Attached: 2 images
I have no idea why people use #Chrome. #Firefox looks so much better, and their theme actually works! Even their hidden compact theme looks perfect, the padding around elements is always the same... meanwhile Chromium uses tons of different shapes and they are all incoherent and the padding is off.
Apart from the fact that Firefox is #efficient has core components rewritten in #rust and supports #wayland for way longer.
#Librewolf is a perfect addition to Firefox, I highly recommend to use it!
A little admiration of how easy UI customization is on Firefox, and how shitty Chromium looks.
You never tried to listen for stock Firefox’s traffic with Wireshark for sure.
People speak very good thing about Firefox but they like to hide and avoid the shady stuff. Let me give you the un-cesored version of what Firefox really is. Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances and they also do stuff like adding unique IDs to each installation.
Firefox does is a LOT of calling home. Just fire Wireshark alongside it and see how much calling home and even calling 3rd parties it does. From basic ocsp requests to calling Firefox servers and a 3rd party company that does analytics they do it all, even after disabling most stuff in Settings and config like the OP did.
I know other browsers do it as well, except for Ungoogled and because of that I’m sticking with it. I would like to avoid programs that need no snitch whenever I open them. ungoogled-chromium + ublock origin + decentraleyes + clearurls and a few others.
Now you’re free to go ahead and downvote this post as much as you would like. I’m sorry for the trouble and mental break down I may have caused by the sudden realization that Firefox isn’t as good and private after all.
Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances
So I went ahead and read that article and goodness gracious, does anybody actually read these links??? Because that link is a complete nothingburger. It’s a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal. But it’s not, it’s just a big word salad that is too long to read, so nobody will bother.
The most significant charge is (1) that the CEO makes too much and (2) the author doesn’t like that they contract out work to consultants who think diversity is good. And everything after that is LESS significant.
Every point made, so far as I can tell:
Have assets worth $1.1 billion as of 2021
Mozilla spent less on “expenses” from 2021 relative to 2020
Revenue went up over the same time
A lot of revenue was from royalties (e.g. agreements for default search)
They disagree with the wording on a donate form about whether Mozilla “relies” on individual donations
The CEO made $5.6MM
They pulled out one expense, which appears to have been training/education relating to social justice topics
They pull out a few more individual expenses and weren’t sure what they were.
This isn’t secret documents being handed to Deep Throat in a dark parking lot. There’s no smoking gun, no smoke, just a PDF with ordinary tables of expenses and revenue, and consultants who did diversity training. If that’s shady then, get ready to be mad about every non-profit ever.
Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some
shady finances.
I’m not going to refute this because it seems to me that article are right in several points. Also, we have to
be honest, Mozilla is kind of stupid sometimes.
But if you care about the default search engine or privacy settings, you really just need to do
some hardening and tweaks to make it very private
in general. Chromium doesn’t have any of these settings, it even doesn’t have RFP btw.
Looks like you can download Firefox through the Mozilla’s official
HTTP/FTP repository that doesn’t trigger
this ID token generation. Also this article motivates people to download Firefox installer from
Softonic’s page:
Firefox users who prefer to download the browser without the unique identifier may do so
in the following two ways:
Download the Firefox installer from Mozilla’s HTTPS repository (formerly the FTP repository).
Download Firefox from third-party download sites that host the installer, e.g., from Softonic.
I’m not trying to justify the Mozilla’s problems. They makes silly things sometimes, but being
realistic, they do a better job taking care of their users privacy more than Google or even Brave.
we have to be honest, Mozilla is kind of stupid sometimes.
Yes.
Looks like you can download Firefox through the Mozilla’s official HTTP/FTP repository that doesn’t trigger this ID token generation. Also this article motivates people to download Firefox installer from Softonic’s page:
Yes, but still having to go around the main download page to get an untracked version is kind of annoying. Fuck Softonic, the rest of the information about the IDs still holds true.
If you ask a user to show you a “core dump” they’re more likely to shit on their floor and send you a photo than do what you actually mean.
Telemetry is absolutely crucial in determining what to focus on in development, to fix issues the users might not even realize exist. Especially for projects that aim at the general public. As long as it’s communicated clearly, used truly only for development purposes and an opt-out is available there’s nothing wrong about it.
