DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome(spreadprivacy.com)
spreadprivacy.com
DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome
https://spreadprivacy.com/block-floc-with-duckduckgo/
258 comments
If you are leaving out Safari you are not testing on 95% of the browsers. At least market share wise, which is the only metric that makes sense.
You are correct, but if you don't own a Mac/iPhone, you cannot test on Safari.
You can - use another WebKit-based browser, such as Web[1].
[1] https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.gnome.Epiphany
[1] https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.gnome.Epiphany
What about the behaviour of keyboard popup?
Not a good substitute, there's so much more than the rendering engine to safari quirks.
You can use services like Browserstack, but they are expensive and slow.
There's workarounds, such as browserstack.
How close is iOS Safari to OSX Safari?
I own both, and an Android phone. Unfortunately, I don't own a memory checker for HN. I test with Safari as well, I just forgot to add it to the list.
Have you considered adding a comment linter to your CI process for posting to HN? Or am I the only one with an end-to-end K8 driven process for comment quality?
I know this is sarcasm and I also know we’ll see a Show HN with just this in a few weeks (AI blockchain driven!)
Well ... it is a good idea.
When I reread some of my comments, I realize that I often drop words. A fair number of times the meaning is the opposite of what I intended to say. Those cases usually contradict the rest of my post so people should be able to figure out the intended meaning, but it would be nice if it didn't happen in the first place.
When I reread some of my comments, I realize that I often drop words. A fair number of times the meaning is the opposite of what I intended to say. Those cases usually contradict the rest of my post so people should be able to figure out the intended meaning, but it would be nice if it didn't happen in the first place.
As the author, I resist the idea it was a good idea.
I’ve noticed that iPhone autocomplete has at least some rudimentary intelligence built in - at the “Spell a word a certain way a few times and it begins to not correct it” level. It’d be nice for that to improve (instead of always replacing “an” with “and”).
Microsofts SwiftKey has the same, it's incredible. And according to the app you can (and I have) opt out from sharing my typing data.
Whwn I first encountered SwiftKey I just didn't understand how it could be as good as it is at predicting what I want to type. Even switching between Swedish and English (just by typing words from either language).
Whenever I use someone else's phone (to show them how to use something) I feel handicapped, I guess I'm clumsy on the keyboard.
Whwn I first encountered SwiftKey I just didn't understand how it could be as good as it is at predicting what I want to type. Even switching between Swedish and English (just by typing words from either language).
Whenever I use someone else's phone (to show them how to use something) I feel handicapped, I guess I'm clumsy on the keyboard.
You can test with webkit though which is almost the same.
You can with a VM
Legally?
Until a court says otherwise I will continue to act as though it’s fair use. (Provided you’re not selling Hackintosh machines, which has gone to court but is clearly different from a personal setup.)
Or fire up a Mac VPS on one of the billions of hosts that provide them. AWS has em now.
Beware that they have a 24-hour minimum on pricing so going in to test something for 5 minutes will cost you $26.
I don't understand why Apple wants to prevent people using MacOS in VMs. The performance is so bad that no one in their right mind would use it as a daily driver, but people are using it to build/release software.
More software available on their platform should be a good thing, no?
Professionals will still buy machines for convenience (building/testing is a lot faster when every click doesn't take seconds) and pay the Developer Program fee, and us open-source developers can make our software available to Apple users, or make sure it works on Safari. Why make it illegal?
More software available on their platform should be a good thing, no?
Professionals will still buy machines for convenience (building/testing is a lot faster when every click doesn't take seconds) and pay the Developer Program fee, and us open-source developers can make our software available to Apple users, or make sure it works on Safari. Why make it illegal?
Maybe to preserve the illusion that Mac OS is inherently part of the computers Apple sells as opposed to a separate product that's linked to them artificially?
Browserstack
> with the other websites
You meant with the other browsers, right?
You meant with the other browsers, right?
I believe tracking people is unethical and I believe Googles FLoC is unethical because it sole purpose is for tracking.
Browser Cookies are inherently more ethical when used properly.
More of my public thoughts here:
https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can....
Browser Cookies are inherently more ethical when used properly.
More of my public thoughts here:
https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can....
You are asking for sanity and ethics on the net. From advertisers. You must be insane.
I don't like this FLoC proposal either but to me I see it as a small leap in saying goodbye to mass cross-site spying that has been uncontrollably rampant with no present working solutions.
I don't like this FLoC proposal either but to me I see it as a small leap in saying goodbye to mass cross-site spying that has been uncontrollably rampant with no present working solutions.
You are asking for sanity and ethics on the net. From advertisers. You must be insane.
FLoC will not mean that advertisers will stop tracking you in every other way they can. All it does is provide additional information.
FLoC will not mean that advertisers will stop tracking you in every other way they can. All it does is provide additional information.
FLoC is a tracking mechanism. By replacing 3rd party cookies, this generally speaking means less tracking. 3rd party tracking + FLoC = bad bad. FloC bad.
I thought the purpose was specifically to allow google to build ad profiles without direct tracking of individuals?
I started displaying a banner on my website [1] a while back for visitors using Chrome/Chromium telling them to "give Firefox a try for the future of the open web".
I don't know how many people came across that or clicked the link, as I don't track that, but I enjoy doing my tiny part in letting people know.
[1]: https://www.gkbrk.com
I don't know how many people came across that or clicked the link, as I don't track that, but I enjoy doing my tiny part in letting people know.
[1]: https://www.gkbrk.com
Might say "Optimized for privacy-respecting browsers. Chrome users might experience issues [more info]"
In what way is the site "optimized for privacy-respecting browsers" ? The browser is the thing being optimized. Does it mean to say that the website operators will intentionnaly not respect privacy of Chrome users but they will for Firefox ?
“Chrome users might experience issues” but what issues ? It reads like a dishonest TOS like the one used by service providers using catch-all statements to cover their backs.
It sounds like the old “optimized for Internet explorer and 837 by 394 resolution” for websites that were not optimized in any way but it was just the people behind it not able or unwilling to do better.
“Chrome users might experience issues” but what issues ? It reads like a dishonest TOS like the one used by service providers using catch-all statements to cover their backs.
It sounds like the old “optimized for Internet explorer and 837 by 394 resolution” for websites that were not optimized in any way but it was just the people behind it not able or unwilling to do better.
You could fill a website with privacy-invasive scripts from Google, like 100 copies of Google Analytics and another 100 copies of Google Adsense. This would make it optimized for privacy-respecting browsers which block these, and the website would become slower on Google Chrome thanks to Google's own scripts.
Without going to such absurd lengths, a lot of the APIs Google came up with to complicate the web and slow down browser competition are usually bad for privacy. A browser that blocks those will probably have better performance if the website has fingerprinting scripts that use a lot of those APIs.
Without going to such absurd lengths, a lot of the APIs Google came up with to complicate the web and slow down browser competition are usually bad for privacy. A browser that blocks those will probably have better performance if the website has fingerprinting scripts that use a lot of those APIs.
> You could fill a website with privacy-invasive scripts from Google, like 100 copies of Google Analytics and another 100 copies of Google Adsense. This would make it optimized for privacy-respecting browsers which block these, and the website would become slower on Google Chrome thanks to Google's own scripts.
Degrading the user experience for one browser does not mean it's optimized for another. Nothing has changed for privacy-respecting browser, there is no optimization, there is no code specifically targeting privacy-respecting browsers. But there is code targeting non privacy-respecting browsers and this code is in the website, not the browser. So the responsibility falls on the website author to respect its user's privacy, not the browser.
Am I being pedantic ? I have issues with the verb 'optimize' in this context.
Degrading the user experience for one browser does not mean it's optimized for another. Nothing has changed for privacy-respecting browser, there is no optimization, there is no code specifically targeting privacy-respecting browsers. But there is code targeting non privacy-respecting browsers and this code is in the website, not the browser. So the responsibility falls on the website author to respect its user's privacy, not the browser.
Am I being pedantic ? I have issues with the verb 'optimize' in this context.
I would expect such a site to work well without third-party scripts, without JavaScript, and perhaps even without a GUI. I would expect it to provide full functionality on Firefox with aggressive uBlock settings and on text-based browsers. I would be surprised to see a cookie banner.
Mostly, I would expect the site to work quickly and deliver valuable information with minimal nonsense, while integrating well with power user tools based on web standards.
I wish all websites were like this!
Mostly, I would expect the site to work quickly and deliver valuable information with minimal nonsense, while integrating well with power user tools based on web standards.
I wish all websites were like this!
As a web developer I don’t test in Chrome—I develop against Firefox and sanity check using Safari iOS.
Therefore my site is explicitly optimised for Firefox. Chrome users might experience issues. Or they won’t. I have no idea.
Therefore my site is explicitly optimised for Firefox. Chrome users might experience issues. Or they won’t. I have no idea.
So it is very likely that you do not live of being a web developer or have a very small niche market, given the market share of FF and the market share of chrome.
No normal buisness can ignore how the vast majority of its users experience their site. Every user with issues is likely a lost user.
But ... from a technical point of view, it is indeed very likely that what runs on FF will also run on chrome, but not necessarily the other way around.
No normal buisness can ignore how the vast majority of its users experience their site. Every user with issues is likely a lost user.
But ... from a technical point of view, it is indeed very likely that what runs on FF will also run on chrome, but not necessarily the other way around.
Not every website requires retention of every person in order to survive. In my case, my website is better because my user base is tolerant of a bit of jank. I consider it a win whenever someone leaves because of trivial crap.
What exclusive chrome feature is the mentioned business relaying on ?
> it is indeed very likely that what runs on FF will also run on chrome, but not necessarily the other way around.
Yes, one would expect that to be true. However, as a very heavy FF user I haven't noticed any breakage in pages at all. Might be there's small things in a side-by-side compare, but nothing annoying so far.
Yes, one would expect that to be true. However, as a very heavy FF user I haven't noticed any breakage in pages at all. Might be there's small things in a side-by-side compare, but nothing annoying so far.
