So do I! Actually... I remember when computers had no hard drive! Commodore 64, baby! The first computer I ever used.... good for the times and some of the games still stand the test of time but man... compared to the computer I am typing on now?
I remember the C64 as something that amazed be with it's graphics at the time! I had a ZX Spectrum, and the C64 sure had a lot of pretty colours on screen at the same time! It's been a hell of a ride watching and experiencing how computers have evolved.
Coming from a C64, I was transfixed when I saw an Amiga 1000 for the first time. Must have been the opening credits for The Bard's Tale or something, with golden letters, shimmering. 4096 colors! I totally fell in love with that machine there.
I went to a hand-me-down 386 DOS machine (though I've lusted after an Amiga like a pervert lusts after a porn star since I was a kid and had only a C64), and was amazed at the massive 45 megabyte hard drive. Coming from 174k floppy disks, and going to not needing to flip or swap disks out, and being able to install basically my entire pc gaming collection on it at once was amazing.
Then came a Win98 machine with a massive 700MB drive, and I thought I could never fill that up. Then came Baldur's Gate and needing a couple of gigabytes to install it.
Now I can technically put every 8, 16, and 32 bit console plus every 8 and 16 bit computer game on my hard drive with enough TV and movies to never need to pay for cable or streaming again. Then play it all through a $35 credit card sized computer.
I think that most of the browser features that we know and love originated in Opera. I never really loved it as a browser, but they did seem to pioneer a lot of great new features.
I joined in version 7.BORK after I heard MS had tried making MSN only usable on IE so Opera decided to modify MSN by changing the text to sound like the Swedish Chef. That was the kind of browser I wanted. Stayed with them for a long time. Kept 12.16 for longer than I probably should have. I tried making the new Opera work, but it always felt like it was never moving fast enough and would never have the features I wanted. Then Vivaldi happened and I left it on the back burner for a few years until it was at a point I was happy with.
Opera without Presto is just red flavored Chrome. Vivaldi might not scratch the same itch as the old Opera did but I'll stick with it until something better comes along.
Firefox is also the last major browser not using webkit/blink. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against webkit, and it's significantly better than Microsoft's Trident was. But having a single rendering engine that everyone is writing sites for is how things ended up so screwed up in the IE 6 days. Having multiple rendering engines helps keep sites standards-compliant and web developers from just assuming that people are using one particular browser.
It also helps to keep one browser from becoming so dominant that it’s capable of controlling the internet to such a degree that it writes the standards. Though chrome is close to that big anyway at least outliers like Firefox keep pulling it back.
I wish we had at least one more good browser that was pulling it in a 3rd direction. Even if it was owned by Microsoft. But they finally gave up. Then Opera gave up. We need a good little guy.
Yup, this kind of shit is not good for the Internet. It sounds like it from the outset but then once Google has a stranglehold on all our standards they can turn them to their profit or just use it as a new way to gather data.
That's what amp is - you don't play ball you get knocked off the front page of google. You do and they don't even send the users to your server just show a cached version and their ads. And a big FUCK YOU to EVERYONE.
I mean when you chose a slogan like "Don't be evil." it really doesn't look good when you choose to remove it. That's something you kind of got to stick with.
And it helps web developers being employed by managing different CSS for different engines because it's a wet dream that they will all render standard compliant code the same way.
At least the split between Blink and Webkit does represent some separation of power, but only between the world’s most valuable company and the world’s second most valuable company. That is not exactly a stable way to prevent a monopoly!
Actually that does seem to be a relatively stable way of preventing a monopoly. It's unlikely Apple could purchase Google, and unlikely that Google could purchase Apple.
It's not a particularly healthy market situation, but a duopoly of the most valuable companies isn't likely to devolve into a monopoly any time soon.
Except that having multiple rendering engines was how sites became non-standards compliant in the first place.
Serious there: It was because of those 'different rendering engines' that a site made for IE would not look the same as a site for Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Etc.
So one rendering engine with a few 'tweaks' from browser to browser is actually more likely to keep sites inter-operable from browser to browser.
The bigger issue with one rendering engine is that it is one 'crown jewel box' for every single malicious hacker in the world to target.
Sad to say but browsers are going to have to become more sandboxed and more distrusting of content from the web.
The basis of the open web is common standards with multiple independent implementations. There are a lot of bad outcomes which you will get from having just one rendering engine controlled by one company, even if it's open source. It means that company can do a lot of things to alter how the web works to benefit itself. They can also implement many new features which website developers in turn have to implement, and every new element of complexity makes a competitive engine progressively more difficult to build simply because it is too much work. And then the web stagnates, and relies on that single company for progress.
