Show HN: Quetta – A privacy-first web browser with enhanced ad blocker inside | Hacker News Reader

Show HN: Quetta – A privacy-first web browser with enhanced ad blocker inside

quetta.net

42 pointscherysun58 comments

I clicked, read "Quetta does not collect, store or share any data." , but then:

> The resource at “https://stats.g.doubleclick.net/g/collect?[truncated]” was blocked because content blocking is enabled.

(also their account identifier is "11l1l1l1l1", an attempt to anonymize their own advertising account? Seems legit)

> Request to access cookie or storage on “https://analytics.google.com/g/collect?[truncated]” was blocked because it came from a tracker and content blocking is enabled.

Plus hits to Google Ads, Google Analytics, and Framer's events API logging page views...

I get that this stuff is "standard", but you can't say "privacy-first" and then track every visitor to your site with like 3-4 different analytics platforms.

Exactly. Analytics isn’t even intrinsically bad. There are so many privacy-friendly analytics tools today (Fathom, Plausible, etc), and lots of them can even be self hosted.

Saying you don’t collect data, then using Google for data collection is very disingenuous.

Is “privacy” the new buzzword? Seems like with “AI” before it, privacy is being thrown around by startups as a way to pad landing pages and attract naive users.

> Is “privacy” the new buzzword?

It is not new. It is going on since some years. A lot of companies (hello Microsoft) say that they care about your privacy, while collecting every piece of it.

Piracy isn't a new buzzword but ever since Apple made it a selling point everyone is hopping on the train.

Also when it comes to privacy there's a thin line between collecting data and selling it to partners.

The privacy laws are new(ish), which is what makes companies even consider the privacy side of things nowadays.

Mozilla does the same thing. Their website is loaded with trackers, and for security reasons, parts of their website can't be controlled by addons like uBlock.

I have a strong suspicion their "install Firefox on your smart thermostat" popups that show up every time it updates itself are also part of their tracking solution, because there's no easy way to opt out of those and they sure contain a boatload of trackers.

While I don't really trust the company behind it, Brave seems to be the one browser that doesn't insist on packing their stuff full of trackers.

I just went to getfirefox.com (with no ad-blocking or anything). There are no hits to any Google or Doubleclick domain. In fact, there are also no XHR's or GETs to tracking APIs either, that I can see. Not sure what you're referring to, but this is the most privacy-respecting webpage I've been to in a long time.

Same thing going to mozilla.org . I'm not seeing any tiny hint of what you're describing.

Well, I'll be damned, they actually removed their trackers! That's great to see!

I still get URLs like https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/.../whatsnew/?oldversi...... opening up with every update, though, despite having everything under "Firefox Data Collection and Use" disabled. I don't know what data this request is logging (seems to be just "firefox-desktop", oldversion and the new version, but I can't tell if they track anything else (language, IP address, etc.). I wish I could just disable these popups without digging through about:config (which I thought I had already done).

This is entirely false, you must be blocking the requests on the network level or something.

For one the getfirefox.com redirect includes tracking parameters in the destination URL, then there's Google Tag Manager, there is Sentry, some pages with their first party analytics solutions like Glean and more.

I installed uBlock Origin, with my Privacy settings set to normal/default, and there is nothing blocked (normally the plugin would show a long list of blocked analytics stuff). No clue, are you using Firefox as well? Not sure what the difference is with our experiences, but I see not a shred of Google or analytics-related network requests when I navigate to getfirefox.com . It DOES have a query param in the destination URL that suggests tracking, but it never does anything with it (???) https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/?redirect_source=g... ... I'm investigating further and I see that the page itself loads a self-hosted Google Tag Manager .js, but it looks like it has code that respects the "do not track" setting in my browser, but oddly I don't even have that enabled (woops)! Strange, no idea what's different for me. I'll try on another machine just to compare!

That's interesting, I'm indeed seeing some differences between browsers on those pages but those aren't exactly baseline setups. I'll have to do a more thorough comparison tomorrow and will reply with my findings.

Having some issues with the system I want to use for these tests. Expecting to get this done over the weekend.

I'm not sure if any amount of privacy marketing can make me use a non-open source browser. Perhaps AI-powered anti annoyance filter and dark pattern removal? Firefox and Chromium aren't perfect but the amount of spying in these browsers can be audited and Firefox has some advanced anti-tracking features (resistFingerprinting). The video downloader is pretty cool though if it works well enough in practice.

