No.1048830
I finally understand what Stallman was talking about. Users of nonfree software are slaves.
• Even Chromium phones home to Google
• Alternative Chromium forks like Brave, Iridium, or ungoogled-chromium all have unique fingerprints as non-mainstream browsers. This defeats the purpose of using them. Also you aren't auditing the binary builds of these, which are done by anonymous randoms in their free time.
• You de facto can't compile your own Chromium or maintain your own fork. Besides the cognitive time investment, it would take days to compile, discouraging you from rebasing and re-compiling to apply the latest security updates.
• Mozilla allows you to run a self-hosted sync server, if you really need bookmark/settings syncing.
• Chromium having a faster JavaScript engine is largely irrelevant since a properly paranoid user would block most JavaScript.
• I'd gladly pay for better hardware to run inefficient Firefox if it means being less vulnerable to surveillance.
Also I think nowadays that your choice of browser is more important than your choice of OS. A Google Chrome user on Tails is less free than a Firefox (TOR style hardened) user on macOS or Windows. Change my mind.
No.1048838
>Even Chromium phones home to Google
ff also phones home...a lot: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html
>Also you aren't auditing the binary builds of these, which are done by anonymous randoms in their free time.
are you auditing ff?
>I'd gladly pay for better hardware to run inefficient Firefox if it means being less vulnerable to surveillance.
you still are with ff: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html
> Alternative Chromium forks like Brave, Iridium, or ungoogled-chromium all have unique fingerprints as non-mainstream browsers.
fingerprinting is overrated; if you block the trackers it doesn't really matter - also, you can change your user agent, you know
No.1048840
>>1048838
oh and this
>You de facto can't compile your own Chromium or maintain your own fork. Besides the cognitive time investment, it would take days to compile, discouraging you from rebasing and re-compiling to apply the latest security updates.
that also applies to ff - and you're contradicting your own claim that free software users are automatically free
No.1048842
>>1048830
>Even Chromium phones home to Google
Even Firefox phones home to Mozilla.
>[...] all have unique fingerprints as non-mainstream browsers
Firefox has a 5% market share and by default also has a pretty unique fingerprint https://panopticlick.eff.org
>you aren't auditing the binary builds of these
Did you compile Firefox from source?
>Mozilla allows you to run a self-hosted sync server
Anyone who knows how to do this would probably rather sync the directory.
I'd rather use FF than Chrom(?:e|ium) but they're both very close in terms of trashitude.
No.1048844
>>1048838
>are you auditing ff?
No, but as a mainstream distribution, there are many eyes on it. If Mozilla were distributing binaries that didn't checksum the same as what other package maintainers compiled, someone would call them out on it. No one knows with these off-brand forks that only a couple people on the planet take the time to compile.
>ff also phones home...a lot: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html
I turned off all that shit in about:config. Just follow the same modifications that Tor Browser did.
>fingerprinting is overrated; if you block the trackers it doesn't really matter - also, you can change your user agent, you know
Private sector advertising companies aren't the only ones to be afraid of.
No.1048845
chromium is free software tho
No.1048848
>pozfox
Sorry kiddo, but you jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.
No.1048850
No.1048856
No.1048857
>>1048830
>>1048856
>Use GNU-Icecat
This
No.1048859
>>1048830
owo doomr
(squishes your hoodie) ^w^
No.1048865
No.1048872
>>1048830
Mozilla is literally paid by Google, you idiot.
No.1048884
Imagine taking a figurative scalpel to your intellect to come to very basic conclusions.
Maybe if you stopped doing drugs you'd have got it in the first place.
No.1048888
>>1048830
I'm with you, OP, despite your inherent gayness.
And anyone smart enough to know we're right can find a great set of FF about:config tweaks here, to make your browser much safer than iceweasel or any other fagatronics:
https://www.privacytools.io/browsers/#about_config
No.1048899
>>1048830
are you the same guy that made this post on /prog/?
No.1048900
>using the web at all
the green hat hackers tried to warn you drug fag now your mind has been pwned by the html jew.
No.1048996
>>1048872
Right now, their main source of income is from Yahoo.
No.1049012
Why did you switch to firefox instead of Tor Browser?
Why do you care about privacy and shit if you don't use Tor network?
>>1048844
>I turned off all that shit in about:config. Just follow the same modifications that Tor Browser did.
Tor Browser is not only about about:config, it also modifies code of browser. Why won't you just use Tor Browser?
No.1049014
>>1049012
Tor Browser is forked from Firefox. It is a matter of convenience. You can get the same result by configuring a Tor connection with Firefox.
