/tech/ - Technology★

>Mozilla enables hyperlink auditing, proving they are an enemy of privacy once again

no, they are an enemy of good software. fuck off to reddit with your gay butthurt rhetoric

no web browser will disable "referer" [sic] either because the web is a bunch of capitalist cucks. without the "referer" header, people could freely "steal" traffic by using the web in the way it was intended to be used: embedding images and videos from other people into your own articles. the solution for this is to depart from UNIX braindamage and go to a fully decentralized content addressable storage (freenet is an example implementation - not that i think its a good implementation). "referer" is also used for marketing bullshit, just like this new "ping" bullshit will be used for

That's another example of why open source misses the point of free software. Mozilla doesn't teach people why freedom and privacy are important, some people using firefox even don't know if it's proprietary or not. Mozilla is also a big corporation, this means it's purpose isn't to give freedom or privacy, but to make money in every possible way.

But open sore lovers will defend this and will contribute to projects like Android, when they can't even run modified version of that software.

>>1058603

This. It is so hard to keep up with so called web standards, so we should create our own web.

>>1058609

mozilla is just a corporation like google. they dont give a flying fuck about the user or making good software. every single thing they do is marketing and they write a blog about it, like your standard webshit tech company

"fixing security with rust" - marketing. (meanwhile its still impossible to secure a login session on a website and never will be possible)

"muh diversity" - marketing.

"muh performance" - marketing. (and by performance, it means some number on a graph increased)

fixing the "dont allow popups" option which hasn't worked in 20 years? nope, not profitable

fixing the "dont allow websites to choose fonts"? nope, not profitable

fixing performance? nope, standard user cannot distinguish 10ms from 1200ms, not profitable

>>1058610

Disabling referrer makes it easier to track users and breaks some websites. Mozilla's approach is the right one: remove as much shit from the referrer as possible.

>>1058625

>Disabling referrer makes it easier to track users

Explain. How is it easier to track users if they don't tell you what link they followed to get to your website?

>and breaks some websites

This is a feature, it lets you know when a website is trash. Much like SPAs that require JS just to display text.

>>1058625

>Disabling referrer makes it easier to track users

Is this another variation of the "don't disable JS, goy, they will track you by that" idiocy?

>>1058631

it makes you unique. you might be the only one who visits the site with those disabled

>>1058639

those work only if enough people are doing it. it makes you easier to track than others if you are the only one who disables those.

>>1058641

there is an option to always set the referrer to that of the target website - that's what I use

>>1058642

>oh no they will be able to tell that there is one guy who blocks JS and doesn't tell them where he came from (or just does >>1058646 to stand out even less and have fewer breakage)

>better hand them all data on a silver platter instead

I hope to god this is a psyop and people here aren't actually this retarded, but I've seen it often enough.

>>1058642

>>1058641

Shut the fuck up. Disabling third party referrers is an absolute minimum for privacy.

>>1058625

>>1058641

No, that's pussy engineering. Oh no a tiny amount of websites will break for relying on an anti-feature. They could simply issue a deadline when they will remove referer [sic] from the browser.

>remove as much shit from the referrer as possible.

What the fuck is that? Do they transform the URL? This is going to be another source of vulns. Surely you mean they changed it to only send to the same site like with network.http.sendRefererHeader;1.

And no, Mozilla disabling referer [sic] does not make it easier to track users since within a day they will be all either be using the new version of the browser or risk having their computer infected with malware.

The bottom line is that the referer [sic] is an insane anti-feature that should be removed. Of course it will not be removed though since there's no other way to have accountability for people embedding content from your website (unless everyone moves to cuckflare) onto theirs.

>>1058649

setting up referer to the target website reveals exactly nothing

use your brain before throwing a fit

so will this be removed for icecat or the other firefox forks?

>>1058690

Quoted wrong post?

>>1058599 (OP)

Textbrowser capability should be mandatory.

Lynx/w3m/links are some of the only browsers I'd actually trust.

>>1058603

Gopher ftw. It makes standards more simple, and it makes the actual content the star of the show rather than pointlessly complicated graphics.

>>1058725

only because its not used by normies. gopher would suck just as much if it was actively developed by modern devs

>>1058599 (OP)

as long as i can disable it with user.js i don't care lol

>>1058612

i'll make the logo

>>1058734

im sure that user.js support will be removed soon.

Fuck it. Just fork chrome and name it Clownium: The Browser That Tracks You! Guaranteed success!

>>1058612

>we should create our own web

It already exists, and it's called gopher