People interested in this might also be interested in Orion from the Kagi team: https://kagi.com/orion/

Orion is built on Webkit, has a focus on privacy, built in ad blocking, and runs on macOS and iOS. It also has a lot of other interesting features baked in, although the last time I tried it I ran across a couple of glitches too (to be fair, it's in beta and under active development). Another point of favour of Orion is the Kagi team is clear it's strictly funded by users and there's an "Orion+" thing where you can subscribe and get access to RC builds.

It doesn't seem to be clearly stated, but I think Quetta is built on Chrome? I'm not thrilled with the ongoing march of Chrome as the universal core of every nominally independent browser. And they also seem to be a bit cagey about what their monetisation plans are, which might be an oversight but is a little concerning.

What is so wrong with product managers writing this lies? Do they know that there's an important thing called trust exists? Do they care a bit about its meaning?

What a shame.

> Do they know that there's an important thing called trust exists?

If it works for politicians and journalists, why wouldn't work also for product managers ? /s

Wish Kagi just focused on Search. I don't see how building both a search engine and a browser is possible with a startup team. I tried Orion a lot of times but there's still too many bugs for me to switch over from Arc.

I, too, found it buggy, but I don’t agree that they should only focus on search. Chrome is proof of how important a search engine is to a browser, and vice versa.

We should welcome browser competition to fight against Google’s dominance, and if there’s a company I trust to have my best interests in mind for this job it’s Kagi.

Looked at the Compare Chart. They just placed a few things like "Data Vault" or "Private Downloads" without any explanation what are those.

Also they are so inaccurate. Like saying that Phones cannot play youtube videos in background. Well, you can just install an app, and it will be able to do that.

Adblocking is not available for Safari, Chrome or Firefox? You don't need to be an IT person to figure out how to enable them.

And how about adding to the chart a few more things, things that I actually use

- Extensions support - nope

- Profiles support - nope

- Bookmarks - maybe nope - don't see them mentioning them sowewhere

- Integration between devices - nope

- Reading list - nope (I need that more than videos)

- And there is probably more.

> Like saying that Phones cannot play youtube videos in background.

And that's such an odd thing to pin on the browser, too. Google intentionally makes it difficult to play YouTube videos in the background; that's a perk they reserve for paying YouTube Premium users.

Yet another reason to use Firefox: the addon to fix Youtube background playback has been featured in Firefox's mobile addons even since the first iteration of their addon whitelist.

> Adblocking is not available for Safari, Chrome or Firefox? You don't need to be an IT person to figure out how to enable them.

How then? If I can block ads with Chrome on mobile then I'd switch back from Firefox.

You can block ads in Safari on iPhone with extensions. Maybe Chrome as well with AdGuard dns ads blocker.

I would assume Chrome on Android has something similar, extensions support?

> Maybe Chrome as well with AdGuard dns ads blocker.

DNS-level ad blocking is not the same, it's much worse, nor is that actually a part of the browser

> I would assume Chrome on Android has something similar, extensions support?

There are no extensions on Chrome on Android

> There are no extensions on Chrome on Android

Surprised to hear that. But still they compare it to Firefox, which is untrue.

This seems quite similar to Firefox Focus, an app from Mozilla which also comes with adblocking built in: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browsers/mobile/focus/

Your thingie has some cool features and the screenshots look nice. If I was picking between the two based on that I’d give you a shot, but I’m curious about your plans.

Are y’all a for-profit company? What is your business plan?

FYI, the comparison table incorrectly claims Firefox lacks "Save as PDF" support. On Android it's under the share menu.

I thought we weren't supposed to Show HN before usable? Links to versions in footer seem dead and clicking store button gives:

"Quetta for iOS will hit App Store in Spring 2024. Stay tuned. Follow us to get the latest updates."

The Show HN should be clearer, Android only.

Separately, and not a Show HN problem just a product comment, product claims range from dubious to purposely misleading.

> The Show HN should be clearer, Android only.

It's not on Android yet either.

> Download videos with a single tap. > Screenshot showing video downloading from youtube.com

This app is on the play store. Unfortunately, it won't be for long given Google's opinion of YT downloaders.

Firefox's YT background play was killed by this.

It's up for "pre-registration".

But I'll gladly give this a shot with a sideload.

> Firefox's YT background play was killed by this.

Do you know of a link to any more details about that?

