Google gets its way, bakes a user-tracking ad platform directly into Chrome

DukenukemX said:
Most likely, but Google isn't just adding an ad tracker to Chrome. Manifest V3 which will effect your daily browsing experience, because Google wants you to see ads. Web Integrity API which is just DRM for the web is Google's method of enforcing web browser integrity. FireFox maybe the path of least resistance to a better web browsing experience. Manifest V3 has been delayed so many times that I'm not even sure it's out. That's how afraid Google is to losing users with Chrome. FireFox isn't the only alternative to Chrome either. You have Brave, Vivaldi, Librewolf, Opera, and the list goes on. They are all either based on Chromium or FireFox.

I was involved in a murder trail and had to testify, but the defendants attorney used a lot of info in my phone to discredit me. None of it mattered, but it was used none the less. All because I let the police pull data off my phone. Just because you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean someone won't make use of every little stupid thing against you. There have been situations where people Google'd something that seemed innocent but had police at their door, because it was interprited the wrong way. Like a man who took a naked photo of his son for the doctor and Apple flagged him as a pedo. Trust me, you don't want them collecting data.

If you pay for it, you're more likely to have less privacy. Free and open browsers are less likely to go against you, simply because it can and will be forked. That's how Brave exists, because they used the Chromium source code. If Brave doesn't work out, then there's plenty more browsers based on Chromum that will respect your privacy.
Click to expand...

The real issue here is that people need to not just choose a browser other than Chrome, but this is part of the problem with dominance of Chromium (and Blink) as the engine on which nearly all major browsers plus a few other (ie Android, any application built on Electron) items are built. I've been campaigning against this for years, its not just Chrome, but its everything that Google and Chrome/ium touches including Android, Electron and more. Sure, you can often make them "better" such as Ungoogled Chromium, but I can remember the days when Ublock Origin, the tracker/ad blocking addon, couldn't function fully on Chrome/ium powered browsers the same way it could on Firefox because the entire structure of how these things were built, even if they were open source like Chromium, were designed to create a de-facto Google dominance and were built for the needs primarily of an advertising and data mining company. Ever since the rising of Chrome/ium and the inflection point where Firefox powered browsers at least had an equal market share, things have gotten worse and more aggressive.

Failing the desperately needed privacy laws we truly need, some of the only things that people can do to push back is demand that users switch not just off Chrome, but off anything related to it and instead choose a browser powered by Firefox (excepting a few small FOSS alternative projects which are fine of course but aren't really competitors for Chrome/ium). The only way to push back on this I can see is by having enough of a userbase that i NOT on a Chromium powered browser or other software that it frightens away developers from using tech that pretty much works favoring a de-facto Google monopoly. There's a lot more to this issue and more than one thing going on, but even putting aside that a lot of people won't know, won't switch, or don't want to put up with the things that don't work or work differently since the last decade of increasing 'we only tried it on Chrome/ium browsers" .. but its not really enough to get people switching from one Chromium powered browser to another.
 
Axman said:
A little bit. A couple of years back Firefox said they would block websites that "promote disinformation."
Click to expand...
Well, sad to say I think that is dependent on your political leanings (meaning: “facts” should simply be information that is accepted regardless of your politics, but they aren’t. It has become ”truth” or ”lies” based around an individuals political agenda). I don’t want to get on soap box related materials here (pay for that sub forum if you want it), but at some point in the US a major topic of discussion has become “what is a fact?”. Fair enough, but the people “questioning facts” tend to do so with resources that aren’t peer reviewed, from actual experts involved in whatever industries are being discussed, or have actual access to the information being discussed (conspiracy theorists) or willing to accept information from those that do.

So, if what we’re discussing is whole-sale blocking of information from non-credible sources, I’m mostly for it. Though on a personal level it’s pretty easy to see what passes the sniff test simply based on what is being sited as a source, or more frequently, no sources at all and just the ramblings of a political figure or anonymous person on a social media platform. For Joe Public that doesn’t know the difference, I’d generally say that’s a public good. The bottom line is if your “facts” mostly come from any social media platform (Facebook, Twitter, Truth Social) from unverified sources, then you probably don’t have good information and certainly not “facts”.