Your "about" clearly states it: Some say I argue on the internet too much, but those people are wrong.
I don't know what you do/sell on said websites, but if you still have a job it means that those who hired you haven't received (enough) complaints yet.
I don't know what you do/sell on said websites, but if you still have a job it means that those who hired you haven't received (enough) complaints yet.
I am not sure about that. Usually, when people only use Chrome to test and develop; Firefox/Safari users end up with problems. When someone tests on Firefox; things usually end up working on Chrome without problems.
This might be due to Firefox users being more aware of standards than just "whatever runs on Chrome today", or because Google tends to ship non-standard behaviour with their browser and make it a "standard" with their massive marketshare. Or it might be related to Firefox developers implementing the standards more carefully in order to protect their shrinking marketshare.
In my experience people get way more complaints when the developer uses Chrome and the user uses Firefox than the other way around.
This might be due to Firefox users being more aware of standards than just "whatever runs on Chrome today", or because Google tends to ship non-standard behaviour with their browser and make it a "standard" with their massive marketshare. Or it might be related to Firefox developers implementing the standards more carefully in order to protect their shrinking marketshare.
In my experience people get way more complaints when the developer uses Chrome and the user uses Firefox than the other way around.
Do you remember the IE4-Days? DHTML? That’s what Chrome might become.
This. I develop against firefox only, internal apps for my company. It's been many years since something was funtionally crippled in Chrome. At worst some ugly UI elements.
I remember auditing the ebanking system for a bank a decade+ ago.
I was expecting that they perform their UAT on the prevalent browsers at the time. I don't expect/demand that people will UAT a website for "Pale Moon", but it is dangerous to not test Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera (and a few more) and in multiple devices/displays.
I have no expectation that a personal blog will display perfectly, but for some applications/websites every menu option, line, frame, must be perfecly visible as per the design, otherwise you get your Chrome users that cannot hit "send" to complete that funds transfer, and that won't keep you employed for long.
I was expecting that they perform their UAT on the prevalent browsers at the time. I don't expect/demand that people will UAT a website for "Pale Moon", but it is dangerous to not test Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera (and a few more) and in multiple devices/displays.
I have no expectation that a personal blog will display perfectly, but for some applications/websites every menu option, line, frame, must be perfecly visible as per the design, otherwise you get your Chrome users that cannot hit "send" to complete that funds transfer, and that won't keep you employed for long.
Exactly this. I have no desire to develop against the most bleeding edge target. Thanks for explaining this better than I could.
You do realise that my “about” is a joke, right?
Regardless, I’m self-employed and my website makes enough money that I can spend plenty of time arguing with people on the Internet. Your admonishments certainly aren’t going to be my undoing.
Regardless, I’m self-employed and my website makes enough money that I can spend plenty of time arguing with people on the Internet. Your admonishments certainly aren’t going to be my undoing.
Don't see why you're being down-voted. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach. Assuming, of course, the decision on compatibility is yours to make.
Paradoxically, it's consistent with part of the strategy google used to promote Chrome in the first place: make the dev tools good, to encourage developers to use chrome, so they'll optimise for it, so it'll become popular.
Privacy-advocating developers optimising for the browser(s) they believe are most privacy-respecting seems entirely appropriate. It's not anti-chrome, any more than those using chrome as their primary tool are anti-firefox (or whatever).
--
EDIT: noted that taking this decision requires the authority to do so.
Paradoxically, it's consistent with part of the strategy google used to promote Chrome in the first place: make the dev tools good, to encourage developers to use chrome, so they'll optimise for it, so it'll become popular.
Privacy-advocating developers optimising for the browser(s) they believe are most privacy-respecting seems entirely appropriate. It's not anti-chrome, any more than those using chrome as their primary tool are anti-firefox (or whatever).
--
EDIT: noted that taking this decision requires the authority to do so.
It's no matter; I'm not here for the points. Personally I find it hilarious to be down-voted for stating plain facts about my own (demonstrably effective) development process.
Tested only on privacy-respecting browsers? That's what sites mean when they have these "soft" banners on non-supported browsers. If it's not tested on chrome, then users on chrome might experience issues.
We will invade your privacy to the extent the law and browser choice allows, Chrome users can expect to have their privacy extremely compromised!
We need to bring back the little "Optimized for X" banners at the bottom of pages!
All websites seem to have a cookie/GDPR banner, might as well add a Firefox link to those.
(I suspect if you added that to whatever default plugin people recommend for Wordpress you could have a noticeable effect.)
(I suspect if you added that to whatever default plugin people recommend for Wordpress you could have a noticeable effect.)
I'm doing my part by linking to/sh*tposting this educational comic strip regularly: https://coloss.us.to/chrome_truth.png ;)
That comic is missing a trick. The evil data-mining bot uses a completely unpersonalised method of torture?
If you want a banner like this to succeed, you need to make the benefit personal to the individual. We all care about the open web. But not enough to move a finger.
No thank you. I appreciate what DDG is trying to do but in the end, a search engine that makes money from selling ads trying to protect me from another search engine that also sells ads is just feeding the ecosystem.
I am going to put my money into FF no matter how annoying some of the things in it are.
I am going to put my money into FF no matter how annoying some of the things in it are.
[deleted]
FF as in Firefox?
yes
Though the official shorthand is “Fx”
I've never heard anybody refer to Firefox as Fx, but I've seen FF used as a shorthand for Firefox a lot.
If I saw that, I’d think about sound effects or special effects.
the official shorthand that literally nobody uses?
https://github.com/mozilla?q=Fx
It seems Mozilla uses it a lot
It seems Mozilla uses it a lot
And is already used by many other things
FFx sake !
I'm honestly ok with ads, I am not ok with "personalised" ads
Indeed. If I buy a magazine then ads are targeted at readers of the magazine but they don't track me, invade my privacy, follow me around wherever I go or occasionally try to hijack me.
If a newspaper or online magazine had traditional ads that were embedded in the page as static images (no distracting video please) then I'd leave my ad blocker off.
If a newspaper or online magazine had traditional ads that were embedded in the page as static images (no distracting video please) then I'd leave my ad blocker off.
Careful what you wish for. I go to a local website for local news, and they display five big banners which you must scroll through — one and a half screen — before you get to see the actual content, headline included.
True, those are not targeted ads, they are sponsored content, but I wouldn’t even bother setting up my adblocker, had they made them less annoying.
True, those are not targeted ads, they are sponsored content, but I wouldn’t even bother setting up my adblocker, had they made them less annoying.
It always surprises me when people say that they're fine with personalised ads, even going so far as saying that if they're getting ads they want them to be personalised. I guess I _can_ understand why, they want them to be potentially useful if they're seeing them...
To me though, sure, show me ads, fine, whatever, but don't build them around a profile of me to try to manipulate me directly based on my potential interests and behaviour. Any time I can disable any "personalisation" of ads, I do.
To me though, sure, show me ads, fine, whatever, but don't build them around a profile of me to try to manipulate me directly based on my potential interests and behaviour. Any time I can disable any "personalisation" of ads, I do.
I would be fine with actual personalized ads. Hell, I'd give them even more data if they needed it to accomplish such a feat. But the best they can do is try sell me washing machines after I've already purchased one, or show me youtube snippets of scenes from Netflix shows I've watched recently (yes this one really did happen. No idea how, still checking).
I just don’t like the idea of having my own devices conspire against me to compromise my own privacy.
> It always surprises me when people say that they're fine with personalised ads
I think there's a bit of a language barrier. What advertisers mean when they say "personalized" or "relevant" is not the same as what their audience means when they use the same words. I find advertisers often mean "what you looked at but didn't buy," but I think most consumers mean "what is likely to interest me."
I think there's a bit of a language barrier. What advertisers mean when they say "personalized" or "relevant" is not the same as what their audience means when they use the same words. I find advertisers often mean "what you looked at but didn't buy," but I think most consumers mean "what is likely to interest me."
"I'm fine with being manipulated with supernormal stimulus." aka being profiled and then targeted with ads.
I use many Google services, and generated many records on their platform such as payment, cloud computing service, email, file storage. That is a lots of information, making me slowly losing my confidence on whether or not I can recover if someday Google turn their back on me.
My opinion is, if DDG is showing me some ads based on my search keywords (which is sort personalised) so they can make some money out of their not-so-bad service? Fine by me.
My opinion is, if DDG is showing me some ads based on my search keywords (which is sort personalised) so they can make some money out of their not-so-bad service? Fine by me.
Is there another search engine you recommend instead?
I’d never heard of Mojeek. While their mission is admirable, a few test searches using technical terms resulted in several suspicious sites. DDG search using the same terms provided results from commonly trusted sites. Obviously mojeek is new and will improve, but be careful out there.
Thank you!
Why is this preferable?
neeva? maybe brave search in a few months?
Under terms of an agreement, FF sends search bar queries to a "search engine that makes money from selling ads." The search engine belongs to an online ad services company. FF belongs to Mozilla Corporation. The agreement is between the ad services company and Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation pays the salaries of the developers who maintain FF. Almost all of Mozilla Corporation's income, certainly 100% of their profits, comes from the agreement with the online ad services company. Sadly, donations are not what keeps Mozilla and FF in business.
Sure, DDG might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but so is Mozilla. They sell out every FF user who does not change default settings. This must be a significant number of users, because the online ad services company pays millions to Mozilla for that "service". That means heaps of queries coming from FF are "feeding the ecosystem".
Sure, DDG might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but so is Mozilla. They sell out every FF user who does not change default settings. This must be a significant number of users, because the online ad services company pays millions to Mozilla for that "service". That means heaps of queries coming from FF are "feeding the ecosystem".
They try to get away from that model, though. Not very successfully (how to get people to pay for a browser?), but they try.
> "They try to get away from that model, though. Not very successfully [...], but they try."
