Vincent @ Vincent @kbin.social

Posts

33

Comments

131

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'll emphasise that the "handful of concessions" are concessions to usability, not to having to share data with Google or DuckDuckGo. Firefox is still an incredibly private browser, especially if you consider the rest of the landscape.

But also keep in mind that it couldn't exist without Firefox/Mozilla existing. A world in which more people use Firefox over Chromium-based browsers is a better world.

Use Tor Browser if you want it dialed up to eleven. You'll quickly find that it's way more of a hassle to use, and also still pretty easy to accidentally compromise the security measures.

Of course Firefox isn't perfect; nothing is. But a 180 turn implies it's the opposite of perfect now, and it really isn't - especially in a world where basically every other browser is waaaay closer to that.

Specifically, everyone who's not using Chrome and its derivates did it. Use Firefox, people.

This is so rude. You've done nothing for the guy (neither have I), and have probably used and benefited from his work (that we did not pay for) in some way - and then to single him out and ridicule him? There's an actual human on the other side there...

Ah yes, RDM is a clever workaround for that - I should remember that.

You don't even need to open Responsive Design Mode - when you select Take Screenshot, there are two buttons "Save visible" and "Save full page" in the top right-hand corner.

Legit one of the most underrated Firefox features that I use all the time: right-click - Take Screenshot (or Ctrl+Shift+S). No need to look up the relevant node, just hover the relevant part with your cursor.

Dat moet ook gebeuren, maar is ongetwijfeld niet één-twee-drie klaar.

They haven't messed with it yet. The EU's a democracy and we can still influence its course.

I mean, yes, it could've been differently, and as I understand it they're going to. But as a user, how is your life worse with this than without this? What's the impact of something being installed but not running?

Well, there's a way to frame this as malicious. I'm not a fan of Brave, but it also installs, say, a spell checker without consent, or a Tor client. Sure, the code is there even if you don't use it, but... What's the actual harm?

I have no idea, unfortunately :/

I wouldn't call it a mistake, more like being caught between a rock and a hard place, where Android basically forced them to give up on SMS support even though they'd have liked to keep it: https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-blog-removing-sms-support-from-signal-android-very-soon/47954/57

But yes, it was really nice when I could use it as my SMS app. Then again, very few people in my country use SMS in the first place - it's all WhatsApp, and it was never able to have support for that. Luckily, most of my friends have adopted Signal by now.

Btw, the main thing to realise, is that Signal is trying to tread the delicate balance of being accessible and private. If you have the perfect private messenger but nobody uses it, that doesn't help democracy one bit. So starting out with an easier-to-implement mechanism that also helps adoption (because people can get notified when people they already have in their contact list join), that still protects against indiscriminate mass surveillance, makes sense to me, even if it means your contacts can still know who you are.

They've repeatedly stated that they're working on removing the need to share your phone number with your contacts, but that's taking some time, because they want to implement it in a way that does not involve storing your entire social graph on their servers.

You'll still have to sign up with your phone number, but the only thing that can be traced back is that your phone number is registered on Signal - and only by subpoenaing Signal, I believe.

It's linked to your account. If you view YouTube without logging in, you should have no issues. You can use the Multi-Account Containers extension to log in selectively per tab, if you need to.

Ze willen een schadevergoeding, omdat ze vinden dat de waarde van hun bezit niet voldoende terugkomt in de huurprijzen die ze mogen vragen.

Geen zorgen, de financiële waarde van hun bezit gaat ook omlaag, omdat ze minder hoge huurprijzen mogen vragen, dus dat is ook weer opgelost :P

Gerelateerd: Privacy-experts: EU-wetsvoorstel tegen digitaal seksueel kindermisbruik is ‘waanzin en grensoverschrijdend’

Ah, so blog authors will still need to enable it manually. That's a shame.