning off search suggestions, changing search engine, turning off location requests and most autofills, suggestions from web and sponsors, turning off all data collection and use, enabling https-only mode, etc
Spell-check doesn't send things to a server in Firefox - that's Chrome (and only with a particular setting, IIRC).
Wasn’t sure about that one for FF, better safe than not. Good to know though, thanks for clarifying.
Same for translations btw, Firefox didn't have built-in translations for a while because Mozilla had to painstakingly work on a research project to figure out how to do translation locally, on your machine, without sharing the page you're looking at with an external server.
Things like this make the arguments against FF getting funding from search engine companies seem even more shortsighted. That wasn’t a cheap effort at all, but well worth it.
This is exactly the case why Librewolf is nice. Mullvad browser is a joke, I use the VPN but the browser is not available as Flatpak and lacks the GUI settings page for enabling accounts and setting some switches.
You can install Mullvad directly from its repo, not having account syncing ability or being able to turn certain things on or off is part of the security features. It’s the same for the Firefox Focus mobile browser. Mullvad is a midpoint between Librewolf and Tor Browser, incorporating letterboxing for anti-fingerprinting. If you want personal information saved for later sessions or synced, you need to use something else, like Librewolf or regular FF.
Sorry but untrue. Firefox accounts are secure and opt-in. Private browsing is stupid and fingerprintable. So mullvadbrowser has its own fingerprint, and then also disabling private browsing will increase it.
There is no reason to do this. Private browsing is nice, an easily accessible amnesic session. But for a permanent profile just presetting
- delete cache, history, session, downloads
- delete cookies, dont save to disk
Is enough. Not saving stuff is irrelevant for websites targeting you.
Also, in private browsing container tabs dont work. This would make it useless for me.
Mullvadbrowser is like Torbrowser without Tor, Librewolf without PB too. They have probably the same hardening otherwise.
I hope you feel better after typing all that, because I didn’t need it.
Don’t know where all the “private browsing” stuff came in, as if I mentioned anything about using a browser’s “privacy mode”, because I didn’t.
You appear to have conflated some of what I said, but I honestly don’t care enough to figure out where. Use whatever you want, it doesn’t matter to me, but casting Mullvad browser as pointless when it just doesn’t fit your particular needs or preferences is just ignorant.
You asked what we’re using, that’s what I’m using.
No I didnt attack you or something? Huh?
I just said Mullvad is a new browser that simply copies Torbrowser but without Tor. And this is annoying as they are adding a new fingerprintable browser that is uselesd for many works because of PB, so people use plain firefox and think "privacy is uncomfortable".
Torbrowser is this "anonymity mix kit" that also forgets everything you did. I dont need that as for many threat models its not needed. But its the Torbrowser and thus has a shared fingerprint.
Switching off private browsing to then allow you to save sessions and pinned tabs for example, makes you stick out.
I wrote with the Mullvad Devs already and they dont care. They just copy torbrowser.
Librewolf is the better browser, its not branded and actually has GUI settings added. And they dont use private browsing, even though its amnesic by default, just like arkenfox.
It makes no sense to use Private browsing, and its a pain to deal with
Are you done with your Ted talk?
Ok
You have literally no idea what you're talking about. If can't do a simple internet search to check how Firefox's bookmarks or spellchecking work, not my problem
Dont be mean please
Is Firefox blocking tracker by default?
@Pantherina Can’t read https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/firefox-needs-a-drastic-change-privacy-by-default/idi-p/44347
It’s been deleted? What was the original post?
I have no idea, maybe its not active yet or only for logged in users? I checked the link lots of times, MozillaConnect is weird
The problem I see is that if they get too idealistic/absolutist, they will end up just like those examples you mentioned (Brave, TorBrowser, Librewolf); less successful.
I dont think Brave is unsuccessful, its simply a bit "shady" with their monetization model.