Honest question: do they? What evidence supports the assertion that they do try? I haven't seen any story suggesting Mozilla is trying to get away from that model of funding Firefox.
> "(how to get people to pay for a browser?)"
The Thunderbird email client (formerly maintained by Mozilla) switched to being independent from Mozilla and asking for donations; so far they are successful. Donations are now sustaining a team of 15, thanks to yearly 2.3 M$ donations [1], and they keep hiring.
"A team of 15 isn't remotely enough to sustain Firefox", you may say, and you'd be right. But then, if Thunderbird is able to find enough donation money for 15, what would Firefox (who is way more popular than Thunderbird) be able to score if it found the courage to make its case to its users, and ask for money? Could it afford a staff of 150? More?
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/tb-planning/c/-jbmYvYdX1g , https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/m9td33/thunderb...
Honest question: do they? What evidence supports the assertion that they do try? I haven't seen any story suggesting Mozilla is trying to get away from that model of funding Firefox.
> "(how to get people to pay for a browser?)"
The Thunderbird email client (formerly maintained by Mozilla) switched to being independent from Mozilla and asking for donations; so far they are successful. Donations are now sustaining a team of 15, thanks to yearly 2.3 M$ donations [1], and they keep hiring.
"A team of 15 isn't remotely enough to sustain Firefox", you may say, and you'd be right. But then, if Thunderbird is able to find enough donation money for 15, what would Firefox (who is way more popular than Thunderbird) be able to score if it found the courage to make its case to its users, and ask for money? Could it afford a staff of 150? More?
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/tb-planning/c/-jbmYvYdX1g , https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/m9td33/thunderb...
> "(how to get people to pay for a browser?)"
For starters, they could let people donate towards browser development.
For starters, they could let people donate towards browser development.
Really? I can appreciate not wanting to use DDG for a number of reasons, but because they are pushing for financial legitimacy on the basis that there can be an ad industry but it shouldn't be an arms race?
Yes thank you, please make a market out of privacy!
edit: I should probably say, please prove that privacy respecting markets are viable, I'm not suggesting the commoditisation of everything, lol.
Yes thank you, please make a market out of privacy!
edit: I should probably say, please prove that privacy respecting markets are viable, I'm not suggesting the commoditisation of everything, lol.
I use DDG as my main search engine but I share the parent's concerns. In the end an ad-driven business model will always pit the interests of its users vs the interests of the advertisers.
Should DDG become ultra-successful, how long until they start making concessions to privacy to increase revenue and growth? After all not so long ago Google themselves were "the good guys" and we were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Turns out that "Do No Evil" only really works until it starts clashing with "Make More Money".
Should DDG become ultra-successful, how long until they start making concessions to privacy to increase revenue and growth? After all not so long ago Google themselves were "the good guys" and we were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Turns out that "Do No Evil" only really works until it starts clashing with "Make More Money".
Honestly I use DDG because in most cases the search results returned are more relevant. I’ll go to google if it’s something that could be explained by a YouTube video or Reddit thread or a Pinterest board, but Google really wants to push you toward the larger sites — even if the content is less relevant.
If I recall DDG doesn’t even use cookies. So they’re showing ads based solely on the search terms, which personally I’m ok with as long as it doesn’t clutter the page too much. Showing me ads when I’m in a discovery mindset is ok and is less intrusive; it’s way worse when you’re in a consumption mindset and the ads are just obnoxious (I’m looking at you, YouTube ads).
If I recall DDG doesn’t even use cookies. So they’re showing ads based solely on the search terms, which personally I’m ok with as long as it doesn’t clutter the page too much. Showing me ads when I’m in a discovery mindset is ok and is less intrusive; it’s way worse when you’re in a consumption mindset and the ads are just obnoxious (I’m looking at you, YouTube ads).
My experience with DDG has been the opposite of yours. The results some of the times are just annoying. Mostly because I want it to be good enough to replace Google with it. I click on a second page from results and it turns out to be some dead unattended page.
I gave up trying to be too optimistic about DDG and use Google with no javascript and no cookies saved on the domain in my browser.
My problem with search is a user one. Not an ethical one. When I search for something I want the best results. I don't care if some cute furry animal had to be sacrificed in the production of this utility.
Btw, DDG has a settings button hidden somewhere that allows you to tweak a few settings and save cookies if you wanted.
I gave up trying to be too optimistic about DDG and use Google with no javascript and no cookies saved on the domain in my browser.
My problem with search is a user one. Not an ethical one. When I search for something I want the best results. I don't care if some cute furry animal had to be sacrificed in the production of this utility.
Btw, DDG has a settings button hidden somewhere that allows you to tweak a few settings and save cookies if you wanted.
I had similar issues to you using ddg until about a year ago when I tried it again. the past year ddg has overall yielded a better experience than google for me, and I have been using it for 99% of my searches. I even forget I'm using ddg and not google, that's how seamless the results and quality are for me now. but when I had previously used ddg it was a nightmare, some time within the last 2 or 3 years ddg did something to serve up better result's
> Should DDG become ultra-successful, how long until they start making concessions to privacy to increase revenue and growth?
Should this happen then DDG will know better than anyone that this just puts a target on their back to be replaced by the next privacy respecting search engine, and the cycle continues afresh.
Should this happen then DDG will know better than anyone that this just puts a target on their back to be replaced by the next privacy respecting search engine, and the cycle continues afresh.
seems like they're coopting privacy awareness to advertise themselves. the site appears to be a walking talking duckduckgo ad, with just enough other content sprinkled in to seem like actual advice.
I mean it's not as nefarious as it could be since they are actually privacy focused, but this blend of advice and advertisement is rubbing me the wrong way
I mean it's not as nefarious as it could be since they are actually privacy focused, but this blend of advice and advertisement is rubbing me the wrong way
They speak truth to the matter and posit a better way.
There are varying degrees of selling ads though. DDG and Google both sit at opposing ends of this spectrum.
At the moment. Google also used to be known for providing better, mostly text based, ads that didn't spam you with popups or blinking animations. That did not stop them from becoming evil.
I wish there was a way to donate directly to Firefox. Unfortunately, the only option is to donate to Mozilla and they will likely use the money to fund their other initiatives and continue to neglect Firefox.
How should a search engine make money? What are some other models they can try?
I guess the issue is how the ads are generated. adds generated on generic search terms are ok with me as long as they are well marked. ads generated on a deep and creepy level of privacy invasion, completely irrelevant to what I'm searching is not ok.
I'm content to live In a search world when I type "how to do xxxxx" an add for a software company that provides xxxxx as a service is the top two or three results. I'm not content with getting cold calls from salesmen 1 to 2 hours after I type in a search for gartner magic quadrant xxxxx. (this happens all the time)
if the ads served are keyword based on the current search, and clearly marked as add, I'm ok with it.
I even click on the ddg ads if the seem relevant on purpose, because I know it generates them revenue. I go out of my way to click on anything I know is a Google ad.
I'm content to live In a search world when I type "how to do xxxxx" an add for a software company that provides xxxxx as a service is the top two or three results. I'm not content with getting cold calls from salesmen 1 to 2 hours after I type in a search for gartner magic quadrant xxxxx. (this happens all the time)
if the ads served are keyword based on the current search, and clearly marked as add, I'm ok with it.
I even click on the ddg ads if the seem relevant on purpose, because I know it generates them revenue. I go out of my way to click on anything I know is a Google ad.
uBlockOrigin already blocks FLoC in their privacy list and there are ideas to integrate it further as I understand [1]. So for all of us using that extension, there's no need to install DDG as well.
[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553
[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553
The "solution" of installing an extension is a bit shortsighted. Google can and will just remove the possibility for extensions to block FLOC in the future, when it's deemed profitable to do so.
That's what people have been saying for years about ad blockers. Did it happen yet?
Actually, sort of: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
It's not profitable yet because people can still switch to other browsers. When chrome has a monopoly, they will be gone in a heartbeat.
Also, look into what chrome recently did to the APIs adblocker extensions use, even in the current market google is already making adblockers less potent in chrome.
Also, look into what chrome recently did to the APIs adblocker extensions use, even in the current market google is already making adblockers less potent in chrome.
Firefox on Android has adblocking extensions available for it. Chrome on Android doesn't have extensions because...
This was a bit confusing for me to read at first.
DDF is of course a search engine and doesn't need to be installed.
DDG now also has an extension which blocks FloC (a feature which the uBlockOrigin extension seems to not have full support for - correct me I could be wrong, but that looks like an open issue?)
So you can install the DDG extension now, or install the uBlockOrigin extension - but possibly have to wait for full integration.
DDF is of course a search engine and doesn't need to be installed.
DDG now also has an extension which blocks FloC (a feature which the uBlockOrigin extension seems to not have full support for - correct me I could be wrong, but that looks like an open issue?)
So you can install the DDG extension now, or install the uBlockOrigin extension - but possibly have to wait for full integration.
Issue was just closed -
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553
To be honest though, for the general public not using adblockers, is FloC not better privacy wise than your traditional cookies?
I'll leave this quote from the EFF article on FloC[1]
> Google’s pitch to privacy advocates is that a world with FLoC (and other elements of the “privacy sandbox”) will be better than the world we have today, where data brokers and ad-tech giants track and profile with impunity. But that framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...
> Google’s pitch to privacy advocates is that a world with FLoC (and other elements of the “privacy sandbox”) will be better than the world we have today, where data brokers and ad-tech giants track and profile with impunity. But that framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...
> But that framing is based on a false premise
Another false premise is that the "old tracking" will stop because of the "new tracking".
Another false premise is that the "old tracking" will stop because of the "new tracking".
Chrome is entirely removing third-party cookies by 2022.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-par...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-par...
Fingerprinting and connecting to logins has been a thing forever, just look at advertising companies offering cross-device targeting.
Or just how aggressively google wants you to login to youtube these days.
Or just how aggressively google wants you to login to youtube these days.
Facebook Instagram and Linkedin is worse in that it is impossible to use these sites without logging in.
