this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
2650 points (97.7% liked)
Memes
45731 readers
1045 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Firefox with add-ons. Especially, but not only, Ublock Origin.
NoScript π€π»
I love it in theory⦠but it just broke so many websites I needed to use. And not always in obvious ways.
uBlock does this occasionally as well. Still worth it.
UBlock is much more reliable than no script in my experience. Itβs also usually obvious when it breaks; no script sometimes isnβt obvious until you hit submit and notice none of what you typed actually got sent.
Then just put those sites on your trust list?
You can go through all the sites the initial HTTP request calls out to and decide which ones get a pass. This is how I ensure sites like gstatic, googletagmanager, etc. don't collect data even though the rest of the site works.
If that's too much, just open the flood gates for that site and trust everything there. At least it isn't just sending all your data out by DEFAULT.
That still breaks a lot of sites. For example, Wikipedia gets broken if you click any link and then navigate back. NoScript is just crap. If you want to actually block scripts for something without breaking everything else, use DevTools.
You can use Wikiless, an alternative frontend for Wikipedia which doesn't have JavaScript, and LibRedirect.
I call bs. I am not experiencing that on mobile or desktop this behavior you're describing. NoScript does not break Wikipedia.
It does it on my phone. 100% repeatable.
Yeah these days literally every website uses JavaScript in some format as modern reactive design is easier to do if you can execute client side code. Blocking JavaScript is a sledgehammer solution to the problem.
Same here. I used NoScript in the past and remembering whitelisting way too often so dumped it in the end. Now I just use uBlock with I think some built-in javascript block of known bad hosts.
You can use Ublock Origin in advanced mode, which allows you to block, blacklist/whitelist scripts.
uBlock Origin can act as adblocker plus NoScript combined if you enable advanced mode.
Add-ons are a pretty huge security risk, though. Someone was just posting an article about how tempting it is to sell out with your extension, and how many offers you actually get.
And I've already been burned once, and it's not pretty. Also nothing you can do against this.
The best solution is actually not Firefox, but Mullvad. No need for extensions, based on Tor Browser and can be bundled with a VPN that's full of other people using the same browser - so you have exactly the same fingerprint, and they can't tell you apart. Not by extensions, not by IP.
Based on his history it seems unlikely that gorhill, the creator of uBlock Origin would sell out.
And if something did change, there would be enough news about it to notify you. (Like the extension Avast bought a while ago)
Really? The whole story about uBlock and uBlock Origin is shady AF.
Which is why I think he won't ever risk it again.
Really?
It's pretty shitty to lump uBlock Origin in with those other, shittier ad blockers blindly. After all, anyone who knew the first thing about ad blockers even back then knew that there were plenty of bad ones around but that uBO wasn't one of them.
How about crowdfunding for adblockers? Now THAT is something I'd gladly pay money for.
So you mean Librewolf
IMO any of the forks are inherently weaker than the main and there's nothing stopping you from making Firefox work exactly like whichever flavor of fork you prefer, but with security updates the day they come out.
I also just like to support Mozilla where I can. They're not perfect, but they're doing a lot more good for the internet than Google are.