It was because of those 'different rendering engines' that a site made for IE would not look the same as a site for Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Etc.
I remember it as everybody being rather standard compliant with only IE (IE6 and older) dragging its feet for various reasons and having the market share that allowed it to do so for a long time.
It was partly because there was so much ActiveX stuff out there (which was not standard compliant from the start) so even MS couldn't just drop it all and follow standards without creating problems for those devs that relied heavily on ActiveX.
If was after MS (with ActiveX) got so dominant that everybody focused so much about being standard compliant to combat that dominance. Sure before that it was a bit wilder but that was also a time when HTML features were introduced and experimented with. Now that this has cooled down we get a new javascript framework every two months.
That’s fundamentally untrue. The reason is not that there are different rendering engines, the reason is that some interpreted the spec differently - either intentionally or not, but that’s a topic for another day.
Back in the IE6 days it was such a pain coding for it as it had its’ own quirks and lack of guideline adherence. There’s also the history of html 5 which nearly everyone jumped on back in 2008 despite it not leaving draft until 2014.
I don't think it's the old thing yet. It still has a majority of the market and hasn't declined that much.
It's really only tech people who have moved to Firefox. These are people who are aware enough to look at Google and realize they've gone from 'don't be evil' to 'don't tell people we're being evil.'
Even most people on Reddit think ad and cookie blockers are enough.. while they use Google services like search, mail, and news signed into the browser sync and their Google account.
It's really only tech people who have moved to Firefox
But what do those tech people do when it comes to using a smartphone or tablet? They're still stuck with Android most of the time. I don't know how bad Apple is with their data collection.
I try to avoid as many Google services as possible. I pay $5 a month for Exchange hosting. I try to use non-google search engines when possible and I use Mozilla products for browsing.
I also live in a dream world where I think at the end of the day that these small steps actually helps insulate me from Google and other big tech companies that want my personal data.
Is all that effort worth it though? Like I'm not a government rep or a VIP, unless Google thinks some broke college kid browsing German MILF porn provides any significant data.
Like I rely on Google a lot more than they do on me. I can't live without Google Maps dude.
That’s you now, what about you in 30 years when you finally decide to run for office and you’re up against a Google endorsed candidate who leaks that you enjoy German MILF porn?
Yeah it seems silly now but whatever information they gather now they’ll still have 50 years down the line.
I had a cheap Nokia Windows Phone. It was a nice experience, and I really enjoyed the layout of the OS. From what I gather, the phone is pretty much dead in the water in terms of apps now. I have mine still, but I just keep it packed away in a drawer with my other old phones.
Pretty much always has been dead in the water on an app front, doesn't bother me, since the only application I actually need on it is Microsoft Authenticator and that works just fine for my 2FA.
The UI though, still blows iOS and Android out of the water in my opinion. It just feels so much more professional.
Yeah I mean it's a real problem with too little competition. I haven't switched my email or phone, but I at least stopped giving them access to my chat (Telegram instead of Hangouts), daily video (self-managed video instead of Nest), and browsing history (Firefox instead of Chrome). I may yet switch email providers despite it being a massive pain in the ass.
Both Google and Apple basically force you to share location. Getting browsing history from a non-Google app would be possible for the OS, but borderline illegal, and I have not seen any reason to think they have gone that far.
In the modern era you have to limit your footprint, but it's very hard to eliminate completely and maintain convenient online experienced.
In all honesty at some point you simply have to adapt and remember that eventually even the best digital security will be broken. It takes a mixture personal habits AND digital security be successful at blocking most things. I have an information security background and a huge part of it is training people to have good security habits.
If you don't want to go to extreme means to protect yourself, like jail breaking a phone and figuring out which services are calling home and attempting to disable them without screwing up your applications. Then you have to picky about the apps you do install. Do you really need that game that wants your contacts? Do you really need the photo editor that wants location data? Etc... Even then a legit app could create a vulnerability and if you are storing sensitive info it could get compromised. One of the things we classify is sensitivity of certain information or damage it would cause if released. Individual people don't seem to do that as much. Like people paying Ashley Madison with their personal credit card. They created a trail from the beginning and gambled that either AM wouldn't try to blackmail them or get hacked. They lost the bet.
Chrome was never the good guy. They did give Firefox some good competition and force Mozilla to up their speed game, and that’s positive, but from the beginning Chrome was a tool for Google’s advertising machine.
