[HN Gopher] If you care about privacy, it's time to try a new we...
___________________________________________________________________
If you care about privacy, it's time to try a new web browser
Author : mhb
Score : 70 points
Date : 2021-04-03 14:42 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Just install ghostery and ad block pro extensions.
|
| It gets you like 90% of the way there and you don't have to use a
| less polished browser.
| franklyt wrote:
| Ghostery? Owned by Cliqz? Seems a bit questionable.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Just check your setup here.
|
| https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
| neilsimp1 wrote:
| Which one is less polished, and are you implying Chrome is more
| so? Maybe it's "polished" but it's incredibly slow and FF/Brave
| both have better features from what I can see.
| franklyt wrote:
| It's not factually accurate to claim that chrome is "slow",
| especially vis-a-vis Firefox.
| hedora wrote:
| I've found it depends more on which hardware you use than
| on which browser. Firefox is unusable on some of my
| machines, where Chrome is OK, and it's the opposite on
| others. (All are low end machines.) I think it mostly
| depends on video drivers.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Ghostery, at least in the past, has sold user data. ABP allows
| companies to pay to whitelist their ads[1], and is somewhat
| bloated in my experience.
|
| I highly recommend uBlock Origin. Their manifesto[2] most
| closely aligns with my beliefs on how my browser should behave:
| "The user decides what web content is acceptable or not in
| their browser."
|
| 1: https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization
|
| 2: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Install whatever. You can check how good your set up is.
|
| https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
| preommr wrote:
| This is not the way.
|
| If we relegate privacy to fringe browsers like this, we'll lose
| in the long run.
|
| It's not possible to have 0.05% percent of the market, and try
| and compete with goliaths like Google. So it creates a feedback
| loop of a browser that people don't really use because it lacks
| features/popularity. Or/and these companies are also forced to do
| things like Brave and their in-browser ads.
|
| Meanwhile there'll be a group of people that'll say things like
| 'if you really want privacy don't use chrome, use these private
| browsers'. Completely taking off the pressure on the bigger
| browsers.
|
| Also, catering specifically to privacy is always weird. It makes
| people think that you have something to hide. Everybody wants
| privacy, but someone really goes out of their way, it makes you
| think they have something very serious (i.e. illegal) to hide.
| It's sketchy.
|
| There needs to be a collective awareness and greater pressure put
| on browser companies.
| fastball wrote:
| Seems like Brave is best of both worlds in this case.
|
| It's a Chromium browser with a focus on privacy.
| bejelentkezni wrote:
| Brave is spyware[1][2].
|
| 1. https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/brave.html
|
| 2. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#brave
| fastball wrote:
| Those references seem a bit circular.
|
| And the author of those sites and I have very different
| views of what Spyware is. To me, spyware is software that
| spies on you without your knowledge.
|
| The only thing that would even begin to qualify that is
| mentioned by [1] is telemetry, which Brave explicitly asks
| you about and which you can easily disable.
| dunefox wrote:
| Chromium still gives google market share. Firefox is the only
| option.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| How can I vouch for the child comment to your comment that is
| dead? Does any one know? I would like to know if their
| comment is wrong or not.
|
| I've been able to vouch for comments once or twice before.
| dang wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cvouch
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _If we relegate privacy to fringe browsers like this, we 'll
| lose in the long run._
|
| Disruptions and innovations happen on the fringes (classic Clay
| Christensen). If the disruption is large enough, it'd fast
| become the norm and upend the incumbents. These developments
| seem promising when viewed from those lenses?
|
| I work in privacy-tech, and I get told often that the one true
| answer to privacy is regulations, but at the same time, I also
| believe privacy-tech like content blockers would continue to be
| indispensable no matter regulations for one simple reason: As
| decades pass us by, people become more tech savvy, not less;
| and as a result, the number of folks who desire more control
| over tech they use would keep rising.
| hedora wrote:
| If you want a more private browser, then switch to a more
| private browser. There's no reason these browsers have to
| remain niche, and the more market share they have, the more
| pressure they will apply to mainstream web browsers and
| websites.
|
| Also, these niche browsers test out advanced features that can
| feed back upstream, and improve privacy for all users. (For
| instance, many of the Tor Browser features have been upstreamed
| and enabled by default in Firefox.)