Ah, sorry, it actually turns out I was wrong. Google did kill it, but they killed it by adding some JS on YouTube and not by making Firefox blacklist YouTube background playback: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1355407

You know what else is a privacy-first web browser with enhanced adblocking inside? Firefox with uBlock Origin

The competitor features comparison is not accurate. For example, Brave does have playlist. And I Firefox has flavors with built in ad-block

Privacy-first to me means that by default when I launch the proxied app and my home page is about:blank, I don’t see a single network request firing, and neither before exit.

a fully privacy first browser needs to be open source.

I swear if this is chromium based I’m gonna hit my desk.

Update: It’s unclear, anyone know how to find out? Haven’t hit my desk yet.

As a Pakistani, I protest naming of this software (lol)

Quetta (/ˈkwɛtə/; Urdu: کوئٹہ, ko'eṭa, [ˈkweːʈə] ⓘ; Pashto: کوټه; Balochi: کویٹہ) is the capital and largest city of the Pakistani province of Balochistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetta

As another Pakistani, I don't understand the need for a protest... Let the names be used.

Brother, you missed the "lol" in op's comment.

Anyway, perhaps the devs are Pakistani ;-)

> perhaps the devs are Pakistani

The company is owned by a Chinese national

Hah! The first thing I thought when I saw the name, I’ve heard of that city! Gonna be hard to rank it on Google.

What are they selling, how is this financed? Seems like something Brave and Firefox can both do, you probably just need to install some extensions for the "missing" features. I do not see anything revolutionary here. If you do not use Tor or at least a VPN and refuse to login to anything you are never really private to the web and this Browser will not change that.

What is "Vault" and what are "Private downloads" they just proxy them through one of their servers? How does it work? Is it really private? What about sites that only let you download if you actually visited the site and they generate like time limited links that only work on your specific browser for a while, how will "private downloads" solve this issue? I am doubtful about pretty much any of this. I well keep Brave and Firefox.

Search engine sponsorships or web3 probably

Note this :

"Quetta’s AI-powered ad-blocking technology sets a new standard in efficiency and accuracy. [...] The key to this efficiency is server-side processing. By handling complex computations on our servers, Quetta ensures that your device’s performance remains optimal, [...].

And in their terms :

We do not do business with individuals or entities in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, the Crimean region, DNR and LNR. If you are from such regions, you may be prohibited from using the Quetta Services.

Also note that they do not explain who their employees are, which is suspicious.

Apparently my phone is incompatible. Does this browser require Android 14?

I'll be honest, I'll probably stick with an open source browser, but it's worth trying out apps like these to see how browsers could be done. Based on the screenshots, the URL bar design is intriguing and the playlist feature seems better integrated than the extension based background playback Firefox offers.

privacy-first and not opensource ? alright I guess I will just trust that random company

seeing all the comment in this thread and confirming them on the website, this browser is not quite there yet

Sticking with a hardened firefox

Smells like the same sort of thing Opera tries to tell us about how private it is/was.

Homepage: "Zero data collection. Quetta does not collect, store or share any data. Your data always belongs to you."

Google Play: "No data shared with third parties", "No data collected", "Zero data collection & sharing"

Privacy Policy: "we do process app launch information, which is used to determine if the software can run properly. This service is provided by the third-party service provider Google Analytics for Firebase."

I wish you all the best, the more competition the better, but you really shouldn't advertise zero data collection & sharing when it simply isn't true.

Damn it folks. Why is this so hard.

Step 1: Install Firefox

Step 2: Install ublock origin

that's it.

No need for all these stupid extra browsers with their false claims of absolute privacy.

That’s not it… need to set about ten settings after that: turning off telemetry, google search+keystroke spying, pocket, home page, corporate links, etc.

All before connecting to the network.

Keystroke spying, you mean the autocomplete of google search terms or what else?

Yes, not aware of anything else.

Forgot to mention I also like dialing up the privacy settings, like disabling third-party cookies, turn on DNT, GPC, etc. But this is optional territory.

With something like https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/ for starters.

Or in German https://www.privacy-handbuch.de/ especially Surfen...,DNS...

And not doing it by downloading the 'normal' way, instead using https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ , otherwise you've got the unique 'dltoken', be it randomized, or not.

Or use the source, Luke...

Or just LibreWolf and call it a day

Can LibreWolf sync across devices like Firefox?

Yes https://librewolf.net/docs/faq/#can-i-use-firefox-sync-with-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com