Chrome is also hard-coding exemptions to Google and DoubleClick domains from their so-called privacy features.
This includes things like clearing the cookies leaving Google cookies alone, to sending a header with a browser ID to Google domains. I really doubt Google will get rid of all theirs methods to tie in their scripts on third-party websites to one user ID, as that will greatly reduce the effectiveness of Google Analytics or ReCAPTCHA.
This includes things like clearing the cookies leaving Google cookies alone, to sending a header with a browser ID to Google domains. I really doubt Google will get rid of all theirs methods to tie in their scripts on third-party websites to one user ID, as that will greatly reduce the effectiveness of Google Analytics or ReCAPTCHA.
That's very generous. However, with the plethora of browser fingerprinting techniques, cookies today have become almost irrelevant:
https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
https://scrapebot.com/browser-fingerprinting-techniques/
https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
https://scrapebot.com/browser-fingerprinting-techniques/
Regardless of how simple fingerprinting is, I'm pretty sure that cookies are still the main way in which advertisers track users. Why make their job cheaper than it has to be?
I agree. What I wanted to point out is that this is not intended as a privacy-enhancing move by Google. More that they make life a bit harder for their own competitors.
I wish there was a way to whitelist SOME third party cookies in Safari - the only options seem to be all/none. Many “enterprise” integrations (Box in Salesforce for example) break if third party cookies are blocked.
Maybe Chrome doing it will get them assed to fix it.
Maybe Chrome doing it will get them assed to fix it.
This isn't a false premise. Either you get the ad supported industry behind some solution or whatever privacy respecting solution will be incompatible with these sites.
Or the ad supported industry finds ways to be supported without ads. That would be the ideal outcome. It would align them with the needs of their customers.
To paraphrase something I saw on twitter recently: The ad supported industry needs to track users; users don't need the ad supported industry.
If the effort to increase user control and privacy continues, sites that can't support themselves without targeted ad revenue will either adapt or fold.
If the effort to increase user control and privacy continues, sites that can't support themselves without targeted ad revenue will either adapt or fold.
To me it seems FLoC is more about trying to stop a fingerprinting arms race between browsers and adtech, as will happen if third party cookies are removed and no other alternative is provided. In an ideal world adtech companies would just hold up their hands and say 'games up, on to something else' but it's an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars so if the more honest players leave the shadier companies will be only too happy to cash in.
Part of the problem is that I don't believe FLoC will stop a fingerprinting arms race.
FLoC in many ways makes it easier to fingerprint users, and I don't think that advertisers are going to look at the brand new opportunity FLoC-enhanced fingerprinting presents and just leave it sitting there untouched. There's nothing built into the FLoC spec that prevents advertisers from adding in additional fingerprinting on top of FLoC, and we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT. If any technology at all can be abused for fingerprinting, they'll abuse it. The market they're in doesn't allow them to have restraint, somebody will cross the line and then everyone else will follow under the excuse of being competitive.
So I'm just not willing to give advertisers the benefit of the doubt anymore, or to assume that if we meet them halfway they'll be satisfied. They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn.
FLoC in many ways makes it easier to fingerprint users, and I don't think that advertisers are going to look at the brand new opportunity FLoC-enhanced fingerprinting presents and just leave it sitting there untouched. There's nothing built into the FLoC spec that prevents advertisers from adding in additional fingerprinting on top of FLoC, and we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT. If any technology at all can be abused for fingerprinting, they'll abuse it. The market they're in doesn't allow them to have restraint, somebody will cross the line and then everyone else will follow under the excuse of being competitive.
So I'm just not willing to give advertisers the benefit of the doubt anymore, or to assume that if we meet them halfway they'll be satisfied. They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn.
> we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT
Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not made that move, there's a good chance, we'd have seen DNT honored and eventually codified.
> They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn.
I agree, if you give them no option whatsoever, there will never be legislation reining them in. With FLoC, you could outlaw other forms of tracking and add significant fines. Without it, politicians will not move a finger over concerns to damage the industry.
Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not made that move, there's a good chance, we'd have seen DNT honored and eventually codified.
> They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn.
I agree, if you give them no option whatsoever, there will never be legislation reining them in. With FLoC, you could outlaw other forms of tracking and add significant fines. Without it, politicians will not move a finger over concerns to damage the industry.
> Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value
I totally disagree. Just going to link to a few previous comments I've made on this subject rather than rehash the entire discussion here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24294280
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289186
It is not Microsoft's fault that DNT failed; a privacy option that can't be turned on by default is not a real privacy option. Microsoft made the decision to turn on DNT by default because it determined that most of its users didn't want to be tracked, and the ones that did want to be tracked could go turn the header off. That's a very reasonable determination for any privacy-respecting browser to make. Users should be able to have defaults that closely align with their preferred user-agent behavior.
The reason DNT failed was not because of underhanded sabotage. It's because it got adoption. Advertisers were unwilling to remain in a world where the majority of people didn't get targeted. That's why I say they burned the bridge, because DNT's wide adoption was never a real option for them in the first place -- it's entire existence was predicated on the assumption that most people would not use it.
> there will never be legislation reining them in
We could do this anyway. We don't need to present an option ahead of time to make advertisers happy. I guarantee if you go to anyone in Congress and ask them why they're not supporting a privacy bill, they are not going to respond, "we would if better technology and standards existed for targeting." Senators and Congresspersons aren't thinking about browser standards in that level of detail. And if you're worried about advertisers lobbying, I do not believe that FLoC is going to make advertisers lobby less to block any privacy bill.
I totally disagree. Just going to link to a few previous comments I've made on this subject rather than rehash the entire discussion here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24294280
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289186
It is not Microsoft's fault that DNT failed; a privacy option that can't be turned on by default is not a real privacy option. Microsoft made the decision to turn on DNT by default because it determined that most of its users didn't want to be tracked, and the ones that did want to be tracked could go turn the header off. That's a very reasonable determination for any privacy-respecting browser to make. Users should be able to have defaults that closely align with their preferred user-agent behavior.
The reason DNT failed was not because of underhanded sabotage. It's because it got adoption. Advertisers were unwilling to remain in a world where the majority of people didn't get targeted. That's why I say they burned the bridge, because DNT's wide adoption was never a real option for them in the first place -- it's entire existence was predicated on the assumption that most people would not use it.
> there will never be legislation reining them in
We could do this anyway. We don't need to present an option ahead of time to make advertisers happy. I guarantee if you go to anyone in Congress and ask them why they're not supporting a privacy bill, they are not going to respond, "we would if better technology and standards existed for targeting." Senators and Congresspersons aren't thinking about browser standards in that level of detail. And if you're worried about advertisers lobbying, I do not believe that FLoC is going to make advertisers lobby less to block any privacy bill.
> That's a very reasonable determination for any privacy-respecting browser to make. Users should be able to have defaults that closely align with their preferred user-agent behavior.
I understand this as "Microsoft produced a privacy-respecting browser and had their user's best interest on their mind", and I find it hard to engage that, because we seem to be living in wildly different realities.
> We could do this anyway. We don't need to present an option ahead of time to make advertisers happy.
We won't, so let's enjoy the situation we have, because change in the right direction that doesn't get us 100% of the way is bad and we'd prefer to remain where we are right now.
I understand this as "Microsoft produced a privacy-respecting browser and had their user's best interest on their mind", and I find it hard to engage that, because we seem to be living in wildly different realities.
> We could do this anyway. We don't need to present an option ahead of time to make advertisers happy.
We won't, so let's enjoy the situation we have, because change in the right direction that doesn't get us 100% of the way is bad and we'd prefer to remain where we are right now.
> and I find it hard to engage that
Fair enough. If Firefox and Chrome enabled DNT by default, do you think the outcome would have been different? Ie, do you think that advertisers rebelled specifically because they thought Microsoft was hypocritical about tracking?
I don't. I don't think there's evidence that advertisers were mad at Microsoft, and the reasoning I have for that is that they stopped respecting DNT across the entire browser ecosystem, not just on IE. The other point of evidence I have is that advertisers are similarly angry about every other privacy-mechanism that gives users choice, even in browsers like Safari and on platforms like iOS.
I think my theory is a pretty consistently reasonable explanation for all of those scenarios. Why are advertisers mad about iOS privacy changes? Is it because Apple is hypocritical? Or is it because a lot of people use iOS, and advertisers don't want to see widespread adoption of any privacy tools? You can find a consistent correlation between how angry advertisers get about any privacy-enhancing proposal and the number of people it would impact.
> so let's enjoy the situation we have, because change in the right direction that doesn't get us 100% of the way is bad
I don't think that's what anyone at all is saying. I disagree that FLoC is a change in the right direction, and I disagree that it will make any legislation any more likely.
I could just as easily make the same point back to you. You're arguing that we should embrace a new tracking standard that makes privacy worse just because an arms race where browsers try to stop tracking entirely on their own isn't a perfect solution.
But an arms race where browsers close tracking vectors where they find them is better than a legal status quo where browsers add new tracking vectors of their own volition. And I don't see any evidence that adding FLoC is going to make US Senators feel better about privacy bills, or that it's going to change how advertisers lobby those Senators.
Fair enough. If Firefox and Chrome enabled DNT by default, do you think the outcome would have been different? Ie, do you think that advertisers rebelled specifically because they thought Microsoft was hypocritical about tracking?
I don't. I don't think there's evidence that advertisers were mad at Microsoft, and the reasoning I have for that is that they stopped respecting DNT across the entire browser ecosystem, not just on IE. The other point of evidence I have is that advertisers are similarly angry about every other privacy-mechanism that gives users choice, even in browsers like Safari and on platforms like iOS.
I think my theory is a pretty consistently reasonable explanation for all of those scenarios. Why are advertisers mad about iOS privacy changes? Is it because Apple is hypocritical? Or is it because a lot of people use iOS, and advertisers don't want to see widespread adoption of any privacy tools? You can find a consistent correlation between how angry advertisers get about any privacy-enhancing proposal and the number of people it would impact.