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/0S1rJ
| Vinnl wrote:
| For Firefox Focus, IIRC the best strategy now is to install
| regular Firefox on your phone, and set it to private browsing by
| default. That will also include all the latest tracking
| protection additions that have been added to Firefox over the
| last couple of releases, and otherwise should be functionally
| practically equivalent. (Though I suppose with the addition that
| regular Firefox supports a number of extensions, such as uBlock
| Origin.)
| franklyt wrote:
| My complaint about FF is the inclusion of pocket, a closed-
| source default with a political bias doesn't seem appropriate
| for an open source privacy-focused browser.
| wussboy wrote:
| Both of your comments in this thread confuse me. "Don't use
| these tools which greatly increase your privacy and security
| because of some minor potential flaw." To me it sounds like
| you don't want to get in to the lifeboat because you might
| get a sliver climbing in. And you encourage others to stay
| out as well. Odd.
| caslon wrote:
| I agree with Mozilla's views politically, but Pocket _is_
| proprietary. It 's a major flaw. Something proprietary (I
| know the Firefox integration is free now, but the server
| isn't), controlled by an American corporation, turned on by
| default, that sends content to the user. If it was only an
| RSS reader, fine. But it sends arbitrary content to the
| user from Pocket's servers! What if there's an RCE? Their
| refusal to free Pocket despite it being years since the
| acquisition points to something sinister, like a NSL.
| Wingy wrote:
| What is a NSL? I looked it up and didn't find anything
| relevant.
| caslon wrote:
| National Security Letter; if the government wants to
| force you to backdoor some software, they send you one.
| That's why most projects have canaries.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Generally on F-Droid if an app talks to a non-free server
| component, the app is labeled "this app promotes non-free
| network resources", but the majority of Free Software-
| loving nerds install that app anyway. After all, it still
| beats using stuff like the Google Play Store. So why is
| Firefox doing the same thing so heinous that people would
| completely refuse to use it, and use one of the
| proprietary browsers instead?
| caslon wrote:
| There _are_ other non-proprietary browsers, and Firefox
| is not innately better than any of them. Icecat for
| example. Or Epiphany. I really, _really_ dislike Brave,
| and despise the person responsible for it, but even it 's
| freer than Firefox in this regard.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Icecat (like Fennec F-Droid, too) is simply a rebranding
| of Firefox, and so dependent on Firefox's ongoing
| development. My concern is that if people keep attacking
| Firefox so vehemently, that will weaken its long-term
| survival, and there will be less chance of the Firefox
| forks, too, surviving.
| caslon wrote:
| I know IceCat is a rebranding of Firefox. It doesn't
| include the Pocket integration, and therefore is an
| upgrade.
|
| If Firefox dies, it honestly wouldn't be a massive loss
| for the open web at this point. Webkit and Blink are
| sufficiently divergent that we would more or less be in
| the same position we were when Firefox was introduced.
|
| Mozilla's been giving their executives raises while
| laying off the people who actually make the thing for
| years now, anyway. It above everything else has sabotaged
| its ability for long-term survival; no amount of internet
| rage will change the fact that Mozilla itself does not
| want Firefox to survive. And its forks would likely
| survive; Pale Moon has somehow been able to keep at
| roughly feature parity for ages now despite having forked
| off a long time ago.
| franklyt wrote:
| I didn't say what you're saying I said. Making inferences
| based on my posts and presenting those inferences as
| unequivocal statements I've made is... well, not helpful. I
| think alternate perspectives and legitimate concerns about
| all technologies should be discussed without devolving into
| accusations that I'm against the platform.
| Meniteos4 wrote:
| It's ironic that in the 90s, people were afraid IE dominance
| would destroy the internet. Now with Microsoft adopting chrome
| means we are faced with google destroying the internet. Microsoft
| screwed the pooch abandoning its browser and adopting
| chrome/chromium.
| t-writescode wrote:
| You're blaming Microsoft for Google's near technological
| monopoly?
|
| Then choosing not to play anymore doesn't have to be a "blame
| Microsoft"-worthy event.
| bejelentkezni wrote:
| If you want as hardline a view on privacy in web browsing as
| possible, I recommend browsing through the Spyware Watchdog[1]
| and this article[2] from one of its main contributors. Many will
| find that their standards are too high for them, and may seem
| paranoid or such, but it is notable that both Firefox and Chrome
| have existing forks that even these hardliners deem clean, so for
| a browser to be guaranteed spyware-free is not only possible but
| a present reality. Brave is not private.