However this thread is based around user tracking and advertisements as well as whole sale tracking of data.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
However this thread is based around user tracking and advertisements as well as whole sale tracking of data.
Click to expand...

Well, we're also talking about what to use now instead of Chrome. I use Brave, so I'm concerned that this tracking is baked into Chromium, which would include Edge and many other browsers. I'm not going to go back to Firefox since I don't want a browser that tells me what I can and can't see or read. Not even going into the politics of it, just the fact that Firefox restricts users from browsing? Then it's not a browser, at least not for me.

Which brings us back to the question, is this Chrome, or Chromium?
 
Axman said:
Well, we're also talking about what to use now instead of Chrome. I use Brave, so I'm concerned that this tracking is baked into Chromium, which would include Edge and many other browsers. I'm not going to go back to Firefox since I don't want a browser that tells me what I can and can't see or read. Not even going into the politics of it, just the fact that Firefox restricts users from browsing? Then it's not a browser, at least not for me.
Click to expand...
Fair. Though until it’s executed, Firefox is technically an option. It’s also dependent on whether or not in said future update, that filtering can be controlled/disabled.
Axman said:
Which brings us back to the question, is this Chrome, or Chromium?
Click to expand...
I believe it’s laid out in the article. My understanding it’s at the code level, being Chromium. The whole point of this is to enable Google’s ad business to thrive without the use of cookie tracking. It doesn’t meet their business goals if it’s at the browser level only. Or perhaps ’monetary goals’. Either way.
 
Axman said:
Well, we're also talking about what to use now instead of Chrome. I use Brave, so I'm concerned that this tracking is baked into Chromium, which would include Edge and many other browsers. I'm not going to go back to Firefox since I don't want a browser that tells me what I can and can't see or read. Not even going into the politics of it, just the fact that Firefox restricts users from browsing? Then it's not a browser, at least not for me.

Which brings us back to the question, is this Chrome, or Chromium?
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is accurate. If I remember to what you are referring, it was essentially an editorial blog-posted from someone working at Mozilla years ago, not a formal plan for the organization nor any of its software. Firefox remains open source, in no way prevents you from reading any information and has been more concretely on the side of an open Internet, respecting user privacy etc... than others such as those being discussed here who make their business on data mining and advertising etc. I'd object to a browser that prohibited its users from going to sites flagged as "misinformation" and so would many others not least of all the EFF and FSF, but that's not the situation we have here to my knowledge. I wouldn't let an inaccurately characterized hypothetical impact your ability to use and support the browser that provides a solution to the very real issues we're facing with Chrome/ium and its development.
 
SmokeRngs said:
That's simple. Stop using their products. Google and Facebook are service companies. Once enough people stop using their services, they'll have issues and either change direction or go under.

There's a reason I never used Chrome. At no point did I ever expect it to not track each and every thing you do, it also had a terrible UI and was missing features and usability that I already had.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I have.

There is little reason to not use Firefox. FF + uBlock Origin rocks. Amazed at all the supposedly [H] people complaining about them adding new spyware in Chrome. Are you surprised?
Using Chromium based browsers also indirectly supports the Google juggernaut. Competition is good.
 
Last edited:
RanceJustice said:
so you can do something like "[email protected]" but it does require you to use your "base" email
Click to expand...
I've been doing this with gmail for at least a dozen years already. Every once in a while I run into weird problems, for example, I bought an HP Pavilion laptop in 2011, and when I tried to register it, I couldn't do that trick because the registration app refused to believe + is a valid character in an email address.

I did just check and Amazon and my electic company will let me change my email address but I have no idea how common it is to be able to do that. It used to be the case that you generally couldnt.
 