Chromium-based browsers have inherently weaker extensions due to Manifest v3 and many other targeted attacks on adblockers. If you want a browser that works far better and provides a much higher level of privacy, use Mullvad Browser (worked on in collaboration with the Tor Browser, just without Tor integration) or LibreWolf. Both are Firefox forks with Firefox telemetry removed and anti-fingerprinting measures. You don’t need and absolutely should not install any extensions beyond the default installed in those 2 browsers (except perhaps a password manager), as that will dramatically damage the fingerprinting protection they provide. Both will have a much higher level of protection than you could ever realistically expect from any Chromium-based Browser.
I’d really rather have some harmless telemetry by Mozilla with a stronger ad blocker than Chromium bullshit. Ngl some people take privacy too seriously
I’m not ever going to use Mullvad Browser, I would rather use stock Firefox than that. I have LibreWolf installed as second browser and I like it at that, but I don’t see myself going away from ungoogled-chromium anytime soon.
Can we ask why you wouldn’t use Mullvad Browser? I’m honestly curious about that. From my wireshark tests, that thing only hits what you tell it to hit, nothing else. Am I missing something?
So… you don’t trust Google but you trust some shady VPN company? You aren’t wrong about quick wireshark tests, it does seem cleaner but long term trust and VPN companies are not something that go into the same sentence.
First off, everything Mullvad deploys is open source, from their clients to their servers. They have been audited and checked by 3rd parties to ensure their servers are running the source code they released. They are not some “shady VPN company” like Nord. They have a continual commitment to transparency that has been tested and true for many years.
Second, MullvadVPN has very little to do with the development of the Mullvad browser. It’s just a fork of Tor Browser maintained by the Tor Project as a collaborative effort towards a uniform browser with the benefits of Tor Browser, but to be used without the Tor network. It is funded by Mullvad, but maintained mostly by the Tor Project. Do you not trust the Tor Project? The non-profit that has been open source and audited constantly throughout its lifespan? Here’s the source code on the Tor Project’s repo: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/applications/mullvad-browser
The only Mullvad affiliation is the Mullvad extension that comes preinstalled (which you can uninstall, of course), the name, and the logo. That’s about it. No need to use their VPN, no need to buy anything from Mullvad, it’s basically just the Tor Browser without Tor.
Yes but no. Firefox does some creepy stuff, and I will need to verify this. But it also matters how much data websites get about you, and Ungoogled Chromium has no fingerprint protection
You never tried to listen for stock Firefox’s traffic with Wireshark for sure.
People speak very good thing about Firefox but they like to hide and avoid the shady stuff. Let me give you the un-cesored version of what Firefox really is. Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances and they also do stuff like adding unique IDs to each installation.
Firefox does is a LOT of calling home. Just fire Wireshark alongside it and see how much calling home and even calling 3rd parties it does. From basic ocsp requests to calling Firefox servers and a 3rd party company that does analytics they do it all, even after disabling most stuff in Settings and config like the OP did.
I know other browsers do it as well, except for Ungoogled and because of that I’m sticking with it. I would like to avoid programs that need no snitch whenever I open them. ungoogled-chromium + ublock origin + decentraleyes + clearurls and a few others.
Now you’re free to go ahead and downvote this post as much as you would like. I’m sorry for the trouble and mental break down I may have caused by the sudden realization that Firefox isn’t as good and private after all.
So I went ahead and read that article and goodness gracious, does anybody actually read these links??? Because that link is a complete nothingburger. It’s a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal. But it’s not, it’s just a big word salad that is too long to read, so nobody will bother.
The most significant charge is (1) that the CEO makes too much and (2) the author doesn’t like that they contract out work to consultants who think diversity is good. And everything after that is LESS significant.
Every point made, so far as I can tell:
This isn’t secret documents being handed to Deep Throat in a dark parking lot. There’s no smoking gun, no smoke, just a PDF with ordinary tables of expenses and revenue, and consultants who did diversity training. If that’s shady then, get ready to be mad about every non-profit ever.
Only in the USA a “non profits” turns profit. 😂
Pretty sure all non-profits strive to be cash flow positive, in the United States and otherwise.
There is a distinct type called a not-for-profit.
Should Mozilla be a not-for-profit instead? Trying to figure out the upshot of that distinction as it relates to this thread.
No of course not. It’s for very limited businesses like clubs. Obviously you can’t grow or really make products under that structure.
It was just a fun fact they do exist.
