Even before this I was suspicious about Mozilla and their google analytics...

Even before this I was suspicious about Mozilla and their google analytics, dozens of telemetry settings (some of them hidden in about:config) and ''safebrowsing'' enabled by default.
Now that Mozilla(Firefox, Seamonkey,etc) is confirmed for botnet,which alternative do we have left?

Other urls found in this thread:

ghacks.net/2015/11/09/how-to-disable-the-firefox-saved-telemetry-pings-and-archive-folder/
brave.com/about/
mobile.twitter.com/bcrypt/status/896608827037974528
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Brave.

Ungoogled-Chromium
IRIDIUM CAN'T BE TRUSTED

>browser made by an ad company, just a different ad company than usual

does it have an auto-updater?

unfortunately Bravewill be the only mainstream option to Chrome in very near future
That's the sad truth. Unless someone start to make Ungoogled-Chromium binaries and release them like woolys chromium

Pale Moon > Chromium > Brave

placebo

The state of Windows

>Remove ping, tracking,etc
>placebo

inox

no im not going to sudo dist-upgrade every fucking day you sperg

yeah it's too much work
Little poor you can't afford to lift your fingers to type "sudo dist-upgrade"

>he breaks the system everytime to install a new package

How do you know someone is a linuxsperg on Sup Forums? Don't worry they'll barge in the thread and force their viewpoints down your throat.

Any and all telemetry data is accessible by you. Mozilla is pretty transparent about it

about:telemetry

will show you everything you wanna know. The extended telemetry "pings" can be disabled by changing 1, I repeat 1, setting in about:config

toolkit.telemetry.server

Just blank it out. This shit ain't hard guys.

how about dooble?

BASED ICECAT

Brave is not viable at the present, at least not on the desktop. It has potential, but it's a long way off from realizing it.

Isn't this a trust issue? How do you know mozilla is being transparent, have you gone through the code to confirm they aren't doing something secretly? That's the problem.

>The extended telemetry "pings" can be disabled by changing 1, I repeat 1
There are bugs you have to disable these:

datareporting.healthreport.service.enabled set to false
datareporting.healthreport.uploadEnabled set to false
toolkit.telemetry.archive.enabled set to false
toolkit.telemetry.enabled set to false
toolkit.telemetry.unified set to false

You have no idea what you're talking about. You can completely disable ads if you want.

Too bad the Adblocker is shit, script control is all-or-nothing, and you can't add extensions from the Chrome store to make it worth a shit.

literally monitor your network!
Chromium phones home to google IPs even if you disable everything possible (not counting ungoogled chromium)
Firefox does not connect to any IP you dont want with proper configuration

Don't reply to mozilla pajeets
Mozilla collects data and enables google garbage by default
They are the other side of the same google coin

>datareporting.healthreport.service.enabled set to false

Weird, I don't have this config entry.

>telemetry reports are still successfully sent even though the destination server is no longer in the configuration

I find this hard to believe. Can you provide proof?

maybe you are using waterfox, icecat or palemoon?

>monitor your network
That'd be great if everything wasn't TLS. Kinda hard to see what's happening.

die pajeet scum

Not who you were responding to, but I'm using FF, and don't have it.

I don't agree with that stuff being enabled by default, but this is Sup Forums and we all know every setting can be disabled easily. Also dude...we get it. You're a contrarian software hipster who only uses obscure browsers, and you're cool. We get it.

Mozilla = Botnet

no

>ask for proof
>told to die

Anndddd I win this little exchange. Take this L and go home kid, unless you can provide evidence like I asked.

they removed then. Weird they keep adding those obscure telemetry options and then remove later on.
Healthreport was on my firefox 53/54 I had to disable it by hand.

sometimes they are hidden. you can create new ones just to be safe.

Obviously not FF54, looking at I'm not trying to cause waves or anything, just wanted to keep you current on what's going on. FF can't stop tinkering with their about:config.

Anyways, thanks for the tips, I didn't have one of those settings changed, despite doing some research into privacy via about:config myself.

Pretty much this.

>Anndddd I win this little exchange
hi rebbit
bye rebbit

NO EXTENSIONS

>posting pedophile images
Just... why? The fuck is wrong with you

this desu

You're only helping the other user. Learn about the subject before trying to argue.

