Not that I am a huge fan of Brave, but I think they have implemented something like this for certain (or all) APIs. You will still have a unique fingerprint, but it should not match to any previous fingerprints you had in the past.
Edit: see https://brave.com/privacy-updates/3-fingerprint-randomizatio...
This was fairly secure because even the same employee was unlikely to get the same fingerprint twice - it was only occasionally more convenient than generating a random hash everytime they opened the browser. It became a huge pain for managers to be called constantly on the weekend to remotely reauthorize the devices they'd just authorized a few hours ago, or when chrome suddenly updated itself for half the employees, so eventually we switched to a looser hybrid of fingerprints and local storage.
That's my rather naive opinion, idk am I just being naive?
There are so many possible variations that it seems like preventing fingerprinting by pretending you're something you're not would be an impossible task and makes you even more unique, not less.
live laugh love as the user-agent
If your fingerprint is unique and doesn't change then yes, you stand out. But if your fingerprint changes on every page load, then you become indistinguishable from other users.
This is presumably because most people don't attempt to thwart fingerprinting.
If a particular feature behaves differently between the three most common browsers, it can be used to distinguish them. If you disable it, now you don't look like any of the most common browsers, which puts you in a category with a smaller number of people in it.
Solution: Get more people in it by having more people install anti-fingerprinting extensions etc.
Not if you use Tor Browser.
In the interest of fair balance, I have had the opposite experience.
"I've given up..."
That's probably what "tech" companies are hoping you will do. I see this response repeatedly on HN when the fingerprinting topic comes up. I am wondering if the persons submitting these replies want others to "give up".
Is there a difference between users wanting to appear "the same" and a desire by users to stop supplying maximum amounts of free data/information to "tech" companies and exacerbating the problem of online advertising and associated surveillance.
If a user sends no fingerprinting data/information, then she might be "unique" because most users are sending excessive amounts of fingerprinting data/information. However, IMO, that is hardly a sound argument for continuing to send excessive amounts of fingerprinting data/information. I subscribe to the general principle of sending the least amount of information possible to successfully retrieve a page. This might be "unique" user behaviour, but I am confident it is the correct approach. The big picture IMHO is that "tech" companies, generally, are trying to collect data/information about users to inform online advertising. Uniquely identifying users is only a part of what they are trying to do.
It is a bit like telling a user to use/not use an ad blocker based on what other users are doing, so as to avoid being "unique". This might help with avoiding "uniqueness" but clearly there are gains to be had from using an ad blocker that are greater than the value of trying to appear "the same" as every other user.
Imagine users are all trying to appear exactly the same, so they embark upon coordinating with each other to make the exact same choices. It stands to reason that the number of choices each user has to make is going to be a factor in whether this is successful.
If every user is choosing to send large amounts of data/information (e.g., using browser defaults), then every user has to coordinate their choices on every single data point or bit of information. The higher the number of "correct" choices each user has to make, the less likely that all users succeed in being uniform. There are more chances for error. Whereas if we reduce the number of data points and bits of information so that every user is only sending one or two headers, with no Javascript, CSS, etc.,^1 then that is far easier for users to coordinate.
1. This has been tested heavily by yours truly for decades. One does not need a graphics layer or graphical browser features to make successful HTTP requests. I am not interested in being "invisible", I am interested in reducing the amount of free data/information I give to "tech" companies. Perhaps there is a difference between wanting to "blend in" and wanting to stop "feeding the beast".
"We do not know anything about User A. It looks like she is using TOPS-20 to browse the internet."
Is User A less or more likely to be unique. Probably more. Is User A a more or less viable target for online advertising. To me, it is the second question that matters the most.
You don't have "googlesyndication.com" blocked?
That phenomenon is called the Streissand effect