> so let's enjoy the situation we have, because change in the right direction that doesn't get us 100% of the way is bad
I don't think that's what anyone at all is saying. I disagree that FLoC is a change in the right direction, and I disagree that it will make any legislation any more likely.
I could just as easily make the same point back to you. You're arguing that we should embrace a new tracking standard that makes privacy worse just because an arms race where browsers try to stop tracking entirely on their own isn't a perfect solution.
But an arms race where browsers close tracking vectors where they find them is better than a legal status quo where browsers add new tracking vectors of their own volition. And I don't see any evidence that adding FLoC is going to make US Senators feel better about privacy bills, or that it's going to change how advertisers lobby those Senators.
> Ie, do you think that advertisers rebelled specifically because they thought Microsoft was hypocritical about tracking?
No, but I don't think Firefox would've done that, because they had no interest in killing the feature (which was predicted to happen soon as they announced, certainly their smart people were aware of the consequences of their actions -- and they have very good connections to ad-tech, they're part of it, hence their understanding of the response and interest for the events to play out exactly like they did).
For Mozilla, I would have had a much easier time to assume good faith, for Microsoft I find that very hard to believe, much like their Shenanigans with IE on Windows and not allowing removal, making browser install hard etc wasn't done because they thought IE was the best browser and users couldn't possibly want to switch.
Similarly, I don't believe Google suggests FLoC because they want to protect privacy by any means necessary. But that doesn't mean that it's not better for the average user than what we have today. And we won't get any movement without Google.
> But an arms race where browsers close tracking vectors where they find them is better than a legal status quo where browsers add new tracking vectors of their own volition.
Two of the four major browsers are built by ad-tech companies, another one is almost entirely funded by an ad-tech company. That leaves Safari, and Apple has no intention to offer it to all users.
Google will not fight against itself (and it's the only relevant player on both sides), there will be no arms race. As for US Senators: who in ad-tech has more to spend than Google, Facebook, and Microsoft?
No, but I don't think Firefox would've done that, because they had no interest in killing the feature (which was predicted to happen soon as they announced, certainly their smart people were aware of the consequences of their actions -- and they have very good connections to ad-tech, they're part of it, hence their understanding of the response and interest for the events to play out exactly like they did).
For Mozilla, I would have had a much easier time to assume good faith, for Microsoft I find that very hard to believe, much like their Shenanigans with IE on Windows and not allowing removal, making browser install hard etc wasn't done because they thought IE was the best browser and users couldn't possibly want to switch.
Similarly, I don't believe Google suggests FLoC because they want to protect privacy by any means necessary. But that doesn't mean that it's not better for the average user than what we have today. And we won't get any movement without Google.
> But an arms race where browsers close tracking vectors where they find them is better than a legal status quo where browsers add new tracking vectors of their own volition.
Two of the four major browsers are built by ad-tech companies, another one is almost entirely funded by an ad-tech company. That leaves Safari, and Apple has no intention to offer it to all users.
Google will not fight against itself (and it's the only relevant player on both sides), there will be no arms race. As for US Senators: who in ad-tech has more to spend than Google, Facebook, and Microsoft?
>Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not made that move, there's a good chance, we'd have seen DNT honored and eventually codified.
I always thought this was a naive take. People would say "Of course websites and ad services will respect DNT, it's in the spec!" as if that was a magic incantation that would prevent corps from tracking you.
I always thought this was a naive take. People would say "Of course websites and ad services will respect DNT, it's in the spec!" as if that was a magic incantation that would prevent corps from tracking you.
You don't necessarily need to rely on the spec, you can get it into law. Like GDPR.
Politicians will not destroy an industry, but they will regulate it. If regulation == destruction, they won't touch it.
Politicians will not destroy an industry, but they will regulate it. If regulation == destruction, they won't touch it.
I suppose you could, assuming the law had teeth and was actually enforceable in a meaningful sense.
But in my opinion, the idea that a flag begging companies not to track them would be respected was always a naive fantasy, regardless of whether it was turned on by default (because why wouldn't I want this turned on by default if it worked?).
But in my opinion, the idea that a flag begging companies not to track them would be respected was always a naive fantasy, regardless of whether it was turned on by default (because why wouldn't I want this turned on by default if it worked?).
GDPR passed without FLoC though.
Do we have evidence that advertisers are going to stop lobbying politicians if FLoC is introduced? Have they promised to do that anywhere?
Do we have evidence that advertisers are going to stop lobbying politicians if FLoC is introduced? Have they promised to do that anywhere?
Google is trying to vilify browser cookies and slip in their proprietary tracking and profiling as a safe alternative. It's not better they simply want a monopoly on the dark arts of privacy intrusion, they want to build a moat and burn the bridges of the old way.
Is there an API that allows me to see, unpack, and set my own cohort? The FloC explainer [0] suggests the basic API just returns a stable hash [0]. I am curious about the space of cohorts. Also, whether there'd be an advantage to choosing a cohort for my task, vs just being anonymous.
EDIT: that would appear to be TURTLEDOVE [1]
[0] https://github.com/WICG/floc [1] https://github.com/WICG/turtledove
The FloC announcement is https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/2021-01-privacy-sa...
The whitepaper explains the approach: https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/blob/master/proposals/...
EDIT: that would appear to be TURTLEDOVE [1]
[0] https://github.com/WICG/floc [1] https://github.com/WICG/turtledove
The FloC announcement is https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/2021-01-privacy-sa...
The whitepaper explains the approach: https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/blob/master/proposals/...
Assuming my friend has a webpage and wants me to take look at it, or he is offering a webshop and knows my IP, or my notable User Agent. Or that I have an ATI FireGL graphics card installed, which is something which JS can query. He just asks me to visit a server he controls.
Will he now be able to query a list of properties of my personality? Interested in space, in biking, according to my Google Ad Settings also in Fujian, for whichever reason that is unknown to me?
Will he now be able to query a list of properties of my personality? Interested in space, in biking, according to my Google Ad Settings also in Fujian, for whichever reason that is unknown to me?
Reminds me of figuring out where a friend was by posting an image link to my server and watching the IP access logs.
I’m OK with ads and I’m even OK with personalised ads. I’m not OK with companies correlating my browsing with my real world identity or giving that data to governments.
Has anyone figured out some clever cryptography to enable personalised ads without the privacy concerns?
Has anyone figured out some clever cryptography to enable personalised ads without the privacy concerns?
Brave has also disabled FLoC:
https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/
https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/
That's only while Google graciously allows to disable it at all. When Google will decide to make Floc permanent, these Chrome mods called Brave and Vivaldi will be forced to do it too.
it's actually been completely removed from brave nightly as the link says
how will they be forced?
When Google will remove ability to switch Floc on or off from the code of Chrome browser and all it's mods.
They have their own builds.
Brave would hard fork Chromium rather than go along with something like that
I've seen enough corporations in my life to understand that unless we are talking about PR disasters (and Floc is not it) it is more convenient for corps to spin up some short announce why it something is actually "good for you" instead of doing hard to do and expensive actions like real code fork. People will grumble a bit and forget in a week.
Must be a bad floc if a duck is telling me to stay away.
Couldn’t decide whether to upvote or downvote. Taking the high ground with this comment.
Even without privacy considerations though, duckduckgo seems to give me better results, I've been using it as my default search engine for years
Are you based in the US? I found them really bad for localized results outside of the US, even when local mode is enabled (although that's annoying to do manually). In the end I used !g for so many search queries that I switched back again.
Funny, my main annoyance with google results lately is how much they push localized results when I don't want them at all.
I'm in France, possibly I don't use the localisation feature much.
(I actually do use it occasionally to find specialist retailers so I don't have to use Amazon, as it's easy to buy from any other EU country here. German based retailers for audio equipment, or France based retailers if I want to buy cooking equipment etc)
(I actually do use it occasionally to find specialist retailers so I don't have to use Amazon, as it's easy to buy from any other EU country here. German based retailers for audio equipment, or France based retailers if I want to buy cooking equipment etc)
I agree, for localised results Google is much better. I guess it depends what your normal search activity is to how much you'll notice the difference? For everyday searching I find DDG perfectly adequate and enjoy the ad-free, google-product-free experience. !G is handy sometimes though.
For European results at least, Qwant is pretty good (and like DDG doesn't log or track users):
https://lite.qwant.com/
https://lite.qwant.com/
I moved over to duckduckgo too, but what I've found is that when I'm searching for some esoteric bug Google is way more likely to give me a decent result, to the point that I'll literally switch back to google for those types of issues.
I think what we need is a search engine which doesn't draw it's revenue stream from selling users data and has it's own spider. DDG essentially is a wrapper around Bing.
Why would DDG be better if it had its own spider? Do you really think a small company like DDG would have a better spider than Bing?
Second that, I'm using DDG in the FF. Have also enabled the same for the kids. Wife still protests but I'll switch it when she's sleeping.
Before writing the above I did double check this as I was not sure. So it is a sign that there is not much difference from other engines.
Localized results (in Ireland) are not that great though. But with time I just changed the ways around search queries. It is not really an issue anymore.
Before writing the above I did double check this as I was not sure. So it is a sign that there is not much difference from other engines.
Localized results (in Ireland) are not that great though. But with time I just changed the ways around search queries. It is not really an issue anymore.
I switched to Brave/Safari combo and DDG about a year ago and Signal for messaging. DDG seems to work very well for me. I only resort to using Google is DDG can’t find what I am looking for and that doesn’t happen too often now a days.
As for Chrome, I simply don’t see any reason why anyone would use it over Brave. Brave seems to come pre installed with lots of privacy protection.
As for Chrome, I simply don’t see any reason why anyone would use it over Brave. Brave seems to come pre installed with lots of privacy protection.
I tried Brave about a month ago and stuck with it for a week, but was constantly hitting stability and site compatibility issues.