I'm not even using Brave right now. It's very early in development.

But my extensions are just uBlock + https everywhere + violent monkey + mouse gestures. What minimum functionality of extensions do you even need?

I remember checking out that chick. She's weird, and pretty obviously a leftist, looking at her twitter.

Also, Brave's adblock is shit, there's no fine-tuned script controls, and you can't add extensions like decentraleyes to the browser. Brave is a fine mobile browser (and my main mobile browser), but it's is a shit-tier desktop browser at the moment, and will be until they start bringing real extensions to the platform, rather than password managers that nobody in their right mind should use.

I'd have no objection if they made a browser with integrated ad blocking that blocked all ads for all users all the time. But the very presence of Brave's own advertising and revenue-sharing model gives them a direct incentive to go back on all their stated commitments to privacy and the like. That's the model a lot of surveillance outfits have followed - start with strong or at least decent privacy protections, and then, once you have a user base, start walking them back, knowing that most users will at most make a brief fuss but not leave. You share/sell more data, run more ads, and bam, you're the next Facebook.

Also lets be explicit here, there's no such thing as "acceptable advertising". The goal here is to make advertising a nonviable business model on the web. We want the sites that are there to give people information to stick around (and conveniently dumping all the JS and ads and tracking garbage in the bin will keep their hosting costs to the level that an individual or small organization can afford) On the other hand sites that only have """content""" at all because you need a lure to get some goyim's eyeballs in front of ads for the advertisers to pay you, we want to ensure that those sites are money-losers, by making advertisers unwilling to pay sites to run ads, since so few of them will ever be seen or lead to sales.

>asian qt
>EFF fellow
>codes for based Brendan Eich

wouldmarry.jpg

>he wants me to find on google about the bugs and data collecting that firefox sends even with telemetry disabled
LAZY BASTARD
One small example: ghacks.net/2015/11/09/how-to-disable-the-firefox-saved-telemetry-pings-and-archive-folder/

Her twitter is a mix of autism regarding bunnies and anti-Trump rhetoric on par with antifa.

I don't really have an issue with people's politics, but when they sperg that hard, it's a pretty big turn-off.

>and anti-Trump rhetoric on par with antifa.
Giving internet to the masses was a mistake.
Women specially can't be allowed to access internet because jews can manipulate them very easily

OSX and Safari....

I don't know anything about her past the photo on brave.com/about/

I don't disagree with you that the desktop version isn't ready. Basically most of Sup Forums just wish they had a privacy fork of chrome with an actual development team behind it, which is what Brave looks to be. It still has to work on catching up.

>The goal here is to make advertising a nonviable business model on the web.

You can't stop the marketing floodgates. Do you know who you're dealing with? Profit-seeking entities. If they can't explicitly advertise, they will infiltrate news publications and shill on a level never before seen.

Wrong. You are very confused. So confused that I hesitate to even keep talking to you.

re-read this post Blanking out the about:config setting
toolkit.telemetry.server
will remove the remote server from the config. Another user (you?) said the telemetry pings are still successfully sent even with the remote server's address removed from hhe config. I asked for proof of this, and you told me to die.

As this user said lurk moar and learn because you're making yourself look stupid.

this tells you how to disable it...

the site is showing that ping telemetry was collected even with that shit disabled
Stop lying you pajeet
Mozilla shills are literally the marxists of technology

>I don't disagree with you that the desktop version isn't ready. Basically most of Sup Forums just wish they had a privacy fork of chrome with an actual development team behind it, which is what Brave looks to be. It still has to work on catching up.

Agreed. I DO have Brave installed, and use it whenever my autistic FF settings are tripping up a webpage that I have to use (like a job application site), and I see it's potential. Truth be told, if they replaced their Adblock with Ublock Origin, made the Script control on par with NoScript (which is still less than ideal in comparison to Umatrix), and made Disconnect and Decentraleyes an option, I would use it over FF, even though it would still be missing things I want (like an Agent Spoofer, flash/HTML5 control, DNSSEC/TLSA Validator, and the like).

So I visited her twitter.

>actually funny tech jokes
>pictures of her cute bunny
>closest thing to antifa posts was a video of Trump saying billions a lot

I think I'm in love.