|
| 1: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/index.html
|
| 2: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html
| prophesi wrote:
| Firefox is good enough. Just remember to change your search
| provider, since they're still tied to a contract with Google.
| Their multi-account containers have been awesome, and I hope
| other browsers adopt similar functionality.
|
| For further privacy, there's a pretty radical version of Firefox
| called Tor.
| freebuju wrote:
| Tor browser is not a version of Firefox. It is a browser
| project on its own. Couldn't let this coy remark just fly.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| OK, we know these kinds of articles often get a lot of things
| wrong. I'm not interested in critiquing the article really cause
| it's boring even though I'm pretty sure the journalist confused
| about some things.
|
| But i am interested in my own understanding. I don't know too
| much about these products.
|
| Ordinary Firefox was not mentioned -- maybe he's only interested
| in things that run on mobile? It's not clear to me.
|
| But my question about the actual topic is, is there any reason
| DuckDuckGo or Brave would be more privacy-protecting than
| ordinary Firefox, any features they have thus?
| paulcole wrote:
| After trying Duck Duck Go and Brave's products, it turns out I
| actually don't care much about privacy. I care much more about
| using a product I like and that works the way I want.
|
| Has anyone else felt this way?
| idop wrote:
| That last sentence - "I care much more about using a product I
| like and that works the way I want" - perfectly describes my
| usage of Firefox with a heavily modified configuration and
| various addons, all for the sake of privacy and security-
| related purposes.
| smitty1e wrote:
| And the companies who scoop up information that doesn't seem
| relevant at the time may not, themselves be doing anything
| you'd disapprove of.
|
| Now, when those companies are purchased, hacked, or have some
| policy shift you don't fancy, there may be issues.
|
| I've been online a couple decades, so I'm a bit sanguine. If
| somebody really wants to doxx me or get me fired or do more
| than the annual ID theft on the credit card, what am I to do?
|
| Take reasonable precautions and don't over-worry seems like the
| reasonable approach.
| adrianh wrote:
| The author was testing these browsers on an iPhone -- but
| neglected to note that Apple actually prevents other browser
| engines on iOS.
|
| So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you're simply using
| Safari with a different "skin." This skin can clearly do some
| content blocking, and it can provide a different browser UI --
| but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies that are
| available in the browser.
|
| As such, Safari is basically the new IE6 -- it lags all other
| modern browsers and prevents websites from taking advantage of
| nice new features. (Yes, some of these features are available
| with polyfills but others are not polyfillable.)
|
| I wish the author had noted this, given the high visibility of
| the NYT. More people need to know about Apple's neutering of
| browsers on iOS. It's crippling the growth of the web.
|
| One specific example: Safari still doesn't support AudioWorklet,
| which means iOS users get lower-quality slowdown in my product
| Soundslice (a feature we rolled out last week:
| https://www.soundslice.com/blog/199/introducing-enhanced-slo...).
| If more iOS users knew about this, perhaps they'd lobby Apple for
| better web support.
| ricc wrote:
| The author probably doesn't know this.
| franklyt wrote:
| I can't believe this was overlooked by a prestigious
| publication.
| buzzert wrote:
| Hard to believe anyone still thinks of the NYT as
| "prestigious" these days.
| izacus wrote:
| Honestly, I find NYTs privacy articles to be full of errors
| and deliberate omissions to drive the agenda. It's seriously
| made me question about their reputation.
| JadeNB wrote:
| I think the same is true of just about any non-specialist
| reporting organisation. Find the reporting they do on a
| subject on which you're an expert, and see how much they
| get wrong. Don't write them off for it--everybody gets
| stuff wrong--but read the stories on the material about
| which you're not expert with the same skepticism.
| finiteseries wrote:
| I'm still in a state of outrage/shock over their article on
| the "far right" joining telegram in the millions in the
| aftermath of the capitol riots.
|
| There I was, a week or two removed from helping my roommate
| move his gigantic Nigerian family group chat away from
| WhatsApp when [0] pops up in my HN feed.
|
| They actually implied most of those millions of new
| Telegram users, 94% of which weren't even in North America,
| were motivated entirely by the capitol riots.
|
| Completely omitting the fact the WhatsApp -> FB data
| sharing message was sent to every single user in the world
| on that very same day, January 6th.
|
| [0] -
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-
| app...