DuckDuckGo works really well for 90% of my “searches,” which are basically asking for a specific Wikipedia article / blog / Twitter account / etc, so I don’t have to type in the full URL.
But I find DuckDuckGo really bad for some searches where I’m not looking for a specific domain:
- searching for papers or technical blog posts is almost useless in DDG. Software stuff in particular seems heavily front-loaded towards SEO trash and plagiarized blogs/“tutorials” instead of useful information. Pure mathematics is a little better (probably because there isn’t a “pure mathematics boot camp” cottage industry)
- political news is heavily slanted to the right, often prioritizing flagrantly disreputable sources. While this might be a userbase issue (lots of lonely white men) I do wonder if DDG (or someone in their tech stack) is putting their thumb on the scale (maybe this comes up in Bing as well? I haven’t checked). I realize people on the right might say Google is slanted to the left and don’t want to get in to that. But DDG seems to push more outright propaganda than Google. Google also returns plenty of conservative results for politics news/blogs, but it seems very rare for DDG to return liberal commentary (even from major sources like The Guardian).
Obviously this is anecdotal and colored by my own interests and biases. But, especially with computer science stuff, I have given up on DDG returning reliable results. At this point I basically only use them as a Wikipedia gateway.
But I find DuckDuckGo really bad for some searches where I’m not looking for a specific domain:
- searching for papers or technical blog posts is almost useless in DDG. Software stuff in particular seems heavily front-loaded towards SEO trash and plagiarized blogs/“tutorials” instead of useful information. Pure mathematics is a little better (probably because there isn’t a “pure mathematics boot camp” cottage industry)
- political news is heavily slanted to the right, often prioritizing flagrantly disreputable sources. While this might be a userbase issue (lots of lonely white men) I do wonder if DDG (or someone in their tech stack) is putting their thumb on the scale (maybe this comes up in Bing as well? I haven’t checked). I realize people on the right might say Google is slanted to the left and don’t want to get in to that. But DDG seems to push more outright propaganda than Google. Google also returns plenty of conservative results for politics news/blogs, but it seems very rare for DDG to return liberal commentary (even from major sources like The Guardian).
Obviously this is anecdotal and colored by my own interests and biases. But, especially with computer science stuff, I have given up on DDG returning reliable results. At this point I basically only use them as a Wikipedia gateway.
> lots of lonely white men
We don't need that kind of rhetoric on HN.
Part of the reason I suspect Bing/DDG return right-leaning content is because grassroots US internet culture itself slants slightly to the right (as it slanted to the left back 10 years ago). Whereas Google pushes authoritative sources heavily, which tend to skew corporate-left.
Corporate content is less likely to push flagrant untruths (unlike grassroots extremists on either side), and what propaganda there is, is usually much more subtle.
A balance is needed, to be sure.
We don't need that kind of rhetoric on HN.
Part of the reason I suspect Bing/DDG return right-leaning content is because grassroots US internet culture itself slants slightly to the right (as it slanted to the left back 10 years ago). Whereas Google pushes authoritative sources heavily, which tend to skew corporate-left.
Corporate content is less likely to push flagrant untruths (unlike grassroots extremists on either side), and what propaganda there is, is usually much more subtle.
A balance is needed, to be sure.
[deleted]
It is a plain statement of fact that far-right politics and privacy-focused tech culture in the US are dominated by white men. It is a reasonable inference to suppose that this would explain why DDG tends to overly promote far-right search results.
You really don’t need to be a social justice warrior to understand my point. It is a shame if either of these completely uncontroversial statements offends you, but HN in fact truly does not need your centrist form of political correctness policing legitimate comments.
You really don’t need to be a social justice warrior to understand my point. It is a shame if either of these completely uncontroversial statements offends you, but HN in fact truly does not need your centrist form of political correctness policing legitimate comments.
I'm not here to be offended, only to disagree with the framing (and provide the additional context I think is more productive for this conversation). You can make those comments all you like.
The ultimate reason I disagree is that the users of DDG don't seem to influence their algorithm. I don't believe DDG is treating users like Google (and shaping results based on interests of the userbase).
The ultimate reason I disagree is that the users of DDG don't seem to influence their algorithm. I don't believe DDG is treating users like Google (and shaping results based on interests of the userbase).
> Even without privacy considerations though, duckduckgo seems to give me better results, I've been using it as my default search engine for years
I switched for privacy and to de-google my life.
But for complex queries I often end up using the "g!" shortcut in the query to do the search on google instead.
I switched for privacy and to de-google my life.
But for complex queries I often end up using the "g!" shortcut in the query to do the search on google instead.
I use !s for Startpage searches instead of !g - Google without the Google nonsense.
I've found that, it took me a few times to switch over. But I've found that even when I can't find something on DuckDuckGo when I try use Google I don't find it either. I wonder if that is now because I haven't regularly used in a few years and Google isn't able to guess what I'm trying to look for.
> it won't be long before people or organizations work out what FLoC IDs really mean, e.g. what interests and demographic information they are likely correlated with.
Isn't this good? I would rather set my actual interests in the browser settings! I also am upfront glad to tell them to anybody interested so we might find common interests or discover something new. The only reason I would rather hide such data actually is fingerprinting.
Isn't this good? I would rather set my actual interests in the browser settings! I also am upfront glad to tell them to anybody interested so we might find common interests or discover something new. The only reason I would rather hide such data actually is fingerprinting.
Most likely what you mean setting interests in the browser settings (general interests) and the FLoC cohorts are on much different scales. A FLoC cohort will probably contain a few thousand people, combined with any other data points will probably be enough to uniquely identify you.
Sure, I don't advocate FLoC itself (because I don't want to be uniquely identified through fingerprinting) but I'm not sure I understand why particular FLoC cohorts actual meaning being discovered is considered bad. I actually feel like I want that to happen so I could probably tweak my cohort consciously.
Besides the privacy implications, do you really want to only be served content that you have shown a previous interest in? Eventually this will lead to you living in an internet bubble that only ever shows you the same things. Would you be happy with that?
I would prefer to be served content that I have actively declared interest in + some random content occasionally.
We are already living in such bubbles by the way. At least people who consciously choose their bubbles probably tend to be more aware of that.
We are already living in such bubbles by the way. At least people who consciously choose their bubbles probably tend to be more aware of that.
There's an important privacy trade-off there. At the end of the day, it's about choice.
I want the CHOICE to share my interests in return to have more relevant content.
I want the CHOICE to share my interests in return to have more relevant content.
They need to ban user tracking already. The advertising industry was fine for thousands of years without it. Instead of tracking users, you put ads in places your audience likes. Google and the other ad networks don't like this, because if you're choosing the sites you want ads on, there's no reason to use them as a middle-man
Yeah, it's less profitable. But it's been proven to work since like 7000BC and it gets rid of all the privacy problems.
All the invasive FBI style user tracking only existed for ~20 years. A mote in the history of advertising. Anybody who tells you online advertising won't work without it is a liar.
On the plus side, maybe now people will see Chrome for what it really is. A vehicle and a weapon for Google to protect its shady business model. Just like Android.
Yeah, it's less profitable. But it's been proven to work since like 7000BC and it gets rid of all the privacy problems.
All the invasive FBI style user tracking only existed for ~20 years. A mote in the history of advertising. Anybody who tells you online advertising won't work without it is a liar.
On the plus side, maybe now people will see Chrome for what it really is. A vehicle and a weapon for Google to protect its shady business model. Just like Android.
I generally am on the pro-Firefox, anti-Chrome train, but there is one practical exception: websites that make use of in-browser audio synthesis often (in my experience) just don't work in Firefox.
Audible Genius's Building Blocks course has a in-browser DAW that you need to use Chrome for. Flowkey (browser-based piano lessons) also only works in Chrome, as far as I've been able to figure out.
So to anyone with an inclination, Firefox could use help on that front. Or if someone already knows of a Firefox-based solution, I'd be happy to use it. I just haven't found one yet.
Audible Genius's Building Blocks course has a in-browser DAW that you need to use Chrome for. Flowkey (browser-based piano lessons) also only works in Chrome, as far as I've been able to figure out.
So to anyone with an inclination, Firefox could use help on that front. Or if someone already knows of a Firefox-based solution, I'd be happy to use it. I just haven't found one yet.
For better or worse, Chrome is still the browser to beat when it comes to newest browser APIs. My hobby project is an app that utilizes some of them and more than once I've found myself considering dropping support for other browsers. In principle I love Firefox but at the same time I'll have to wait at least a few months to start using the same APIs.
I mean, youtube doesn't work in firefox well. I can't count the number of times I had to restart the browser to play a youtube video. Google reveals it's not an uncommon issue on OSX. While I hated Chrome from the day one, I recommend it to people...
I watch YouTube exclusively on Firefox and never have a problem (I especially like FF's pop-out video window thing.)
FTR here's my deal breaker with Firefox:
Just tried using it and was pleasantly surprised that it mostly worked fine with DWM (an X11 window manager), and it could play sound from my built-in sound card fine, even though I don't have pulseaudio.
However, once I switched to the external sound card, Firefox wasn't able to produce any sound (tried Youtube and some local videos); so I'll be staying with Chromium, unless some patched version of Chromium (with privacy improvements) makes its way to the Archlinux repos.
Just tried using it and was pleasantly surprised that it mostly worked fine with DWM (an X11 window manager), and it could play sound from my built-in sound card fine, even though I don't have pulseaudio.
However, once I switched to the external sound card, Firefox wasn't able to produce any sound (tried Youtube and some local videos); so I'll be staying with Chromium, unless some patched version of Chromium (with privacy improvements) makes its way to the Archlinux repos.
> websites that make use of in-browser audio synthesis often (in my experience) just don't work in Firefox.
How recently have you tried this? Firefox added AudioWorklet in v76 [1] and it's very well done.
[1] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/05/firefox-76-audio-worklets-...
How recently have you tried this? Firefox added AudioWorklet in v76 [1] and it's very well done.