No.1049025
>>1049014
>Tor Browser is forked from Firefox. It is a matter of convenience. You can get the same result by configuring a Tor connection with Firefox.
no, you cannot. changing about:config won't do shit.
Tor Browser makes that every different website uses separate Tor circuit, but resources and scripts from external domains use same circuit that this tab uses. So if you open 8ch tabs, everything on that page (including external ads) will use same circuit, but if you open another tab with 4ch, it will use different circuit for that tab (and all external shit).
How do you want to achieve that with your firefox?
your shitty hacked firefox will have unique behaviour and will be fingerprinted
https://2019.www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/#Implementation
>Tor circuit and HTTP connection linkability
>Design Goal: Tor circuits and HTTP connections from a third party in one URL bar origin MUST NOT be reused for that same third party in another URL bar origin.
>Implementation Status: The isolation functionality is provided by a Torbutton component that sets the SOCKS username and password for each request. The Tor client has logic to prevent connections with different SOCKS usernames and passwords from using the same Tor circuit. Firefox has existing logic to ensure that connections with SOCKS proxies do not re-use existing HTTP Keep-Alive connections unless the proxy settings match. We extended this logic to cover SOCKS username and password authentication, providing us with HTTP Keep-Alive unlinkability.
No.1049027
>>1049025
You haven't even read the link yourself. They raised a bug and it was patched in 45.
No.1049060
>>1049027
The Tor browser modifies parts of Firefox' source code. In fact, Project Fusion is all about bringing the functionality added by the Tor Browser to mainstream Firefox. Stuff like site isolation, fingerprint resistance, canvas spoofing, etcetera.
From the Mozilla wiki:
>The Tor Browser team builds Tor Browser by adding privacy-enhancing patches to Firefox ESR. When this process first began, the Tor Browser team would have to update these patches each time a new version of Firefox was released, which was very time intensive.
>In 2016, we started the Tor Uplift project to take the Tor Browser patches and "uplift" them to Firefox. When a patch gets uplifted, the Firefox team takes the change Tor Browser needs and adds it to Firefox. These changes in Firefox are disabled by default but can be enabled in preferences. Because preferences can be changed rather than updating each patch, the Tor Uplift project saves the Tor Browser team a lot of work.
>(...)
>Although this project is still experimental and in beginning phases, the ultimate long-term goal of Fusion is to integrate full Tor Browser features in Firefox.
No.1049077
>>1049060
>bringing the functionality added by the Tor Browser to mainstream Firefox
Wouldn't it be wiser to remove the "functionality" added to Firefox from Tor Browser?
No.1049079
>>1048838
>quoting waste of space h4ckerman neocities websites
Well. I'm convinced!
No.1049183
>>1049079
What's wrong with it? Genuinely curious.
No.1049188
>>1049079
Address the arguments or fuck off, shillanon.
No.1049215
>>1048859
glad cuteposting is still alive and well
>>1048830
what >>1048838 said. Firefox is not innocent either..
Firefox has built-in telemetry. This can to some extent be disabled by the user, through the micromanagement of dozens upon dozens of about:config and user.js values.
Firefox is also notorious for slipping in stuff behind users' backs. Never forget this.
https://itsfoss.com/firefox-looking-glass-controversy/
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/06/mozilla-to-launch-firefox-cliqz-experiment-with-data-collecting/
It would seem that Moz://a doesn't have any concept of 'opt-in'. If they're willing to do this shit without telling users, what makes you think they won't silently revert your config changes and pass it off as one of their 'experiments'?
Furthermore, they actively analyze the source code of extensions for any icky 'problematic' words that might show up in there.
https://github.com/mozilla/addons-linter/blob/master/src/badwords.json
Long story short, Firefox is botnet too.
The only acceptable solution is one of the privacy-centered forks of FF or Chromium.
No.1049216
No.1049218
>>1048830
>switching to sorosfox
Lol.
Soros runs both firefox and chrome project. Literally nothing you can do.
No.1049222
>>1049218
You could invest your time into studying the source code.
No.1049240
>>1049216
>If you don't like addons.mozilla.org, don't use it.
The last bastion of the person who lost the argument. "Just don't use it!". Sure, I'm not using Botnetfox at all.
No.1049248
>>1049240
Who is forcing you to use Mozilla addons?
No.1049268
>>1049215
>tfw no doomer frien to cheer up
.n.