| dtx1 wrote:
| Doesn't surprise me at all. The reality is that journalists
| are just that, journalists. They rarely have any relevant
| expertise about what they write. Coupled with strict limits
| on content size enforced by publishers and an audience that
| often understands even less about the topics discussed you
| get major errors like these.
|
| The amount of text necessary to explain to the average NYT
| reader what a rendering engine is probably more then the
| allotted text size for this piece of pseudo-intellectual
| garbage. Should make you worry about everything else
| journalists write with the same lack of care and
| understanding of details.
|
| This is why podcasts and longform youtube content form actual
| experts is thriving while traditional media is dying. They
| have optimized so much for short attention span, clickbaity
| and inflammatory content that they have lost all resemblance
| of quality and expertise. In short, for any given topic, if
| the explanation is less than an hour long discussion piece,
| it's almost guaranteed to be simplified to the point of being
| wrong and useless.
| clairity wrote:
| > "The amount of text necessary to explain to the average
| NYT reader what a rendering engine is probably more then
| the allotted text size..."
|
| it's not that hard to summarize: a rendering engine
| transforms html into pixels on the screen. most people will
| have at least a vague idea of what html and pixels are.
| there's no further need to dive into the details where that
| description is less than 100% accurate (e.g., sreen
| readers).
|
| that's to say, the reporting is just lazy and uninformed.
| no need to bail them out with a technical excuse.
| dtx1 wrote:
| > most people will have at least a vague idea what html
| and pixels are. there's no further need to dive into the
| details where that description is less than 100% accurate
| (e.g., sreen readers).
|
| I doubt very much the average person on the street has a
| clear idea what a pixel is, let alone what HTML is. And
| even your description is so incomplete it's wrong since
| the safari engine also includes JavaScript execution,
| media rendering etc. on safari, proving my point: if you
| try to simplify it for the average reader, your
| description ends up wrong
| salamandersauce wrote:
| I think you can do an ok job. Something like the "The
| rendering engine's job is to translate the computer
| languages of the web into the picture you see on the
| screen. Like human translators two rendering engine's
| might not understand the same things the same way and
| differences can occur."
|
| Screen readers are a distraction. Even completely blind
| readers would have a concept of what is displayed on a
| computer monitor even if they've never seen it.
| clairity wrote:
| yes, i said vague idea, not clear idea.
|
| but none of that stuff matters for reaching a reasonable
| conclusion. we don't need to know how a transmission
| works to reason about speed and acceleration, only that
| it converts power from the engine into velocity somehow.
| the whole purpose of abstraction is to take advantage of
| such decouplings within a brain limited in how much
| information it can hold in working memory in any one
| instant.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| > This is why podcasts and longform youtube content form
| actual experts is thriving while traditional media is
| dying.
|
| It is kind of sad that the "longform content" that you
| mention as the new thriving alternative to traditional
| media, is rather time-infefficient audio and video. I
| regret the dearth of longform reliable text.
| spookybones wrote:
| I read the comment you're replying to as being sarcastic,
| but good points nonetheless.
| nwienert wrote:
| Which is actually a good thing for the diversity of browser
| engines and preventing Google from commandeering web standards
| and "embrace, extend, extinguish"ing them.
|
| If Chrome was allowed on iOS be sure Google would dump
| unlimited money to get people to use it. Websites would further
| go down the path of only testing on Chrome, and Google would
| continue stuffing their browser full of oftentimes needless
| features. And they'd continue all their other disgusting
| practices like AMP even less fettered than before.
|
| The literal only hedge against this right now is Safari. I
| thank the powers that be that Apple doesn't let other engines
| on.
|
| That, and, Safari is miles ahead of any other engine in terms
| of performance. It's not even close.
|
| And answer this: how would allowing other engines increase
| privacy? WebKit does more for privacy than almost any other,
| and allows installing privacy extensions and wrappers like
| Firefox. Without that, you'd have people using Chrome more than
| using Firefox.. a regression in privacy.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| > That, and, Safari is miles ahead of any other engine in
| terms of performance. It's not even close.
|
| How is it fair to make this statement about iOS where no
| other engine is even allowed? Maybe Chrome(ium) and/or
| Firefox would be faster than Webkit on iOS if they were
| actually allowed to develop for it, or maybe Safari would be
| the best. It's impossible to know because Apple prevents any
| competition here.