[1] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/05/firefox-76-audio-worklets-...
Tried Audible Genius again just now to check, but still isn't supported, although now that I look at the console it looks like this may have something to do with their Meteor and analytics setup, so not audio related.
Tried Flowkey again now as well and although it required the Jazz-MIDI plugin (to permit the browser access to my MIDI controller), with that plugin I was able to use Flowkey in Firefox.
So it looks like my concerns were outdated.
Tried Flowkey again now as well and although it required the Jazz-MIDI plugin (to permit the browser access to my MIDI controller), with that plugin I was able to use Flowkey in Firefox.
So it looks like my concerns were outdated.
I try to sell friends and family on resisting Google's privacy invasions but lately it always goes the same way. "Yeah I know they know everything. How does that hurt me, like how does that cause me a problem in a real way that makes my life worse?" And I can't come up with a good answer for that.
Substitute Google with the Chinese Communist Party and most Chinese people right now have the same attitude as your friends.
How would those friends feel about Chinese people being able to gain their information independence from CCP? If they would be in favour, then at least metaphorically they answered their own question.
How would those friends feel about Chinese people being able to gain their information independence from CCP? If they would be in favour, then at least metaphorically they answered their own question.
If one honestly and genuinely believe Chinese people can get their news only from the CCP, one needs to consider fighting to gain his/her own information independence.
Yes, one does. Those who do fight to gain his/her own information independence including - as of now - a small minority of people in China with both the will and technical/political resources, should be well rewarded in doing so. It seems we may both be in favour of access to information independence. Wherever needed. The more the better.
It's not something they care about at all. As long as the prices in Walmart didn't go up, about 90% of the people I know wouldn't care or even notice if China sank under the ocean. Trying to get people who've already accepted the US government spying on them to care about Google spying on them feels impossible.
Do you really believe it’s enough to stop using Chrome? Isn’t it rather: don’t use Google services including Android?
Imagine this setup: Gmail used on mobile mail program. Surf the web with a mobile browser other than Chrome. Use Google as search engine.
FLoC will still be able to make the connection. That’s what I believe at least.
Imagine this setup: Gmail used on mobile mail program. Surf the web with a mobile browser other than Chrome. Use Google as search engine.
FLoC will still be able to make the connection. That’s what I believe at least.
> It groups you based on your interests and demographics, derived from your browsing history
For my whole life I have always been configuring my browsers to clear all history on close or disable it entirely. Is FLoC still going to work anyway? Is the history accumulated and analyzed on the server side?
For my whole life I have always been configuring my browsers to clear all history on close or disable it entirely. Is FLoC still going to work anyway? Is the history accumulated and analyzed on the server side?
One way to defeat these kinds of spyware techniques is to keep the browser permanently at a fixed address, such as localhost, and import content from other websites as necessary to a page at that fixed location.
I am considering adding web scrapping to this file sharing privacy application I have written that already works in the browser. I could screen scrape content from other sites using a proxy on the terminal per user request and once piped to the browser privacy is protect by single origin policy and by a separation of content from address. I could even make the experience look like an embedded modern browser.
I am considering adding web scrapping to this file sharing privacy application I have written that already works in the browser. I could screen scrape content from other sites using a proxy on the terminal per user request and once piped to the browser privacy is protect by single origin policy and by a separation of content from address. I could even make the experience look like an embedded modern browser.
I have (mild) worries about privacy from all over the tech spectrum in our day and age, and I can understand people having these worries about big tech such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Mastercard, Walmart, but the list must spread all over the space of tech, devtech, socialtech, fintech, edutech, insurancetech, govtech, medtech, citytech, and whathaveyoutech.
The problem is not constrained to Google Chrome, and the problem is certainly not solved by "taking side" in a made-up rivalry of Google Search and Duck Duck Go (childish to say the least)!
The problem is not constrained to Google Chrome, and the problem is certainly not solved by "taking side" in a made-up rivalry of Google Search and Duck Duck Go (childish to say the least)!
And I forgot very important gamingtech, and IoTtech ;-)
What I am getting at is that there is a paradigm shift in privacy consideration and expectations in the last two decades (on top of another shift the previous 2 or 3 decades).
We are living in a different age. The combat I read about in HN comments seems that of a rearguard... no offense.
What I am getting at is that there is a paradigm shift in privacy consideration and expectations in the last two decades (on top of another shift the previous 2 or 3 decades).
We are living in a different age. The combat I read about in HN comments seems that of a rearguard... no offense.
Have any of you tried Ungoogled Chromium? I found it pretty easy to setup on Windows despite being someone who gets easily confused trying to do anything command line-esque.
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
Obviously Firefox is an alternative, but i personally was turned off by recent censorship comments by Mozilla’s CEO which I won’t get into here.
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
Obviously Firefox is an alternative, but i personally was turned off by recent censorship comments by Mozilla’s CEO which I won’t get into here.
I did. Compiling is the a pain in the ** though. It takes almost 24 hours, and I can't even make use of ccache.
Honestly, I'm grateful for Google implementing this. This means 3rd party cookies go bye bye and since It's Chrome everyone will rewrite their service to work w/o 3rd party cookies. Now i just have to block FLoC and sites will keep working for me. I might be ego, but i really couldn't give two shits about "the majority". I care about if I (and people in my close surroundings) can stay private or not.
Interestingly enough, I knew that I had the DuckDuckGo Extension already. But then when I checked for it in my icon list of extensions, it wasn't there... Went to the Google Chrome Web Extension Store, it said that I had this extension and it was Disabled!!! I don't remember disabling it myself... maybe I did, or was it Google? I did re-enable it though. Start your conspiracy theories...
The best way to get ppl to stop using chrome is to fork it, and add new experimental functionality that doesnt exist in chrome. I don't know if it's feasible but missing features in new platforms (e.g. VR) will motivate people to switch and then it will become a self-reinforcing loop. Integrating metamask in the browser could be a game changerfor payments and identity management.
Brave browser is essentially Chrome with an integrated ad blocker. It also features rather unintrusive ads that compensate users with cryptocurrency for their attention and can always be turned off.
Usage seems to be growing a lot.
Usage seems to be growing a lot.
I support and promote brave, but i think they shouldn't just focus on the adblocking benefits, but they have the opportunity to bundle additional functionality that will be popular with both devs and users
There are lot of forks exist already. Microsoft Edge itself can be said as a fork. Although at present, Edge provides opt in on privacy options, we can't rely on MS product.
Will suggest to look into another forks like
Vivaldi
Brave
SRWare Iron
I started using Brave for past couple of months and don't have much of complaints related to browsing experience.
Will suggest to look into another forks like
Vivaldi
Brave
SRWare Iron
I started using Brave for past couple of months and don't have much of complaints related to browsing experience.
If you care about your privacy, just don't use Chrome.
No matter how many extensions you add to keep trackers at bay, you're still using a product developed by a company that will keep pouring money into developing new ways to circumvent ads and tracking blockers.
The reason why Google can bully the web and get away with it is its market share. It's time to change that.
No matter how many extensions you add to keep trackers at bay, you're still using a product developed by a company that will keep pouring money into developing new ways to circumvent ads and tracking blockers.
The reason why Google can bully the web and get away with it is its market share. It's time to change that.
I'm well covered on ungoogled chrome options on unix-likes.
But... what is a maintained, open-source ungoogled chrome for Windows?
But... what is a maintained, open-source ungoogled chrome for Windows?
Check out https://chromium.woolys.com/
ungoogled-chromium is the favorite if you want straight Chromium, although there is of course Brave or Vivaldi if you want additional features.
https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-bina...
https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-bina...
I would rephrase it to 'Do not build websites that work 100% fine and fast only in Google Chrome'. Unfortunately, this is the case and most of users just choose the most convenient tool, while trading their privacy.
Earlier post/discussion on this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809688
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809688
I don't know man.
I was really happy about DDG existing and making an effort (although I am not a user).
But they now clearly shifted from a "Noble Actor" to a "Competitor" with this aggressive marketing. I don't appreciate these marketing campaigns that are directed at the competition. I never liked the "I'm a Mac"-campaigns, nor the all the "Bing"-fearmongering.
It signals to me that you're not a fighter for a noble cause, letting the product speak for itself, but actually in for yourself in the first place. I'm rather turned off by this.
But they now clearly shifted from a "Noble Actor" to a "Competitor" with this aggressive marketing. I don't appreciate these marketing campaigns that are directed at the competition. I never liked the "I'm a Mac"-campaigns, nor the all the "Bing"-fearmongering.
It signals to me that you're not a fighter for a noble cause, letting the product speak for itself, but actually in for yourself in the first place. I'm rather turned off by this.
Preventing noble actors from doing aggressive marketing causes them to stay small. Marketing is required to get market share nowadays. If the marketing causes people to find you to whom your are the better choice, then it is good marketing ⇒ https://www.draketo.de/anderes/honest-marketing
Maybe I was using too much understatement:
The kind of marketing is not only "aggressive", it is overly aggressive IMHO. It is vilifying, demonizing.
You can do aggressive marketing all you want, but in my eyes when arguments become hyperbolic, they get less and less believable.
The way they write their piece, FLoC is the worst thing that has ever happened, worse than everything that came before (how on earth is this worse than strictly personalized cookies all over the place?!) and only DDG and their extension can save you.
The kind of marketing is not only "aggressive", it is overly aggressive IMHO. It is vilifying, demonizing.
You can do aggressive marketing all you want, but in my eyes when arguments become hyperbolic, they get less and less believable.
The way they write their piece, FLoC is the worst thing that has ever happened, worse than everything that came before (how on earth is this worse than strictly personalized cookies all over the place?!) and only DDG and their extension can save you.
But why even try a different product if you don't know why it exists? And what makes it better? How do you communicate that?
Different messages have different appeals. Perhaps DDG's marketing "secret sauce" is word of mouth? And the message you don't like - as an admitted non-user - isn't meant to drive your behavior, but the WoM behaviour of current committed users?
