▲ 261 ▼ Brave to end 'Strict' fingerprinting protection as it breaks websites (www.bleepingcomputer.com) submitted 2 years ago by KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml 135 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] moitoi@feddit.de 51 points 2 years ago (1 child) Brave to end 'Strict' fingerprinting protection as it breaks owns ad revenue. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Pantherina@feddit.de -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) No it literally breaks sites. I was using Firefox with Arkenfox user.js, basically Torbrowser, and nothing broke unless the site told me "your browser is not supported". Braves strong defaults broke Github and more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Darken@reddthat.com 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pantherina@feddit.de -2 points 2 years ago Not much Brave can do there? I dont know what they did. You are probably better off with UBO and NoScript (both MV2 btw). But everyone is escalating about Brave removing a broken feature as if they where getting worse or something. The feature was broken, they removed it. Thats it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Was strict the default? I'd assume the standard would be the default. I'd imagine if you were using strict you want the sites to break because you absolutely do not want fingerprinting. That kindof restriction usually comes with the breaking being expected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pantherina@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago Yes probably. I have no idea what they did though, because Arkenfox / Torbrowser doesnt break anything. Noscript and ublock origin are both MV2. But Brave wants to keep supporting MV2. So I think they should not try implementing stuff extensions already do better, but at the same time something like this is the only way if they want to also go full MV3 and save themselves a lot of maintenance permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Pantherina@feddit.de -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) No it literally breaks sites. I was using Firefox with Arkenfox user.js, basically Torbrowser, and nothing broke unless the site told me "your browser is not supported". Braves strong defaults broke Github and more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Darken@reddthat.com 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pantherina@feddit.de -2 points 2 years ago Not much Brave can do there? I dont know what they did. You are probably better off with UBO and NoScript (both MV2 btw). But everyone is escalating about Brave removing a broken feature as if they where getting worse or something. The feature was broken, they removed it. Thats it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Was strict the default? I'd assume the standard would be the default. I'd imagine if you were using strict you want the sites to break because you absolutely do not want fingerprinting. That kindof restriction usually comes with the breaking being expected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pantherina@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago Yes probably. I have no idea what they did though, because Arkenfox / Torbrowser doesnt break anything. Noscript and ublock origin are both MV2. But Brave wants to keep supporting MV2. So I think they should not try implementing stuff extensions already do better, but at the same time something like this is the only way if they want to also go full MV3 and save themselves a lot of maintenance permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Darken@reddthat.com 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pantherina@feddit.de -2 points 2 years ago Not much Brave can do there? I dont know what they did. You are probably better off with UBO and NoScript (both MV2 btw). But everyone is escalating about Brave removing a broken feature as if they where getting worse or something. The feature was broken, they removed it. Thats it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pantherina@feddit.de -2 points 2 years ago Not much Brave can do there? I dont know what they did. You are probably better off with UBO and NoScript (both MV2 btw). But everyone is escalating about Brave removing a broken feature as if they where getting worse or something. The feature was broken, they removed it. Thats it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Was strict the default? I'd assume the standard would be the default. I'd imagine if you were using strict you want the sites to break because you absolutely do not want fingerprinting. That kindof restriction usually comes with the breaking being expected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pantherina@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago Yes probably. I have no idea what they did though, because Arkenfox / Torbrowser doesnt break anything. Noscript and ublock origin are both MV2. But Brave wants to keep supporting MV2. So I think they should not try implementing stuff extensions already do better, but at the same time something like this is the only way if they want to also go full MV3 and save themselves a lot of maintenance permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago Yes probably. I have no idea what they did though, because Arkenfox / Torbrowser doesnt break anything. Noscript and ublock origin are both MV2. But Brave wants to keep supporting MV2. So I think they should not try implementing stuff extensions already do better, but at the same time something like this is the only way if they want to also go full MV3 and save themselves a lot of maintenance permalink fedilink source parent