Axman said:
that Firefox restricts users from browsing?
Click to expand...
Do you have a cite of any sites that FF actually blocks? As opposed to "not working as well as it does in Chrome", like Youtube, which is 100% Google's doing (unless Google finally stopped doing that, or FF worked around it.)
 
sharknice said:
No they don't. Most people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Authoritarians think they're smarter than everyone else and that their way of life is the best and that and they know best instead of letting people choose for themselves.
Click to expand...
Half of people are even stupider than you think.
sharknice said:
Yes consumers are greedy. They want to use services for free. Yes Google is greedy. They want to make money. Everyone is greedy, it's simply human nature. Allowing people to choose free services in exchange for their data is perfectly fine if that's what they want to do. It's a mutually beneficial situation.
Click to expand...
No, it is not human nature. Greed is caused by scarcity. The perception that there is a limited supply of something. With our current technological level we could easily move past scarcity, but we keep it up artificially. Because humans fear change, fear the unknown, now that is human nature. Being hostile to things we don't understand, that go against tradition. "I suffered therefore you should too"

Choosing for ourselves sounds liberating and noble. But what good is a choice if it is an uninformed one? I wish we all had all the knowledge to choose for ourselves. But we don't, I don't. Nobody knows everything. In some things we must rely on the judgment of people who know better than us. And I'm not talking about politicians, as more often than not they know even less than the average person. They just used their leverage and influence to get into a position of power.

Consumers are perfectly willing to pay a fair price for things they value. The success of voluntary payment services like indiegogo, kickstarter, patreon, subscribestar prove that.
 
Re: the Linux remark.

Of course the Linux version of Chrome contains this garbage, too. At least the binaries you download, I dunno about a Chromium you compile yourself.
 
1_rick said:
Do you have a cite of any sites that FF actually blocks? As opposed to "not working as well as it does in Chrome", like Youtube, which is 100% Google's doing (unless Google finally stopped doing that, or FF worked around it.)
Click to expand...
OutOfPhase said:
I have not experienced any such effects, FF is my daily driver. I am not sure what this means.
Click to expand...
Mazzspeed said:
Firefox has never told me what I can/cannot read.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I dropped it the same day. Brave runs better; I hope there's a way to disable or sandbox tracked info.
 
1_rick said:
"Users should see a pop-up when they start up Chrome soon, informing them that an "ad privacy" feature has been rolled out to them and enabled."

I got that about a week ago on my phone and went straight to the "disable personalization as much as possible, which probably isn't much" option, but I also use Samsung Internet on my phone because it allows ad blockers.

Don't know if Edge is adding this crap or not. Probably not because they won't get any of the benefits, I'd imagine.
Click to expand...
Just switch to Brave, or FF on mobile and be done with it, personally i dont trust Samsung browser either with how much crap their put on their phones..
 
If you care about privacy, just use Firefox to begin with... the second I saw Google trying to log me into the BROWSER when I logged in via Gmail (which was annoying to disable), it was pretty clear that privacy went far, far out the window. Firefox has a few annoying privacy settings, too, but the amount of addons that can utterly lock down any information you give to basically any site (uMatrix--as annoying as uMatrix is to use, uBlock, ClearURLs, Noscript, etc) is endless.

There's also Brave browser. It's not as good as a Firefox installation that is fully kitted out and also has some annoying privacy and nag settings, but it supports most of Chrome's extensions and comes mostly ready to go.

I use Firefox on mobile now as well, since it supports uBlock on mobile, which is honestly 90% of what you need on a mobile browser... but it even supports Tampermonkey, which is pretty cool.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...tform-the-privacy-sandbox-launches-in-chrome/

Don't let Chrome's big redesign distract you from the fact that Chrome's invasive new ad platform, ridiculously branded the "Privacy Sandbox," is also getting a widespread rollout in Chrome today. If you haven't been following this, this feature will track the web pages you visit and generate a list of advertising topics that it will share with web pages whenever they ask, and it's built directly into the Chrome browser.

If you are still using Chrome and needed another reason to leave, to me this is it. Google has firmly planted its flag in the: “we will track and sell everything about you” business.

I suppose there will still be people who “don’t care”. But either way this is a definite loss for consumers.
Click to expand...
You can turn off the new ad tracking features (i.e. Topics) in your Chrome Settings > Privacy and Security > Ads Privacy ->
and Disable
Ad Topics
Site Suggested Ads
Ad Measurement
 
Ultimately, this is going to be baked right into android (likely windows and macos, too). The data those systems can collect is just far too juicy for those data munching companies too leave on the table.