Different messages have different appeals. Perhaps DDG's marketing "secret sauce" is word of mouth? And the message you don't like - as an admitted non-user - isn't meant to drive your behavior, but the WoM behaviour of current committed users?
I agree. I used to think both sides were about equal. And then one side got more extreme and did really bad things to lots of people. The other side called them out. I think calling them out wasn't very nice, so they're basically twisting my hand forcing me to ~vote~ select the extreme option. Not my fault.
Multiple profiles have never been well implemented in any other browser. It's the only feature keeping me on Chrome.
Multi Account Containers in Firefox[0][1] works really well for me.
I have tabs for administrative work accounts and personal work accounts, along with restricting anything from Facebook into it's own container[2].
[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account... [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers [2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...
I have tabs for administrative work accounts and personal work accounts, along with restricting anything from Facebook into it's own container[2].
[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account... [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers [2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...
I actually love how multiple profiles are implemented in Firefox.
I have a keybinding on my system to launch "firefox -P" so that I can pick which profile to launch an instance of right away. I juggle between 5 different profiles at any time and it works exactly as I'd like it to. Additionally, it is much easier to do than setting up a complex multi-account container setup.
I have a keybinding on my system to launch "firefox -P" so that I can pick which profile to launch an instance of right away. I juggle between 5 different profiles at any time and it works exactly as I'd like it to. Additionally, it is much easier to do than setting up a complex multi-account container setup.
I hate Google Chrome with a passion after years of anti-consumer and anti-privacy tactics and now exclusively use and recommend the Brave browser [0].
[0] https://brave.com/
[0] https://brave.com/
Yeah, looks like a straight upgrade from Google Chrome. It's got a built-in ad blocker even on mobile. There's a built-in ads platform which actually pays people for their attention and can be turned off.
All it needs to compete with Firefox is browser extensions on mobile.
All it needs to compete with Firefox is browser extensions on mobile.
Just remember, you will still be supporting the monoculture of the Chromium engine
What about Microsoft edge?
In my humble opinion if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy.
But Firefox is a good browser and "morally" a better choice for many reasons others have already summarized.
Personally I use Edge as a developer because it's a Chromium browser (so it reflects most of my users' experience and works with a lot of tooling developed for Chrome), I already use Windows 10 and VS Code and it comes preinstalled.
But I used Firefox between the initial release of Quantum and the release of the new Edge browser and while there are both benefits and drawbacks to its dev tooling, it's definitely a good browser and purely on a quality/UX level I see no reason not to use Firefox.
But Firefox is a good browser and "morally" a better choice for many reasons others have already summarized.
Personally I use Edge as a developer because it's a Chromium browser (so it reflects most of my users' experience and works with a lot of tooling developed for Chrome), I already use Windows 10 and VS Code and it comes preinstalled.
But I used Firefox between the initial release of Quantum and the release of the new Edge browser and while there are both benefits and drawbacks to its dev tooling, it's definitely a good browser and purely on a quality/UX level I see no reason not to use Firefox.
> if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy
If Edge was still using its own layout engine, I would agree with this. But even on Windows 10, by using Edge you not only trust Microsoft, but also help Google's takeover and control of the internet.
Using Safari, Internet Explorer, Links, Firefox or Serenity Browser all help a bit by reducing the Google browser marketshare. Using Brave, Edge, Vivaldi or Opera still help, but to a much smaller degree.
If Edge was still using its own layout engine, I would agree with this. But even on Windows 10, by using Edge you not only trust Microsoft, but also help Google's takeover and control of the internet.
Using Safari, Internet Explorer, Links, Firefox or Serenity Browser all help a bit by reducing the Google browser marketshare. Using Brave, Edge, Vivaldi or Opera still help, but to a much smaller degree.
> In my humble opinion if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy.
Oh, serving them your browsing history on a silver plate isn't really the same as letting them infer it from the scraps they could get from other browsers.
Oh, serving them your browsing history on a silver plate isn't really the same as letting them infer it from the scraps they could get from other browsers.
The moment MS surrendered to Google and adopted Chromium was the last momment when using Edge made even slightest sense. Why choose lesser evil?
You mean Google Chrome Edge?
This seems a little silly. Nobody calls it Google Chrome Vivaldi or Google Chrome Brave. Why the hate for Edge?
Google Chrome Vivaldi or Google Chrome Brave - these are completely correct names, until they will fork Blink and start making different decisions from Chrome. I mean really different, not just setting different defaults in the code Google provides, like with Floc.
PS: and speaking of Chrome mods - Edge is arguably the better one out of all of them. At least with MS we know their policies and main source of revenue, unlike with Brave or Vivaldi.
PS: and speaking of Chrome mods - Edge is arguably the better one out of all of them. At least with MS we know their policies and main source of revenue, unlike with Brave or Vivaldi.
Vivaldi uses the Blink rendering engine from the Chromium project, itself just a fork of WebKit, but the application code is not from Chrome or Chromium (no code comes from Chrome, AFAIK.)
So 'Google Blink Vivaldi' at best.
So 'Google Blink Vivaldi' at best.
Chromium is an extremely convenient excuse for Google, but we all know that it is nothing more than a trailing version of Chrome with some modifications. Chromium is not a hard fork of Chrome and never was. Every significant change Google wants appears there too. Yes code, does come into Chromium first but that's just and extra step, meaningless really. Google carefully checks that anti monopoly laws wouldn't affect their second main cash cow.
Are you removing the infamous microsoft name to make it more frightening?
Microsoft is terrible. Google is bad. Combining them in a browser was an evil achievement.
Microsoft is terrible. Google is bad. Combining them in a browser was an evil achievement.
Firefox is by far the superior browser for all your casual needs: browsing, reading, tweeting, banking, etc. It's good enough and fast enough but where it excels are addons.
Adblocking works so much better on Firefox. It blocks even the mere shadow of ads, like "skip this ad" button on YouTube, no promoted tweets, no warnings about cookies, GDPR, ads and nonsense almost cease the exist.
And Tree Style Tabs provides both ascended aesthetic and unparalleled usability. Where Chrome monits you with some annoying popup about tab groups, Tree Style Tabs brings order effortlessly.
This is not a choice between a better browser that tracks you or whatever and some FLOSS alternative that sort-of works. There is a clear winner on merits and it ain't Chrome, not for this crowd, anyway.
Adblocking works so much better on Firefox. It blocks even the mere shadow of ads, like "skip this ad" button on YouTube, no promoted tweets, no warnings about cookies, GDPR, ads and nonsense almost cease the exist.
And Tree Style Tabs provides both ascended aesthetic and unparalleled usability. Where Chrome monits you with some annoying popup about tab groups, Tree Style Tabs brings order effortlessly.
This is not a choice between a better browser that tracks you or whatever and some FLOSS alternative that sort-of works. There is a clear winner on merits and it ain't Chrome, not for this crowd, anyway.
This is disingenuous at best. Next.
Tried the DDG extension, it changed my default search engine without asking. Uninstalled.
Isn't changing your default search engine to DDG the main appeal of the DDG extension?
> Search with DuckDuckGo by Default — install, and we'll set your default search engine and homepage to DuckDuckGo Search so you can start your Internet searches without being tracked.
First bullet point in the description.
First bullet point in the description.
This wasn't mentioned in the article, and it's the second bullet point in the description on the FF extension page (and it's worded differently on my end too). I was interested in using it purely for blocking trackers.
I would much rather have personalized ads than have the early 2000s ads (hot single ladies, making $100k a day, etc.).
It seems to me that no matter what Google does, there will be pitchforks ready. What is so horrible about FLoC if I as the user am protected and my personal identity is kept in check, and only contained within my browser.
I'll stop using Chrome when there is a better alternative.. Firefox is a downgrade in each aspect, Edge is Edge (lol) and you can put a gun to my head but I won't use Safari, I have no idea how someone can even use Safari, the UI is so unintuitive, and they tried making it so simple that it is a pain in the ass to do anything more advanced.
It seems to me that no matter what Google does, there will be pitchforks ready. What is so horrible about FLoC if I as the user am protected and my personal identity is kept in check, and only contained within my browser.
I'll stop using Chrome when there is a better alternative.. Firefox is a downgrade in each aspect, Edge is Edge (lol) and you can put a gun to my head but I won't use Safari, I have no idea how someone can even use Safari, the UI is so unintuitive, and they tried making it so simple that it is a pain in the ass to do anything more advanced.
They use your browsing history. That browsing history used to be sacrosanct: We spent years fighting to get every bug fixed through which even parts of the browsing history could be leaked.
Now Google controls the browser and simply accesses the browsing history and hands a processed version of it on a silver platter to advertisement-sellers.
Now Google controls the browser and simply accesses the browsing history and hands a processed version of it on a silver platter to advertisement-sellers.
No. Since you mentioned 2000s, you know how revolutionary and welcomed were Google ads at that time. Text based ads all in specific positions? Give me more! It was so much better than the nightmare we had.
But look at Google and web now ... it's back to square one, now with extra spying on top.
However, almost every web site or web app I make in my professional capacity gets tested with, and is expected to work with, ~95% of browsers. That means testing against Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera, UC Browser, Samsung Internet, and Internet Explorer. Edit: I forgot to add Safari, which I also test with.
Anything less is not my brand of professionalism, because I am convinced my clients expect me to leave my personal thoughts and convictions at the door. If you want to only create sites that work in Firefox and maybe not elsewhere, then you can do that - but doing it ethically means telling the client upfront that you won't accept work that requires the site work for the widest audience reasonably possible.
That said, there are two caveats. The first is ethics. I do not leave my ethics at the door and if I am being asked to do something unethical I will refund the money and walk. If it is illegal it will be reported, as otherwise I am an accessory. Clients agree to this upfront. The second is client requests. If the client wants it to work in Firefox and they tell me not to bother with the other websites, despite my advice against it, then that's what I do.