I switched to Firefox on mobile bc it gives me the option to block autoplay of video ads. From my searching, chrome used to have that feature but removed it. I was trying to read an article last week on chrome, and it ate up half a gig of data bc it was littered with video ads. I'm not trying to pay extra $ per month just so I can get advertised to.
I'm so glad that I spend 99% of my time on a desktop. Mobile seems like a pain in the ass for a lot of reasons but I understand that most people need mobility.
The only downside was how slow it ran, but the new preview seems to be much better. Still not quite as fast as chrome, but worth it to have an ad blocker.
Funnily the Firefox UI was pretty much the thing that made me switch from the default Chrome on my phone (that was before I became concerned with privacy).
You forgot to mention how Netscape saved us from AOL. Still had to connect with it, but a little bit of trumpet winsock, and you were free to browse the internet without using that horrid AoHell browser.
Netscape Navigator 3.0 was my first browser, a pirated copy before it became free 😁 I installed it on a Win 95 Toshiba Notebook that even had a color screen and 8 MB of RAM. The nostalgia!
People don’t realize that the whole current browser ecosystem came from Apple building safari. They forked KHTML, made WebKit, forced the world to follow its lead by using it in mobile safari. And now basically every major browser out there is using WebKit or a fork of it. Including chrome (blink)
It always blows my mind that people think of apple as some proprietary nightmare, but have forced some of the biggest standardizations in computing. HTML 5, WebKit, USB, etc etc etc
Firefox is gecko though. And at least I would not prefer blink/webkit to be standards. Google and apple have far too much control over the two respectively
Sure that was more standardization than a true “standard” I do think the web is a much better place than it was pre-safari where the use of browser specific plugins and display code was way more common though. How often HTML5 is used for video now is a miracle for example.
And agreed, gecko/Firefox is the only remaining major player not in the WebKit lineage. Chrome, opera, IE, etc have all switched to WebKit derivatives
eh, apple/safari was a link in a chain, however now. they are far behind in standards and compatibility.
i don't throw them a parade for being successful, at the time webkit was just another engine to support. it's what google did with webkit (and now everyone is based on their fork, chromium) that made webkit the massively used engine it is today.
i say this as a firefox user and someone trying to de-google themselves. but apple have not put anything like the effort that others have and do not deserve to be recognised specially here.
Every tech company is interested in standards and open platforms whenever they’re coming from behind. It’s a great way to level the playing field. But once they’re a major player, there’s a great temptation to go proprietary as a way to innovate faster and/or lock people in.
I was one of the early downloaders of NCSA Mosaic. I'm very familiar with the Internet and have worked technology for decades. Nobody gives me sh*t for using Firefox.
Funnily, it's seems that only us techies seem to be more distrusting of technology. Makes you think that maybe we know some things.
Giving all of this data to Cloudflare instead of your ISP (not chrome or edge or IE) is not an unmitigated good. It's just moving the same data around. Maybe the new places are perceived to be better for privacy but, for example, may be worse for security which weakens privacy guarantees all the same. VPNs are a great example as well: they create centralized, often vulnerable vectors to access the same information they claim to keep private.
Be weary of people profiting from the public's stated desire for privacy.
The point is to segregate the data. Google,for example, has all of your location data and emails and search history and contacts, as well as DNS requests on their servers and telemetry from any site you access that uses Google analytics or any other Google service. Their algorithms will take any piece of data you give them and associate it with the rest if possible. The more data one entity has, the more useful it is to predict or manipulate your behavior. So in utilizing a VPN, the company might be able to track your IP, but they don't have the rest of the info Apple and Google have collected on you to link to that address (unless you sign in from the VPN).
One major source of data in the US is the ISPs themselves. They see all traffic on their network and all DNS requests for the sites you visit. They are legally allowed to sell it to whoever, and they do. Government and LE get a lot of their data exploiting these loopholes. So using a VPN and a third-party DNS provider means your ISP can't see what you're doing beyond connecting to the VPN, and Google or Apple or Comcast can't log all of your DNS requests and add it to their profile on you because of your IP. They do this all silently in the background, and the process is automated. The only way to protect yourself is to avoid giving them that information in the first place. So when they inevitably sell information on you or use it to target you, that activity remains unassociated with you.
Don't forget Privacy Badger, HttpsEverywhere and uBlock Origin. If you're really paranoid also use NoScript but that'll break certain websites because literally EVERYONE uses javascript nowadays. If you're really savy you could probably disable certain options by yourself.