No.1049298
>>1048830
That shit is ideological at best, you constantly keeping track and tinkering with it you are putting yourself under heavier psychological burden than it benefits you. Web is doomed and you're doomed if you any way rely on it. Half of the shit is hosted on AWS anyway.
t. used to do everything from umatrix, decentraleyes disabled js, faked user.navigator object, disabled canvas and webrtc, crippled about:config etc. realizing that aspects of it all gives me extra-unique fingerprint among making every new website usable maybe after 30 secs of tinkering if at all and that tcp/ip fingerprint still points, random selection of freetard system fonts and resolution of choice still points to my machine and OS
Do you carry Android phone?
Have sex.
No.1049324
>>1049240
>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
No.1049336
>>1049324
>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
No.1049354
>>1049248
Mozilla, by not including uBlock/uMatrix/Decentraleyes/etc in the browser even though those things are basic necessities in 2019.
No.1049355
>>1048830
>Chromium having a faster JavaScript engine
>inefficient Firefox
It's not even true anymore.
Can't tell any difference on R5 1600x.
No.1049356
>>1049354
Install from source or xpi download, lol. Is it that hard?
No.1049357
>>1049248
No one. And no one is forcing me to use crapware like Firefox, so I'm not.
No.1049358
>>1049298
> me
> using uMatrix and uBO not for anonymity but to signal to websites that I'd rather fuck them in ass than execute all of the unnecessary horse shit in my shiny browser
most of the stuff that I actually use often works fine after a single (one time) configuration.
everything else can suck my dick.
if someone's got a problem with me they also are welcome to suck my dick.
No.1049360
>>1048830
>A Google Chrome user on Tails is less free than a Firefox (TOR style hardened) user on macOS or Windows. Change my mind.
macOS or Windows is the bigger zashquar.
using Chrome on Tails is also utterly unreal. anyone who even knows that Tails exists at all is extremely unlikely to ever try that combination. LOL
No.1049406
>>1049356
I do, "LOL". You're missing the point. I don't care about AMO. I care about what it represents in its current form. I care that Mozilla will gladly front-page addons for pornography sites and even allow addons for snuff sites without raising an eyebrow, but God help you if your code contains "// interact with the bullshit api"; it'll get flagged and then manually rejected until a "fix" is pushed. I care that a few times a year, Firefox gets updated with unnecessary or even user-hostile "features" you have to disable in about:config. I care that the devs seem unwilling to implement anything that actually enhances your experience or privacy, or even just APIs that would allow addon makers to provide those facilities (without hacks). The point is that Mozilla has become an unserious organization and is unfortunately left in charge of a tool that is critical for many people, and one that's the only real competition to Chrome. I can't wait for the entire tech industry to collapse under its own weight.
No.1049452
>>1049077
No, because Mozilla has been adding some pretty neat stuff to FF lately. Unnecessary stuff like Pocket, Sync, Send and the Screenshot tools are special addons that can be removed from For (and any other fork) with a couple of about:config toggles or a couple of compiler flags.
No.1049456
>>1048830
>[muh feels cancer.jpg]
>switched from jewgle chrome firefug is so much better
We 4cuck now. Not surprising this would happen after the NZ attack
>• Alternative Chromium forks like Brave, Iridium, or ungoogled-chromium all have unique fingerprints as non-mainstream browsers. This defeats the purpose of using them.
firecuck and any mainstream browser are uniquely fingerprintable for all users. the only way around this is to use something like Tor Browser
>>1048844
It's time for you to shut the fuck up and go back to reddit. Just because you think "someone will notice if they do anything bad!" doesn't make it true.
No.1049457
>>1049452
daily reminder that optional bloat is still bloat (and has all the same effects)
No.1049498
>>1048830
>>1048840
>compiling a browser takes days
you have never used Gentoo, have you? It takes around 4 to less than 1 hour(s) in modern hardware.
>>1048842
>pic
wtf
>>1048888
SIEG HEIL
quads of truth
No.1049501
>>1049336
>>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
No.1049555
>>1049501
>>>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
No.1049559
>>1049555
>>>>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>>>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
>The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
The last bastion of the person who lost the argument.
No.1049562
No.1049568
>>1049562
Scroll up and look at the fag who started it.
Protip: Browser threads should be banned
No.1049583
>>1049298
>disables JS
>proceeds to explicitly disable things that only work with JS
Why should I take advice from you seriously?
No.1049617
>>1049583
You should listen him as he speaks the truth. Web is doomed. Now fuck off nigger.
No.1051300
Eventually you will learn the sum known to equal the most expensive price..
It will be too late for you then.
No.1051321
>>1049498
>>>"""modern hardware"""
And it takes 1 second to compile Links on this 13 year old laptop.
No.1052685
>>1049079
It's a good site, retard.
No.1052721
>>1048830
> Trying to be free in the botnets