| nwienert wrote:
| Because it's the same engine on Mac and it's far, far
| faster (and less battery consuming). Sure, opening it may
| incentivize Chrome to compete, but I doubt much more than
| they already are incentivized in general.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| We have MacOS to see this is true to a huge degree there.
| The related and overlapping iOS wouldn't change things that
| much.
| fragile_frogs wrote:
| > Which is actually a good thing for the diversity of browser
| engines
|
| How is only allowing ONE browser engine good for diversity?
| If anything it hinders diversity and progress on iOS.
|
| > Websites would further go down the path of only testing on
| Chrome
|
| If only it would be possible to test Safari on a non Apple
| device, Apple is partial it fault here
|
| > And answer this: how would allowing other engines increase
| privacy?
|
| Because then there could be competition between Safari,
| Firefox, Brave etc.
|
| Answer this: why do you let Apple dictate what Apps you can
| install on a ($700 - $1100) phone that you own?
| jefftk wrote:
| _> Safari is miles ahead of any other engine in terms of
| performance. It's not even close._
|
| link?
| xoa wrote:
| > _As such, Safari is basically the new IE6 -- it lags all
| other modern browsers and prevents websites from taking
| advantage of nice new features._
|
| I strongly disagree with you. The new IE6 is Chrome:
| overwhelming dominance of the web to the extent that Google can
| dictate "standards" themselves and users begin to lose the
| ability to use other browsers because "site works best(only) in
| Chrome", and I think that having my data forcefully harvested
| and active opposition from the developer to ad-blocking is a
| LOT worse than "stagnation". I like Firefox a lot on the
| desktop, but I have no illusions it'd stand in the way of total
| Chrome domination on its own. The only thing that really throws
| a wrench in Google's plans is iOS.
|
| > _More people need to know about Apple's neutering of browsers
| on iOS. It's crippling the growth of the web._
|
| Good. I don't want everything shoved into websites or web views
| thank you very much, the web eating the world is something I
| actively oppose. And I don't care if it makes your life (or my
| life, with a dev hat on) harder. I don't mind if you simply
| chose not to serve iOS/Mac/Firefox users at all, though of
| course most would then take their business elsewhere. And you
| offering worse quality is also perfectly within the market and
| I don't fault you for it either. I'd pick a competitor with a
| native app and high quality, but that's not free to develop, so
| how that all shakes out may vary. But while it has downsides,
| Apple serving as a concentrator for user buying power has
| upsides too so long as they stay as a small though significant
| part of the market, which is very likely given their business
| strategy.
|
| > _If more iOS users knew about this, perhaps they'd lobby
| Apple for better web support._
|
| I'm wish the App Store supported upgrade pricing, and I would
| like laws requiring Apple to offer a purchase-time option for
| root signing key access, even if it's for money or reduces
| support or something. But I'm perfectly happy to see a bit of
| favor towards native experiences over the web and I hope they
| continue to push that.
| kd913 wrote:
| >I like Firefox a lot on the desktop, but I have no illusions
| it'd stand in the way of total Chrome domination on its own.
| The only thing that really throws a wrench in Google's plans
| is iOS.
|
| The thing that currently is holding Google from extreme
| derivations is actually Microsoft's edgium I think. Microsoft
| is one of the few companies out there with enough resources
| to hold a hostile fork of Chromium capable of easy/fast
| adoption.
|
| If Chromium decides to do something ridiculously egregious.
| It is possible for it to 1) not affect Microsoft browsers or
| 2) for Microsoft to maintain a fork and win marketshare fast.
| xnx wrote:
| For me the primary characteristic of IE6 was not that it had
| a large market share like Chrome, but that it didn't update
| for over 5 years. Chrome is nothing like IE6 in that regard.
|
| The web would be better off if iOS users could benefit from
| the full Chrome codebase.
| kerng wrote:
| The high number of security vulnerabilities is also
| something both IE and Chrome share.
| oneplane wrote:
| That might be, as you point out, the primary thing for
| _you_. At the same time, Safari updates plenty of times,
| just because they don't shout about it doesn't mean it's
| not happening. Same goes for the backing engines (including
| Blink and V8 in Chromium and derivatives like CEF and node;
| but also WebKit and the likes).
|
| The web would be better if it wasn't dominated by a very
| small set of platforms. Adding 'a few more browsers' on a
| single operating system hardly helps.