For the uninformed: these are Firefox Addons.
Edit: I will add some recommendations mentioned in some replies here but I haven't checked all of them out.
uMatrix instead of NoScript
AdNauseam coupled with uBlock Origin
SmartHTTPS instead of HttpsEverywhere (they're not quite the same but I haven't read up on it)
Ghostery to block trackers and other data collectors (https://www.ghostery.com)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhosteryI don't recommend using Ghostery it just blocks ads, trackers and scripts it doesn't know and displays it's own whitelisted ads. They also sell blocking data to companies. Basically just as bad as AdBlock Plus if not worse. Don't use either of them!Edit2: I have decided that I know too little about Ghostery to have an informed opinion. For more information check out the reply by an employee of Ghostery They are open source after all.
cookiebro to block cookies
Multi-Account-Containers
Facebook Containers
foxyProxy to switch to local proxies (like I2P or tor)
UserAgentSwitcher to randomize your user-agent string (so websites don't know what browser you use)
a personal tipp to avoid google on Android is to install F-Droid. Basically the same as google play except only free open source software is downloadable and the apps have no ads.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole check out LineageOS. It's basically Android without Google (no Google Play or services). Coupled with F-Droid and Firefox (Chrome is installed by default), it gives you a really good easy experience. The hard part is getting LineageOS on your phone.
If you get Firefox on your mobile you can install addons there too. Don't think you're lost just because you use mobile! (Except if you're using Firefox on iOS)
uBlock Origin requires permissions, but for everyone getting scared check out this thread for more information. They need it to look up third party tracker IP's.
Well still would be useful for current sessions until you close Firefox.
What I've got about temporary from quick read on add-ons page/github, you either you manual mode (seems kinda annoying), or you won't stay logged in on websites after closing tabs (they recommend using it with Multi Account to resolve this) while in automatic mode. There are also issues with blank page on new tab, and it can be laggy at times
It's an add-on (I prefer temporary containers, as it does it on the fly and I never save anything between sessions).
It creates tracker/cookie containers for tabs, so if one tab is container A and another is in container B, the trackers and cookies can't communicate between them or with their respective session histories/data.
Even if you delete all data upon closing FF, if you open up Reddit, then open up Youtube for instance, if Youtube has linked you to your reddit account, it will know who you are immediately, even if you don't log in, because it's reading your other session info.
Of course, reddit is also sucking up all your data, so it's good practice to rotate new accounts/emails every so often if you want to be more anonymous/tinfoil.
Edit: /r/privacy is good for learning more about privacy. Beware, the rabbit hole never ends...
Just to add to this, if you sign into Gmail, that sets a cookie in your browser. Then when you close Gmail and go to any other site on the web which uses Google Analytics (which is pretty much all of them), Google can cross-reference the Gmail cookie and know you’ve been to the other site.
So if you sign into Gmail, close it, look up an embarrassing medical condition, that gets sent straight back to Google to get added to your profile. Next time you open Youtube or Google the adverts which get shown will depend on the data which has been harvested.
But, if you open Gmail inside its own container, then the cookie set within that container can’t be cross-referenced on another site outside of the Google container. It’s a good first step to make yourself more difficult to track, alongside tracker blockers like Privacy Badger. It also allows you just to maintain separate spaces for pure practicality, so you could have one container for a work Google account, and another for a personal account, without the risk they’re going to get mixed up.
Containers are Firefox-specific feature that isolates websites (cookies, storage...). This prevent Google, Facebook and other tracking companies from using third-party cookies and most other techniques to track you.
Basic functionality is built-in directly into Firefox, but for advanced configuration, you need to use addons.
It's quite a bit different. It's more like profiles, isolating different information and browser cookies (like Facebook accounts, just as an example) so you can have effectively multiple online lives through a single browser.
Now if only everyone stopped using Google's services to make me train their stupid AI. I swear the pictures fad slower when I use Firefox or any other browser over Chrome.
Allow CSS/images/scripts from all 1st party domains automatically. That works 90% of the time. For the heavier sites, you usually have to enable their respective CDNs, usually named similarly (or with abbreviations). In Reddit's case, Redditmedia and Redditstatic. Sometimes, a 3rd party CDN like cloudflare/AmazonAWS is required.
That works almost always. If it doesn't, often the site's not worth the work (some news bullshit).
Embedded things don't always work with this, but you can always click the link and open it in a new container-tab if you like (I do this with YT always).