If I may venture a more daring prediction: all this fancy "ai" hardware that gets baked into modern processors nowadays is going to be used for creating that profile, and to determine when to most effectively shove the ads down the user's throat.
 
GoodBoy said:
You can turn off the new ad tracking features (i.e. Topics) in your Chrome Settings > Privacy and Security > Ads Privacy ->
and Disable
Ad Topics
Site Suggested Ads
Ad Measurement
Click to expand...
If you can believe that nothing is still making it back. I don’t believe that’s the case, considering that Google still to this point is allowing cookie based identifiers until specifically this new system is in place. Even if not, “the default” is powerful. As has been evidenced even by the Internet Explorer Monopoly in the 90s.
Google also notoriously has also flipped switches back to ”default” for any number of reasons. Like version updates, which could even happen as often as daily. Always doing so silently with no alert to the user.

emphy said:
Ultimately, this is going to be baked right into android (likely windows and macos, too). The data those systems can collect is just far too juicy for those data munching companies too leave on the table.
Click to expand...
Android already is. Hence why some people look for Android versions without Google services. Windows already does as well. And has ads now built into Windows 11 in addition to Telemetry. Which also was a thing in Windows 10.

Apple on the other hand has been repeatedly staunchly opposed. But I’d love you to show a single case in the past 20 years in which they’ve sold any data.
 
GoodBoy said:
You can turn off the new ad tracking features (i.e. Topics) in your Chrome Settings > Privacy and Security > Ads Privacy ->
and Disable
Ad Topics
Site Suggested Ads
Ad Measurement
Click to expand...
Just like the way you used to be able to disable location tracking using Google Maps, until you couldn't anymore.
 
Axman said:
Well, we're also talking about what to use now instead of Chrome. I use Brave, so I'm concerned that this tracking is baked into Chromium, which would include Edge and many other browsers. I'm not going to go back to Firefox since I don't want a browser that tells me what I can and can't see or read. Not even going into the politics of it, just the fact that Firefox restricts users from browsing? Then it's not a browser, at least not for me.

Which brings us back to the question, is this Chrome, or Chromium?
Click to expand...
Firefox never did what you think it does. There is no website that I can't view with Firefox. Also, it's not like Google didn't know people would try and switch away from Chrome, which is why they wanted the entire industry to use Chrome as the backbone of their web browser. Gotta get away from Chrome based web browsers.
emphy said:
Ultimately, this is going to be baked right into android (likely windows and macos, too). The data those systems can collect is just far too juicy for those data munching companies too leave on the table.

If I may venture a more daring prediction: all this fancy "ai" hardware that gets baked into modern processors nowadays is going to be used for creating that profile, and to determine when to most effectively shove the ads down the user's throat.
Click to expand...
Most likely the EU will intervene and regulate this. Especially since most of this is for American corporations.
UnknownSouljer said:
Apple on the other hand has been repeatedly staunchly opposed. But I’d love you to show a single case in the past 20 years in which they’ve sold any data.
Click to expand...
You're talking about the same Apple that made the user tracking button a placebo? Yea no, Apple isn't the savior when it comes to privacy. We are talking about a company who wanted to scan your data for child porn. They wouldn't be doing this unless they had a use for it.

View: https://youtu.be/r38Epj6ldKU?si=HHmZieiM0iPsd-7M
 
DukenukemX said:
You're talking about the same Apple that made the user tracking button a placebo? Yea no, Apple isn't the savior when it comes to privacy. We are talking about a company who wanted to scan your data for child porn. They wouldn't be doing this unless they had a use for it.

View: https://youtu.be/r38Epj6ldKU?si=HHmZieiM0iPsd-7M
Click to expand...

Your cynicism is very different than showing Apple has an ads platform or any form of intent. We would not even be having this conversation if not for Apple blocking tracking cookies in the first place.
 
I just switched to Brave after watching some reviews and tips. Still have Chrome installed for now but If it goes well then I will remove Chrome and look at changing my email off of Google as well.
 