|
| Right now, the 'web' isn't much more aside from Google,
| Facebook and a few commercial offerings like the various
| eCommerce websites, and they are all accessed on 2, maybe 3
| operating system foundations, with perhaps 1 or 2 relevant
| browser engines. Adding Gecko or Chrome on iOS changes
| nothing.
| questionErAll wrote:
| > That might be, as you point out, the primary thing for
| _you_.
|
| I'd be willing to bet that most people would consider
| that the primary characteristic of Safari that reminds
| them of IE. The market share was important to the IE hate
| but it wasn't because "everyone had it" it was because
| "everyone had it and it sucked" (sucked~= lagged/slowed
| development/entrenched users with shitty and unique
| experiences). Don't get me wrong Chrome also shares some
| of those secondary (imo) characteristics but I imagine
| when people speak of "IE" it's because of the , what the
| parent comment and I, consider the primary
| characteristic.
|
| > The web would be better if it wasn't dominated by a
| very small set of platforms. Adding 'a few more browsers'
| on a single operating system hardly helps.
|
| Now that's a hot take. Can I assume you're an Mac user ?
| honest question
| oneplane wrote:
| I suppose I use macOS about 40% of the time, Windows 10%
| of the time and the rest is various Linux/Unix/BSD
| systems. Not sure how that matters.
|
| I'm also of the opinion that for the vast majority of
| 'users' a locked down, managed device is the best option.
| To clarify: with the internet we have a vast amount of
| interdependent and interconnected systems, which in
| itself depends on everyone operating and maintaining
| those systems while they are part of this larger 'whole'.
|
| I think most people neither know, nor want to know how
| this works or how this is done, and as such, taking part
| in a system that is dependant on this would be a risk for
| everyone involved.
|
| Coming back to the 'the internet would be better with
| more diversity' (as that seems to contradict my earlier
| statement): diversity can come in many forms and apply on
| many ends. Having multiple server implementations,
| multiple client implementations and multiple transport
| implementations would benefit the quality of every
| implementation as it would need to be robust and tested
| to the point where it integrates properly. That does,
| however, not mean that all those differences need to be
| present at every layer of every implementation. Having a
| combination of many vendors all vending a single device
| with a single implementation would add plenty of
| diversity, same as a few vendors vending many devices
| with lots of device-specific variations.
| [deleted]
| Keirmot wrote:
| Safari is in no way any slower that chrome. Sure you
| might have some features that dev care about, but 99% of
| the sites works in safari as well as they do in chrome.
| saurik wrote:
| Yeah: Chrome is the new IE4, pushing ridiculous new
| technologies simply because they can.
| smitty1e wrote:
| 'Ridiculous' is unfair. Google has enough technical chops
| and market heft to set new internet standards and not
| look as silly as Redmond did in the 90s in the process.
| t-writescode wrote:
| I think you're equally being unfair to who Microsoft was
| and employed in the 90s.
| smitty1e wrote:
| Very possibly so, especially on an individual basis.
|
| Yet the echos of a bazillion BSODs that have seemed less
| prevalent with Chrome are there.
|
| To your point, comparing an OS to a browser is lame.
| xnx wrote:
| It's interesting to look back at the difference
| technologies/tags that survived and which were forgotten:
| XMLHttpRequest, VML, marquee, etc.
|
| Chrome's dominance wasn't enough to get something useful
| like WebSQL to stick.
| unreal6 wrote:
| > I don't mind if you simply chose not to serve
| iOS/Mac/Firefox users at all, though of course most would
| then take their business elsewhere.
|
| I use FF as my daily driver, but as much as I hate to admit
| it, whatever service I am using is almost always a stronger
| draw than FF, so I just open it up Chrominium or Brave.
| Unfortunately, I'm not sure the market for strictly
| native/browser-agnostic services is large enough to support
| most uses.
| xoa wrote:
| > _Unfortunately, I 'm not sure the market for strictly
| native/browser-agnostic services is large enough to support
| most uses._
|
| I guess "strictly" is debatable, but the point here is that
| the market for at least _somewhat_ browser agnostic
| services includes, well, the entirety of iOS at the least.
| Precisely because there is no "choice", which means big
| services/developers can't force a choice on us either. If I
| browse somewhere on my iPhone, I won't be told "go install
| Chrome" because a I can't (or rather, it'd make no
| difference because an iOS browser is still the same engine
| so like "iOS Firefox", "iOS Chrome" is mainly a skin).