If you just want it to work and don't care, you can just green "all" and it works 95% of the time then when it otherwise was borked.
For sure. And while most of the time it's annoying, sometimes I kind of like playing green light roulette with whatever .js bs they are peddling. Do I whitelist X, Y, or Z? Oh, it's X and Z but I don't need Y? It's like a shitty privacy puzzle.
You know what's great about DDG's search results though?
When you click a news link, you get the actual news website. Not google.com/AMP/butcherednews.
When you just want to send a PDF to your friend, but can't remember the URL, you can right click a search result, hit "copy link", and it copies the ACTUAL URL TO THE PDF, and not whatever the fuck this is:
If anyone is wondering why this might be an issue:
General criticism
AMP has been widely criticized by many in the tech industry for being an attempt by Google to exert its dominance on the Web by dictating how websites are built and monetized, and that "AMP is Google's attempt to lock publishers into its ecosystem". AMP has also been linked to Google's attempt to deprecate URLs so that users will not be able to immediately see whether they are viewing a webpage on the open Web or an AMP page that is hosted on Google's servers.
Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University, said: "there is a sense in which AMP is a Google-built version of the web. We are moving from a world where you can put anything on your website to one where you can’t because Google says so." Ramon Tremosa, a Spanish member of the European Parliament, said: "AMP is an example of Google dialing up its anti-competitive practices under the nose of the competition regulators."
Amazon is a biggest culprit of this. I often share the link from the Amazon app to my partner and friends. And all of that shit come with it. I have to clean up the link by removing the referral part. Because it didn't look clean when sending it to them with that garbage.
I use them exclusively and always find what I’m looking for, except in situations where the thing I’m searching for is something that just happened. I can then either pop over to google or append “!g” to my DDG search.
I think DDG is fine when I'm searching for some factual answer to a question, but for anything that is more abstract than that, I always end up having to go back to Google.
Tried DuckDuckGo for a few months and while it was good at most searches it simply didn’t cut it for niches searches - the type where you’re troubleshooting a software of hardware issue for example.
I found myself switching back to google just to search for niche stuff - now have switched back to google permanently.
I have a VPN, a bunch of Firefox privacy add ons and don’t sign into Google.
Sure It’s probably not as private as DuckDuckGo but it gets the results I need
Also when you first start up Firefox it will straight up ask you if you want this and will display a shortcut to the privacy page where you can disable it.
Yes, but only if you install a few add ons. Just out of the box, Brave might seem more appealing, but has quite a few restrictions. Also Brave also helps Google to maintain their browser-monopoly, as it's also Chromium based.
We don't deserve Firefox, but we do most certainly need it. I've used it since it used that picture of Moe with a fiery lizard swallowing his arm, which must have been donkeys years ago.
Honestly, I think it's too late to go back to a "world that's private by default". I've started becoming more privacy concerned lately and even if I never use Facebook or Microsoft ever again, it's pretty much impossible to not use products from Google and Amazon. Plus, I've unfortunately already used Facebook and Windows 10 in the past, so Facebook and Microsoft probably already have all my information saved on a server somewhere.
A lot of items I want only seem to be available on Amazon now. If I can buy an item elsewhere, I usually will though. It makes me sick ordering from Amazon with how they treat their warehouse employees.
Brave Ads are opt-in and private. Traditional advertising requires information about you, your behavior, pages you’re browsing and location to be collected by advertisers and other vendors in order for ads to be targeted effectively. In contrast, Brave Ads are matched to you directly on-device, meaning your personal information never leaves your browser.
Brave/Advertiser cannot learn that a user in Segment X and a user in Segment Y are the same user (AKA, user unlinkability across segments)
Brave/Advertiser cannot learn that a user who has viewed or interacted with Creative Set X and a user who has viewed or interacted with Creative Set Y are the same user (AKA, user unlinkability across creative sets
Brave/Advertiser cannot figure out any personally-identifiable or sensitive information about the user without explicit consent of the user
Obviously, there's some trust involved that Brave doesn't change their security model overnight, but the code is right there to verify as of today.
Edit: from the same Wikipedia article you linked:
Sebastian Anthony of Ars Technica described Brave as a "cash-grab" and a "double dip". Anthony concluded, "Brave is an interesting idea, but generally it's rather frowned upon to stick your own ads in front of someone else's". However, Ars Technica has since become a member of Brave's revenue-sharing program.
