PSA Don't use chrome.
The DOJ is totally spineless and refuses to squash Google's absurd monopoly on the internet. We are literally the last line of defense, even though we really don't amount to much.
Perhaps we could start a grassroots movement.
Mozilla Foundation is rudderless. I'm convinced the leadership are all Google plants who are keeping the "antitrust litigation sponge" from doing anything damaging to Chrome.
Most of the time when I tried it the Firefox translations were obviously wrong or nonsense.
A clueless person might not know any better, but you clearly do, and also you seemingly care. So why do you use Google all the same?
AFAIK some of these options are there to be used by the Tor browser, which comes with strict configuration assumptions, and it doesn't translate well to normal Firefox usage. Especially if you change the window size on a non-standardized device. Mind you, the goal is not to block fingerprinting, but to not stand out. Safari on a macbook is probably harder to fingerprint than Firefox on your soldering iron.
However, judging by the fact that every data hungry website seemingly has a huge problem with VPN usage, I'd presume they are pretty effective and fingerprinting is not.
I will say one downside to using it is far more bot detection websites freaking out over generic information being returned to them, causing some sites to break (some of their settings breaking webgl games too due to low values). Using a different profile avoids this, or explicitly whitelisting certain sites in privacy.resistFingerprinting.exemptedDomains - obviously if a site is using a generic tracking service for bot detection, that kills a fair amount of the benefit of the flag, so a separate profile might be best. I wish firefox had a container option for this.
... and. not too sure what you mean by changing window size on a non-standardised device. They do try to ensure the window sizes are at standard intervals, as if they were fullscreened at typical widths to reduce fingerprinting, but surely that applies to using Tor too? I mean, people don't use Tor on dedicated monitors at standard sizes.
Apparently you need to add the hidden pref: firefox.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing
Enabling letterboxing knocked off 5 bits of identifying information. Apparently my 1800px wide letterbox was still pretty identifiable, but, an improvement.
Setting a chrome user agent string using a user agent string manager dropped that one from 12ish bits to <4 bits. 'course, that has disadvantage of reducing firefox visibility online further, and probably being more recognisable with the other values (like mozilla in the webgl info). Using firefox stable for windows was <5bits, so probably best to use that if on linux. Although, it might conflict with the font list unless a windows font list was pulled in.
for bonus points, is there no way to strip all headers on chrome on control it better?
I sometimes do use Safari which is a more convenient browser - it would be ironic if DDG browser is less private than Safari.
All "fingerprint" tests I've run have returned good results.
If the browser header says windows but the fonts available says linux, that's a very distinctive signal.
And if the UA says Chrome but some other signal says not-chrome, that's very distinctive as well.
I think, you are falling for a technical fallacy. It's not costing them any more time.