@kuba_ @aral you can change it. I am looking for something on Firefox that is tracking on you with no choice.

@Shamar @emanuele @kuba_ ohj hahja, thaat "bug" report yay; the whole bug report just says "JavaScript is remote code execution" and proposes to disable JavaScript. 🤣

@rugk

Not only ! 😉
Even other "features" like meta refresh, that could be used to hide an attack.

Attack that was actually exploited in the wide from Russian Government few months later.

@emanuele was looking for "something on that is tracking on you with no choice" and in fact you do not even have a way to disable and re-enable it with one click on a per site base (like you have even on ! ! !).

Also Emanuele, you should consider that if people around you and people like you are tracked and profiled by because of default firefox's settings (like default search engine), the end result is that you can still be manipulated and influenced through them.

That's why defaults should be friendly by default.

People should explicitly choose to opt-in , not opt-in /privacy.

@kuba_@101010.pl

@Shamar @rugk @kuba_ I do strongly agree with your last sentences. Maybe that's the main reason, all the others are technical settings you can setup accordingly to your preferences.

@Shamar @emanuele @kuba_ no commenting all that stuff, but no, you also have no way to disable JS withoutr devtools in Chrome too.

And you can disable JS in Firefox in the devtools e.g.:

developer.mozilla.org/en-US/do

@rugk

DISCLAIMER:
Google Chrome is NOT a privacy/security friendly browser.
In no way.

Yet, I'm glad to inform you that if you look in your settings, you will find in

> Privacy and security
> Site Settings
> Javascript

a toggle to disable .

Without Developer Tools! 😉

Then in the 's addressbar you'll find a new button when you browse a page that need javascript (see attached image): click there and you will be able to enable javascript on that single host.

@emanuele @kuba_@101010.pl

@Shamar @emanuele @kuba_ ah well… okay that is convenient. Though installing #noscript is just as easy.

@rugk

Well, but why a browser "focused on user privacy" should need an addon like or (both way better than )?

The answer is simple: they pretend to be privacy-friendly just to fool most people with their -friendly defaults.

Indeed most people won't customize their browser (or at most will install sub-optimal extensions like NoScript).

In practice, became the geek-friendly PR-team of Google, Facebook and friends.

@emanuele @kuba_@101010.pl

@Shamar @rugk @kuba_ I suppose because privacy is a multi-degree concept. Are you avoiding BigCorps? Are you trying to be stealth from your Gov? And so on. I like the addon solution: you can tail your browser to fit your own needs.

@emanuele

That's an individual solution trying to fix a systemic issue.

It's not going to work in the current environment.

It's like wearing a surgical mask in a crowd metro where everybody does not wear one: good luck! 🤣

Now promote itself as a solution while it's an enabler of the systemic problem.

That's why @aral mocks them.

As for me, when I wrote that bug report I thought that they were in good faith.

They were not.

dev.to/shamar/i-have-been-bann

@rugk @kuba_@101010.pl

@Shamar @kuba_ @aral could you please explain? I am missing the point there. Thank you!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.