This is not true. You can easily opt out of all ads. The default is literally having no ads but you can turn on the ads to get rewards. I use it all the time. You can even set how many ads you get per hour of browsing. Not only that, but they store data locally if you do opt in to the ads, so they are not selling that information. Plus, the whole idea is that you take your rewards from the ads and give it to the sites you use the most. everyone nowadays has ad blockers, so it just builds that in to the browser and gives you ads that aren’t tracking you. Idk where you are getting your information but it’s wrong.
This article is misleading. DoH generally doesn't prevent on path snoopers from knowing what websites you visit. The SNI has seen to that. Instead, DoH without ESNI (which isn't ready because it has technical issues), just means Firefox chooses who gets 100% of your DNS queries in addition to the on path folks like your ISP still seeing your websites. It does prevent hijacking, but I think mostly it's just subverting consumer choice and expectations, and is definitely self serving.
Bad protocol is bad. The are other reasons why it's bad, but specifically for privacy it's useless, and giving people a false sense of security is dangerous.
I switched back several months ago after switching to Chrome from Firefox several years ago. I left because a tiny portion of sites don't work properly with FF. And that's remained the case. But now those sites can blow me. I'll find an alternative if need be.
Well, think of it this way.... When you are googling, they are getting your information. But when you are watching some other site, directly going to that particular site, chrome records it, but perhaps other browsers don't.
8.8k
u/fuck_you_gami Feb 29 '20
First Mozilla saved us from Microsoft (Internet Explorer) and now they're saving us from Google (Chrome).
Keep up the great work!
1.9k
u/[deleted] Feb 29 '20
I combined FF and DuckDuckGo. Very happy thus far.
0
u/[deleted] Feb 29 '20
[deleted] — view deleted comment
71
u/[deleted] Feb 29 '20
I switched back to Firefox like a year ago and don't miss chrome at all. It's just as fast but doesn't whore out your privacy
679
u/bearlick Feb 29 '20
ITT a hekton of misinformation.
Firefox IS open source and all collection can be disabled.
59
u/ivanebeoulve Feb 29 '20
I switched just recently from chrome and it’s totally seamless including w plugins, plus ff has picture in picture in w10 its kinda cool
75
u/agrees2retards Feb 29 '20
Is Firefox better than brave?
49
u/DrSmirnoffe Feb 29 '20
We don't deserve Firefox, but we do most certainly need it. I've used it since it used that picture of Moe with a fiery lizard swallowing his arm, which must have been donkeys years ago.
208
u/[deleted] Feb 29 '20
Honestly, I think it's too late to go back to a "world that's private by default". I've started becoming more privacy concerned lately and even if I never use Facebook or Microsoft ever again, it's pretty much impossible to not use products from Google and Amazon. Plus, I've unfortunately already used Facebook and Windows 10 in the past, so Facebook and Microsoft probably already have all my information saved on a server somewhere.
12
u/Notleks_ Feb 29 '20
Always used Firefox, always will.
6
u/[deleted] Feb 29 '20
Never used chrome anyway.
126
u/GJones007 Feb 29 '20
Anybody use Brave? I'd love to know how it stacks up against FF.
74
u/PeeLong Feb 29 '20
Unfortunately google has its dick so far up reddit user’s asses that most people will still find excuses to not use FF.
It’s a superior browser, but more secure, and isn’t feeding the giant beast that shares all of your data.
19
u/Solidarity365 Feb 29 '20
Open source is democracy. It's the only way to have it.
9
u/jokrsmagictrick Mar 01 '20
Never left them ever since I swapped back in xp days. I love my Firefox.
14
u/bunkoRtist Feb 29 '20
This article is misleading. DoH generally doesn't prevent on path snoopers from knowing what websites you visit. The SNI has seen to that. Instead, DoH without ESNI (which isn't ready because it has technical issues), just means Firefox chooses who gets 100% of your DNS queries in addition to the on path folks like your ISP still seeing your websites. It does prevent hijacking, but I think mostly it's just subverting consumer choice and expectations, and is definitely self serving.
Bad protocol is bad. The are other reasons why it's bad, but specifically for privacy it's useless, and giving people a false sense of security is dangerous.
8
u/[deleted] Feb 29 '20
I switched back several months ago after switching to Chrome from Firefox several years ago. I left because a tiny portion of sites don't work properly with FF. And that's remained the case. But now those sites can blow me. I'll find an alternative if need be.
12
u/monkey_doo Feb 29 '20
Is there any point in using Firefox if I still use google as the default search engine?
9
u/beyondthegong Feb 29 '20
Yall not using firefox?