eipi10_hn

Ah yeah, after accusing others that they vibe-code without proofs, no apology and steering the accusations to other things?

LMFAO. Brave uses uBO's lists and filters, including trusted filters which have much more capabilities with much more risks to your sites' data and they allow that on all other lists too (even uBO only allows their own lists as trusted by default, other lists need to have permissions from users manually). That's how they can block youtube ads, and no they don't code their own filters for youtube ads either. And be assure that they can't check 100% all commits from uBO and other lists either.

If you want to play "no trust to a 3rd party dev", you should not use Brave's adblocker either. Or at least turn off all the lists inside it, and use your own lists. Your security risk is in those stock lists.

Because Windows doesn't go open-source and others can't build their OS from windows like chromium. With OS, there are no open source kernels that are actively maintained and security-fix bump every month by full time staff of giant corporation. With browsers, devs already have an open source engine with most of the work and build are from full-time staff of a giant corporation, and then they just lazily build "their own" browsers upon that and brag on social media.

Build your own browser engine and see how you can pay the devs to make them work on it.

No. Thunderbird has its own merits and they work without Firefox. Mozilla has credibilities in e-mail because of Thunderbird. This topic has 0 relations to Firefox.

Yes, it's unrelated. Each one has its own resources and roadmaps. They are totally not dependent on each other. Thunderbird and its roadmaps/projects are not affected by Firefox' earnings at all. One's development doesn't affect the others.

> Half the thread impunes Mozilla for taking so much money from Google and imply that they are controlled opposition, and the other half gets upset when Mozilla doesn't implement every standard that Google tries to steamroll through the standards bodies because of objections to how they can be used for fingerprinting, or complains that the attempts at anti-fingerprinting break websites, etc.

Yeah, double standards at its max. Firefox inputs every privacy concerns for these APIs that Google puts 0 Vietnam Dong to care about users' privacy. And those people cry about why Firefox doesn't implement it.

> Half the thread impunes Mozilla for taking so much money from Google and imply that they are controlled opposition, and the other half gets upset when Mozilla doesn't implement every standard that Google tries to steamroll through the standards bodies because of objections to how they can be used for fingerprinting, or complains that the attempts at anti-fingerprinting break websites, etc.

LMFAO. You web devs just want more tools to fingerprint and track users. When Firefox raises privacy concerns for your spyware tools, you play like victims and say that "Firefox doesn't want better for users". F that.

LMFAO. Containers are not for profiles-purpose. Everyone who needs profiles know this.

And Firefox now needs 2 click to switch profiles.

Yeah, you don't speak for me.

I don't care about benchmarks.

Thunderbird is under MZLA Technologies Corporation, their money and resources are unrelated to Mozilla Corporation, who pays money for their Firefox.

Why do you know that nobody asks for? Are you in the team?

Why is this related to Firefox?

Why is this related to Firefox?

Why is this related to Firefox?

And?

[flagged]

Yeah, anything happening in backend depends totally on the extensions. Unless I need something, I rarely use extensions that are closed-source or open-source but has some sending data in their features.

It's `searching your computer`, period. The extensions are part of my computer. They don't exist in my refrigerator.

> Nowhere have I defended what LinkedIn is doing.

Yep. You feel the same taste of your own. You are accusing the site being hyperbole and alarmism. I'm accusing you being defendant of linkedin.

This only happens if the extension puts their `moz-extension://` links into the DOM. It's different to chrome case where extensions can be detected regardless of being activated on that site or not.

Page can know what your chrome extensions are, even when your extensions don't interact with the site, by fetching `web_accessible_resources`: https://browserleaks.com/chrome#web-accessible-resources-det... . uBO mitigates this partly by generating internal secret tokens for each request: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/tree/master/src/web_access... .

However, there are other proof of concept of another attack vector to bypass this by using timing difference when fetching those resources.

I help maintaining uBO's lists and I've seen one real world case doing this. It's a trash shortener site, and they use the `web_accessible_resources` method as one of their anti-adblock methods. Since it's a trash site, I didn't care much later.

Calling out the fingerprinting users' extensions is not hyperbolic. Defending that action is.

I'm happy to see that day. I'm already paying for stuff I need in life. There's no reasons to insist on not paying for the stuff I need in the web. Just kill those spywares stealing my personal actions and information.

Parents can hold the keys for underaged?

Maybe sourcehut? https://sourcehut.org

The bust joke is natural for me when 2 total different species encounter at a more friendly interaction level (after their first interactions).

The humor in this is no way Deadpool level. I'm saying this as a hater of Deadpool because of its depraved jokes. And I just feel lighthearted with the humor in this movie.

This fits exactly your example of seeing the worst reviews and seeing that the review is unreasonable and exaggerated.

Read Firefox' stance of these APIs about users' privacy.

Chromium gives 0 sh*t about users' privacy, and just pump the APIs out for websites to track their users more easily.

Opera, Edge and Samsung run Chromium. They don't use their own "rendering engine".

You didn't answer his question at all.

> Which browser engine?

There's no Firefox engine, there's Gecko engine. That's the core of Firefox' extension APIs.

Now, tell me how do you implement `webRequest.filterResponseData()` API for content blocker extension with WebKit: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...