| Sometimes I may see a "better in the app" which I don't
| mind if it's dismissible because if it's somewhere I
| actually like, well, maybe I really will try their app. And
| while iOS users aren't remotely the majority of the global
| market by user count, they tend to punch above their weight
| in _spending_ ; they aren't a random sample of the
| population. It's a not insignificant market to entirely
| forego.
|
| Different people will have different services they depend
| on and different views of the web in turn, so YMMV, but at
| least for me that seems to have been enough. I completely
| uninstalled both Chrome and Chromium, and between Safari
| and Firefox on Mac and FF on FreeBSD or Ubuntu I haven't
| encountered anything critical that was non-functional.
| Apple has effective collectivized the buying power of a
| picky subset of people. That's definitely not always good,
| but nor is it always bad. I think at this point a lot of us
| are making a conscious choice to join that ecosystem, and
| those of us unhappy with some of it handle it by keeping
| our main computing environment mixed up.
| davidf18 wrote:
| The NYT article should simply have recommended using
| 1blocker which works with safari for users that have Mac
| laptops and iPhones, which I am guessing is perhaps the
| majority of readers.
|
| I have been using 1blocker for several years and it seems
| to work well enough.
|
| On the Mac laptops safari is the best browser for most
| people including NYT readers because it has the best
| battery life.
| city41 wrote:
| The web is the only open platform we have ever had and
| probably will ever have. To shun it for proprietary app
| stores and OSes is really disheartening. I'm the exact
| opposite, the more web apps the better. And sadly, Safari is
| holding the web back. Not only does it miss many features of
| modern browsers, it's very buggy. I find I have to make work
| arounds for Safari specific bugs in almost every website I
| make now.
| xoa wrote:
| > _The web is the only open platform we have ever had and
| probably will ever have._
|
| Are you trying to make some sort of joke here? How is the
| _Web_ more open than Linux or the BSDs running FOSS
| applications? And in fact how is the web under Chrome any
| more open than macOS or Windows? Seriously. In all cases,
| you can 't just freely modify everything about the platform
| you're running on top of or most of the "applications"
| you're running. There's a megacorp behind each whose
| interests may or may not align with yours. You don't get to
| choose what they do or how. But you can still make whatever
| you'd like on top for no cost, though you may have to spend
| money to get attention. And if you make something
| malicious, you might get added to a blacklist that is
| distributed to all users. Etc.
|
| In essence Google wants our "operating system" to be Chrome
| or another of their properties, either as a sort of meta-OS
| layered on top of the hardware OS or more directly via
| Chrome OS/Android+Google Play Services. And their financial
| interest in that is almost exclusively to get data about us
| to run ads at us, and to the extent possible prevent or
| hinder avoidance of that harvest or those ads.
|
| It's not just that I don't want an ad company to make my
| operating system, I don't want an internet-required OS at
| all. And I want a wide variety of software with zero WAN
| dependency beyond maybe initial delivery somewhere in the
| chain. If that's not something you're interested in fine,
| but lots of us will remain willing to put our money where
| our mouths are on that one.
|
| I also disagree that Safari is "holding the web back"
| because I _like_ simple, readable and parseable websites.
| city41 wrote:
| You're conflating two issues. Chromium's dominance is a
| problem for sure, but that is separate from the web being
| an open platform. The web is more open than Linux (which
| I use btw) because a web app can run on Linux, MacOS,
| Windows, FreeBSD, Android, iOS and more without
| recompiling, redistributing or re-anything. Would it be
| nice if it wasn't HTML/JS/CSS based? Absolutely. But we
| gotta take what we can get.
|
| I couldn't agree more that Google's dominance in web
| technology is a problem. But you're throwing the baby out
| with the bath water.
|
| And just to add, the current situation is _still_ better
| than proprietary native apps on MacOS and Windows. I can
| at least use Chromium in many forms and on virtually any
| operating system. Not ideal, but the alternative people
| in this thread are suggesting is _far_ worse.
| Shorel wrote:
| > and users begin to lose the ability to use other browsers
|
| Begin? No. This has been happening for years. This is what
| killed Opera browser rendering engine.
| robertoandred wrote:
| You speak as if other browsers never lag in new features. It
| took /how/ long for Chrome to get position sticky or backdrop
| filter?