Even if the content is encrypted, you still know the IP its communicating with. You may not even have to reverse-DNS it if there's a server-name indication.

>Do you know who you're dealing with? Profit-seeking entities. If they can't explicitly advertise, they will infiltrate news publications and shill on a level never before seen.
Like they have already, driving trust in media to all-time lows? Fine, let them make the vast wasteland of television that much more of a dump, booting them off the internet would still be big progress. Besides, you already identified their weakness: they're profit-seeking. All you have to do to beat them is to make their business unprofitable.

Alt-right in my Sup Forums. Troll harder faggot.

She must have toned down her rhetoric. I only checked the once, and it was at the beginning of the year, before Trump took office.

I've used qutebrowser and really like it but can't into vim sorcery atm, been using palememe almost for two years and is the less shitty I know desu senpai

also someone with reviews for surf from suckless?

keep reading

legendary queen

>wahh wahh someone's finally doing something against the far right propaganda spam

Sup Forums BTFO

>All you have to do to beat them is to make their business unprofitable.

How in the hell do you propose that? Brave literally subverts advertising by allowing users to give money directly to publishers that they care about. You could give all the money is made off you to Stallman if you wanted.

The only reason you would say this is probably some stupid political reason of your bullshit ideology. Iridium manually approves chromium patches. Ungoogled-chromium can't be trusted.

(You)
tell that to yourselves

...

Sup Forums (including me) is leftist/communist as fuck.

I'm not political, but let's be real here, both sides are pushing a shit ton of propaganda. I still have yet to see any real proof of Russia tampering with the voting machines, but a huge chunk of the population believes it actually happened.

And I get the vibe that targeting "fake news" will be selective targeting. CNN won't get called out for constantly focusing on Trump and Russia, despite the link being pretty tenuous at best (from what I can tell - again, not overly political), but Brietbart will likely get should down for mistranslating a German "could," into "should."

In your dreams faggot, now stop derailing

Good point. There is only one person that disagrees with the alt right. You caught me.

And where does that money come from, if it's not coming straight from the users pocket? Advertisers. People who are paying money to someone to try and distract me, place my eyeballs on some lies, and con me into buying something I otherwise wouldn't have. (of course, if the money is coming from the users pocket, there's no need for Brave or for the advertisers, they can just give the site money)

So no, Brave is perpetuating the ad business, with is associated problems, like clickbait and content mills. The world I'd like to see is one where the vast majority of advertising is blocked, and the vast majority of the small sliver that isn't is just fraudulent clicks. The goal of this being to persuade companies that at present spend a lot of money on ad campaigns to say "You know, this is just pissing money straight down the toilet", and having the ad market dry up, and companies (including but not limited to Brave) founded on taking a cut of that spending going out of business.

I'm sure a scummy underbelly of spam and ad fraud and the like will remain. Which is okay, if all the advertising people see online is obviously disreputable, that'll help cement in their minds something they should know intuitively but that many presently don't seem to: that advertising in general is disreputable.

kek. no wonder you hate /our browser/ so much.

Sorry you're a piece of shit.

Um... no, sweetie. This is a fascist board. But nice try hunnie.

I don't like Brave on the desktop, but the dude you're responding to doesn't represent me. I'm one of the most capitalistic people you'll ever meet. Just because I prefer Linux to Windows doesn't mean that I'm communist.

What country that calls themselves communist hasn't gone fascist at some point?

pooh in loo

Die Nazi

>(of course, if the money is coming from the users pocket, there's no need for Brave or for the advertisers, they can just give the site money)

Case in point. Brave seeks to completely wipe out advertising. You can disable ads and will be able to fund projects directly when Mercury comes out.

The money has to come from somewhere. Very few entities can exist with zero source of funding. And if you think they're doing things for free, you're an idiot. Nothing is free.

...

I'm actually Christian. Blond hair, blue eyes. Hitler would have loved me. But nice try.

...

>block all ads, wipe out the advertisers
then there's no reason for Brave's ad-replacement crap.
>pay money to sites
There's also no reason for a browser to be doing this, given that people have been putting PayPal donate links on their sites for a long time, and if you want to do it with cryptocurrency like Brave does then instead of building a whole browser infrastructure for paying sites, the sites could just post a [Bit,Lite,Doge,Whatever]coin address on their site that people could, if they choose, send coins to.

