[HN Gopher] Support for the IPFS Protocol - Firefox Bugzilla
___________________________________________________________________
Support for the IPFS Protocol - Firefox Bugzilla
Author : fossislife
Score : 132 points
Date : 2021-01-21 13:01 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bugzilla.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (bugzilla.mozilla.org)
| rishav_sharan wrote:
| on a similar note, here is the uservoice for dat protocol support
| in MS Edge.
| https://microsoftedge.uservoice.com/forums/928828-developer/...
|
| if you folks are interested, maybe you can vote it up. it might
| get funded.
| [deleted]
| dleslie wrote:
| There hasn't been a comment or status change to this bug in three
| years.
|
| I've been giving Brave a shot due to their recent addition of
| first-class support for IPFS, and the numerous positive HN
| comments. It's... So much faster. However, it does a poor job of
| blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to
| Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness.
|
| One common response regarding performance woes on Firefox is that
| common addons, particularly uBlock, process a large amount of
| data through complex rules during page load. What I haven't heard
| is any plans on the part of Mozilla to support that level of ad-
| blocking and privacy protection at the product level, rather than
| the extension level, which may provide much needed performance
| enhancements.
|
| uBlock Origin, HTTPS Everwhere, Decentraleyes, Privacy Badger,
| au-revoir-utm et al should be native features at this point.
| pea wrote:
| Out of interest, why not use uBlock on brave? That's my setup.
| anderber wrote:
| You can also customize Brave's adblock in brave://adblock/
| Funes- wrote:
| >It's... So much faster. However, it does a poor job of
| blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to
| Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness.
|
| You can block ads just by editing your hosts file. There's no
| need to depend on any browser's particular functionality in
| order to get rid of them. Nor on extra hardware (Pi-hole), for
| that matter. I have a cron job download a prefilled copy from a
| popular github repository [1] daily.
|
| [1] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
| arduinomancer wrote:
| That doesn't work if the website serves the ads from the same
| domain as the content.
|
| For example YouTube ads.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| 0.0.0.0 youtube.com
| pythux wrote:
| Blocking by hostnames is a big part of adblocking, but if you
| want to really block all ads and also not break the Web, you
| need an in-browser tech to do things like element hiding,
| scriptlet injections, etc. Which cannot be done via host
| files.
| dleslie wrote:
| That doesn't scrub all advertisements without also going
| full-nuclear on certain social media sites and video
| services.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| How do you selectively turn off this functionality for
| websites that don't work with such blocking?
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| _> uBlock Origin, HTTPS Everwhere, Decentraleyes, Privacy
| Badger, au-revoir-utm et al should be native features at this
| point. _
|
| these constant debacles of add-ons and extensions being sold to
| adversarial maintainers, it's a good time to do integrate this
| if they are serious about security and privacy. I understand
| blocklists are a massively sensitive topic for mozilla however.
| eznzt wrote:
| All those extensions are also available on Brave (and all
| Chromium derivatives), and the browser themselves are always
| faster than Firefox.
| gcblkjaidfj wrote:
| Let me tell you the future of using brave: you give chrome
| engine total rule of the law for web "standards". Google can
| mold the web to their desires.
|
| If you use firefox, google have to at least play nice.
|
| What's the point of using a browser frontend (used to be called
| chrome, but i guess google stole even the words) if tomorrow
| all the content depend on google-owned DRM? You will only be
| able to use your fancy ipfs or whatever transport if you have
| the google blessed keys or whatnot.
| stretchcat wrote:
| I use Firefox and have for about 15 years now. I still use
| it, but I no longer have hope. Not since Mozilla rolled over
| on EME. Mozilla is googles' lapdog, little more. At least the
| browser still has enough technical merit for me to continue
| using it, but I fear that won't remain true forever.
| konjin wrote:
| Let me tell you about Mozilla. They get 90% of their funding
| through google. Google is their customer, you are their
| product.
|
| Anyone who thinks Mozilla is independent is in deep denial.
| RedComet wrote:
| It sounds good in theory, but it just isn't true. Mozilla is
| null factor these days, and most of their income has actually
| been from Google.
|
| Google is most likely keeping them afloat just to ward off a
| stray monopoly charge at this point.
| jjcon wrote:
| > If you use firefox, google have to at least play nice.
|
| A browser with the same market share as 'Samsung internet'
| that is primarily funded by google? They have less voice than
| brave, who at least maintains their independence (and their
| own forks/build processes).
|
| Safari is the only other real contender with 5x the market
| share of Firefox (and counting).
| hiimtroymclure wrote:
| how does brave do a poor job of blocking advertisements and
| trackers? Its the main reason I use it and _I think_ it works
| well but never done any kind of analysis (nor would I even know
| how to). Could you elaborate on this for the uninformed?
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| > Decentraleyes
|
| I would recommend LocalCDN over Decentraleyes. They covers CDNs
| (more than Decentraleyes) and various libraries such as
| javascripts (like jQuery) and frameworks.
| pixxel wrote:
| For those of us that haven't heard of au-revoir-utm:
|
| > How annoying are those
| "utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss" in URLs ?
| Right!
|
| > So this extension removes them and prevents you from being
| tracked.
|
| > Source code at https://github.com/Rik/au-revoir-utm
| KozmoNau7 wrote:
| I prefer CleaURLs, it also removes UTM parameters plus a
| number of other tracking parameters:
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clearurls/
| dleslie wrote:
| That's a good one, thank-you.
| isaacimagine wrote:
| There are lots of very interesting and useful protocols, from
| ipfs to gopher, hyper to i2p, from freenet to zeronet, etc. - I
| think it would be cool if browsers added an extensible framework
| for adding new protocols.
| 6510 wrote:
| The argument against protocols use to be that they do not want
| to promote anything. This in turn prevented adoption.
|
| lets hope we get to see ipfs
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Does anyone know how well IPFS protects the privacy of individual
| users, given that any sort of P2P protocol is going to shift
| copyright liability for what they read or watch onto them?
| beardog wrote:
| It basically doesn't, I found a few years ago that it also
| makes your browser more fingerprintable (though in recent time
| browsers are getting more resistant to this)
|
| https://chaoswebs.net/blog/tracking-ipfs-users-via-cache-pro...
|
| So even if you use a VPN with it, if you are logged into a
| website that knows you, it could scan what you have saved from
| ipfs (among known IDs anyways)
| madushan1000 wrote:
| Mozilla gave up on distributed web a long time ago, Just look at
| the libdweb[0] project. No update in years, nobody even to get
| almost complete patchset to firefox reviewed and merged.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/mozilla/libdweb
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-21 23:01 UTC)