| geofft wrote:
| I'm not sure that's relevant for privacy - for privacy, the
| specific thing you need is content blocking, right?
|
| I agree it's important for functionality and the general health
| of the web as a platform, but those don't seem to be the point
| of the article.
| OminousWeapons wrote:
| > I'm not sure that's relevant for privacy - for privacy, the
| specific thing you need is content blocking, right?
|
| Yes, and for example (to my knowledge) there is no good
| granular script blocker (e.g. umatrix, ublock origin,
| noscript) in any browser available for iphone because there
| is no extension support in browsers like Chrome and Firefox.
| dtx1 wrote:
| Not really. If your rendering engines does the spying for you
| than blocking other tracking and adware still leaves you
| without real privacy. Coupled with a lack of fingerprinting
| protection, simple content blocking may not even be enough to
| reasonably protect you from third party trackers.
| geofft wrote:
| Is the rendering engine doing the spying for you?
|
| This article seems like it's focusing on websites spying on
| you, and I don't think anyone (either this article or
| elsewhere) has made a serious allegation that WebKit does
| actually spy on you. It would be pretty newsworthy if it
| did!
| coldtea wrote:
| > _As such, Safari is basically the new IE6 -- it lags all
| other modern browsers and prevents websites from taking
| advantage of nice new features_
|
| This tired trope must die. No, Safari is not "the new IE6".
|
| The problem with IE6 was not that it lagged a few years before
| adopting some features, it was moving fast and implementing
| things on its own, forcing standards, etc, and forcing a
| monoculture due to his large adoption (until Firefox came).
|
| The monoculture, moving too fast, dictating arbitrary
| standards, is what Google does with Chrome (and every Blink
| derived browser).
| true_religion wrote:
| I thought the problem was that for 8+ years it had no feature
| updates, and he team behind it was disbanded. So everyone
| hated supporting it since it was buggy, and you knew the bugs
| would never be fixed.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Safari on the iphone is probably the only thing keeping some
| semblence of the open web alive - it's the one place google
| can't take over.
| uoaei wrote:
| NYT -- where the words sound nice, with no due diligence.
| knubie wrote:
| Actually safari has implemented some web standards before
| Firefox and chrome. For example beforeInput events that allow
| rich text editing.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| No, Chrome is the new IE6. Safari is... still safari.
| tchalla wrote:
| > So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you're simply
| using Safari with a different "skin." This skin can clearly do
| some content blocking, and it can provide a different browser
| UI -- but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies
| that are available in the browser.
|
| Firefox Focus is a decent alternative with the best of both
| worlds.
|
| http://mzl.la/1NDD2IB
| awwaiid wrote:
| What do you mean? I think on iOS it is still rendering with
| Safari.
| teekert wrote:
| I recently switched from Android to iOS and this was super
| confusing. No plugins, except for on the OS level (like
| AdGuard) and then those don't even work in that weird neutered
| Firefox, only in Safari :s
|
| Oh and Bitwarden does not work in FF. It it does work in
| Safari! So now I, a Firefox by default person switched to
| Safari (on iOS at least). I wish full Firefox was present.
| ornornor wrote:
| Try nextdns.io. It blocks ads systemwide (except the YT app,
| and a few websites that use JS tricks to inject ads)
|
| Bitwarden works very well for me in iOS FF and any other app.
| skrowl wrote:
| A lot of people notice that when downgrading from Android to
| iOS.
|
| Be prepared to no longer be able to easily install new
| launchers / home apps / emulators / adult apps / etc either.
|
| Hopefully we have you back on the open source side soon!
| teekert wrote:
| Hehe well, there were some pleasant surprises: Nextcloud
| works well (auto picture upload), imap mail, webdav, caldav
| all work with no extra apps needed (with Nextcloud as
| backend). WireGuard vpn works well, Home Assitant works. No
| extra app needed for podcasts. Element works, facetime is
| the best video call experience so far. I do really miss
| fdroid indeed and apps like GadgetBridge and OSMand (full
| version). Yeah it's a walled garden but it has enough gates
| for me so far.
|
| I do like the privacy notices a lot more though, often
| they'll state that nothing is shared and everything stays
| on the phone. Android with Google play is not as open and
| under my control as I wished, it's one of the reasons why
| the step to iOS is minor imho (freedom-wise).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-03 23:02 UTC)