If Mozilla introduced browser infrastructure for payments you'd be screaming about how awful it was, like the ruckus over Pocket.

>The money has to come from somewhere. Very few entities can exist with zero source of funding. And if you think they're doing things for free, you're an idiot. Nothing is free.
The sites that are worth having are. I have no objection if you're an online storefront that's actually selling products and making money that way. And the informative websites are text, and cheap to host. Renting a VPS and putting up a blog is something you can do for trivial entertainment money.

The sites that are in trouble are the ones that don't care about saying something or about providing an actual product, they just care about whatever will get eyeballs in front of a page, what it is is irrelevant. The Buzzfeeds and Gawkers of the world. Those sites are the vast majority of the internet these days and you bet your ass it'd be a good thing if they had zero source of funding.

>bronies are better than SJWs

>getting triggered by a random picture on the internet

Neck yourself ponyfag

Sup Forums is right wing and our browser of choice is Brave. Deal with it.

>PayPal donations
Ask the millions of scrubs who already do that how much they make from that.
>the sites could just post a [Bit,Lite,Doge,Whatever]coin address on their site that people could, if they choose, send coins to.
You think a normalfag knows how to do that?

>Renting a VPS and putting up a blog is something you can do for trivial entertainment money.
Who wants to read a blog with no funding? It's basically just opinion pieces at that point. I want objective news, and that requires more resources than some random tech blogger can afford to spend with "entertainment money."

Brave seeks to eliminate click baiting ads that consumers don't consent to viewing in the first place. If you can give me an alternative besides PayPal donations, I'd love to hear it.

If PayPal donations truly worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. The current system is broken and needs radical changes.

Fuck off Sup Forums. Nobody likes you.

I believe she's either married or engaged to a very far-left bloke.

>>>/reddit/

I take back what I said earlier.

mobile.twitter.com/bcrypt/status/896608827037974528

GNU IceCat, cunt.

>>Ask the millions of scrubs who already do that how much they make from that.
So your objection is that sites aren't making enough money? Why is their business model our problem? For that matter, who says you have a right to a certain amount of income from the kind of stuff you want to put on the web? (witness the squealing of youtubers who want five figures to umm and ahh into a webcam)

>You think a normalfag knows how to do that?
"send a token to this address" isn't a hard concept to grasp. Normalfags can copy-paste address strings. If you want to design a normie-friendly crypto wallet, well and good, a lot of other people have had ideas like that too. No real reason to put it in a Chrome-knockoff web browser though.

>Who wants to read a blog with no funding?
I do. The people that are interesting to read are the people who write about shit because they think its interesting, as opposed to because someone's paying them to write it. A blog by some sysadmin somewhere is always going to be more interesting and educational than some consumerist drivel on Wired.

>I want objective news, and that requires more resources
And there will continue to be news outlets for you. Government-sponsored outfits like the BBC aren't going away, and news-that-you-pay-for isn't either, it just has a much higher bar now. Forbes and the Wall Street Journal do pretty well with paywalled news. The news organizations that are dying are the lowest-common-denominator ones, and the local podunk papers that are just a few pages about what the local high school did and a few obituaries.

>Brave seeks to eliminate click baiting ads that consumers don't consent to viewing in the first place. If you can give me an alternative besides PayPal donations, I'd love to hear it.
I gave it to you already: the alternative is "the site running the clickbait goes out of business and dies". Good riddance to bad rubbish. We don't need quantity of content, we need quality of content.

...

Yes, that's our sister board. Your point?

>Ask the millions of scrubs who already do that how much they make from that.
I'm not sure how this is a valid point. I pay for what I use, and I pay what I deem is a fair one-time price. The dude that does NoScript, for example, got 50 dollars from me, as that's what I valued the add-on at. I also pay for shit like my email, even though there is a free option, both because I appreciate the product and because I want the additional features that are locked behind a paywall. Hell, I even buy a Sup Forums Pass during Black Friday, when they have their sale.

I don't mind funding the shit that I use. The fact that other people don't isn't really my problem.