That’s all true, but why take a modified chromium instead of a modified Firefox?
Also clearurls and decentraleyes would be pretty much useless with Firefox and uBlock Origin.
I’m not going to refute this because it seems to me that article are right in several points. Also, we have to be honest, Mozilla is kind of stupid sometimes.
But if you care about the default search engine or privacy settings, you really just need to do some hardening and tweaks to make it very private in general. Chromium doesn’t have any of these settings, it even doesn’t have RFP btw.
Looks like you can download Firefox through the Mozilla’s official HTTP/FTP repository that doesn’t trigger this ID token generation. Also this article motivates people to download Firefox installer from Softonic’s page:
Softonic have a really nice and privacy respectful privacy policy (obviously that’s not the case) in contrast with randomized pretty anonymous unique ID triggered by Firefox installer download. Mozilla’s generated ID feels more like a download counter than a tracker indeed.
I’m not trying to justify the Mozilla’s problems. They makes silly things sometimes, but being realistic, they do a better job taking care of their users privacy more than Google or even Brave.
Yes.
Yes, but still having to go around the main download page to get an untracked version is kind of annoying. Fuck Softonic, the rest of the information about the IDs still holds true.
I will never understand how people expect software to gather no telemetry or metrics whatsoever.
We did fine without it for a very long time. We still do with a lot of software. It’s called voluntarily submitting a bug report and/or core dump.
If you ask a user to show you a “core dump” they’re more likely to shit on their floor and send you a photo than do what you actually mean.
Telemetry is absolutely crucial in determining what to focus on in development, to fix issues the users might not even realize exist. Especially for projects that aim at the general public. As long as it’s communicated clearly, used truly only for development purposes and an opt-out is available there’s nothing wrong about it.
You don’t use the technical term, but you do ask.
I’m not against telemetry, I’m against making it hundreds of different hidden options.
Especially software with hundreds of millions of users, that constantly has to deal with bleeding edge attack vectors and compatibility.
Chromium-based browsers have inherently weaker extensions due to Manifest v3 and many other targeted attacks on adblockers. If you want a browser that works far better and provides a much higher level of privacy, use Mullvad Browser (worked on in collaboration with the Tor Browser, just without Tor integration) or LibreWolf. Both are Firefox forks with Firefox telemetry removed and anti-fingerprinting measures. You don’t need and absolutely should not install any extensions beyond the default installed in those 2 browsers (except perhaps a password manager), as that will dramatically damage the fingerprinting protection they provide. Both will have a much higher level of protection than you could ever realistically expect from any Chromium-based Browser.
I’d really rather have some harmless telemetry by Mozilla with a stronger ad blocker than Chromium bullshit. Ngl some people take privacy too seriously
I’m not ever going to use Mullvad Browser, I would rather use stock Firefox than that. I have LibreWolf installed as second browser and I like it at that, but I don’t see myself going away from ungoogled-chromium anytime soon.
Can we ask why you wouldn’t use Mullvad Browser? I’m honestly curious about that. From my wireshark tests, that thing only hits what you tell it to hit, nothing else. Am I missing something?
So… you don’t trust Google but you trust some shady VPN company? You aren’t wrong about quick wireshark tests, it does seem cleaner but long term trust and VPN companies are not something that go into the same sentence.
First off, everything Mullvad deploys is open source, from their clients to their servers. They have been audited and checked by 3rd parties to ensure their servers are running the source code they released. They are not some “shady VPN company” like Nord. They have a continual commitment to transparency that has been tested and true for many years.
Second, MullvadVPN has very little to do with the development of the Mullvad browser. It’s just a fork of Tor Browser maintained by the Tor Project as a collaborative effort towards a uniform browser with the benefits of Tor Browser, but to be used without the Tor network. It is funded by Mullvad, but maintained mostly by the Tor Project. Do you not trust the Tor Project? The non-profit that has been open source and audited constantly throughout its lifespan? Here’s the source code on the Tor Project’s repo: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/applications/mullvad-browser
The only Mullvad affiliation is the Mullvad extension that comes preinstalled (which you can uninstall, of course), the name, and the logo. That’s about it. No need to use their VPN, no need to buy anything from Mullvad, it’s basically just the Tor Browser without Tor.
Yes but no. Firefox does some creepy stuff, and I will need to verify this. But it also matters how much data websites get about you, and Ungoogled Chromium has no fingerprint protection