I tried to post a cheeky reply from a terminal.
Was able to log in onto [H] through the text-based lynx browser and type up a post, but it "ooopsed" me when I clicked "post reply".
The sky is falling.

that took ages tho.png
 
longblock454 said:
Has Brave commented on this, they stripped all this new tracking
Click to expand...
Brave came out against it.
https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/

Vivaldi was extremely vocal against it.
https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-get-floced/

These are the two main browsers I use, though I'm more for Vivaldi these days after a few of the more recent updates increased the speed quite a bit. It's also my mobile browser of choice.

I'm curious if there is a way to block FLoC on a network level via Pi-Hole or Adguard Home.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Your cynicism is very different than showing Apple has an ads platform or any form of intent. We would not even be having this conversation if not for Apple blocking tracking cookies in the first place.
Click to expand...
Blocking 3rd party cookies is not a new thing. You can do this on FireFox and pretty much any web browser. The only difference is that iOS can only use WebKit, so if Apple blocks it then everyone blocks it. Also, Apple is free to use the data they collected on you. Apple gave data to law enforcement 90% of the time, so again it's up to Apple how private you are.
 
DukenukemX said:
Blocking 3rd party cookies is not a new thing. You can do this on FireFox and pretty much any web browser. The only difference is that iOS can only use WebKit, so if Apple blocks it then everyone blocks it. Also, Apple is free to use the data they collected on you. Apple gave data to law enforcement 90% of the time, so again it's up to Apple how private you are.
Click to expand...
Even your own article lays out two things clearly in black and white:
1) Google gets way more requests and complies with them.
2) Apple collects far less data as it’s not a part of their business model, and that is one of the reasons why Law Enforcement requests data from them far less frequently.

In the second half of 2021, Facebook received nearly 60,000 law enforcement requests from US authorities and produced data in 88% of cases, according to that company’s most recent transparency report. In that same period, Google received 46,828 law enforcement requests affecting more than 100,000 accounts and handed over some level of data in response to more than 80% of the requests, according to the search giant’s transparency report. That’s more than six times the number of law enforcement requests Apple received in a comparable time frame.

That’s because the amount of data Apple collects on its users pales in comparison with other players in the space, said Jennifer Golbeck, a computer science professor at the University of Maryland. She noted that Apple’s business model relies less on marketing, advertising and user data – operations based on data collection. “They just naturally don’t have a use for doing analytics on people’s data in the same way that Google and a lot of other places do,” she said.

And blocking privacy tracking cookies between sites has never been something that users have had granular control over and it took Apple to final block Facebook and Google integration in basically all a majority of the web. Could you block their cookies before? Sure, and then not have Google or Facebook services work. You’re being obtuse as always because you have zero interest in giving credit to anything you despise. Address why this entire forums post is even relevant then? Google’s usage of tracking cookies across the web affected nothing before right?


Look, I’m not going to bother responding to you anymore. You’re always intentionally obtuse especially in topics regarding things you hate. So whatever. Go entirely miss the point with someone else.
 
M76 said:
Half of people are even stupider than you think.

No, it is not human nature. Greed is caused by scarcity. The perception that there is a limited supply of something. With our current technological level we could easily move past scarcity, but we keep it up artificially. Because humans fear change, fear the unknown, now that is human nature. Being hostile to things we don't understand, that go against tradition. "I suffered therefore you should too"

Choosing for ourselves sounds liberating and noble. But what good is a choice if it is an uninformed one? I wish we all had all the knowledge to choose for ourselves. But we don't, I don't. Nobody knows everything. In some things we must rely on the judgment of people who know better than us. And I'm not talking about politicians, as more often than not they know even less than the average person. They just used their leverage and influence to get into a position of power.

Consumers are perfectly willing to pay a fair price for things they value. The success of voluntary payment services like indiegogo, kickstarter, patreon, subscribestar prove that.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I didn't know Google search, maps, gmail, drive, and Chrome made were all funded by Patreon and not selling your data.
 
Axman said:
I dunno, I dropped it the same day. Brave runs better; I hope there's a way to disable or sandbox tracked info.
Click to expand...

Ironically, I fear you may have been a victim of misinformation yourself or misunderstood something real bad. Firefox does none of those things, never has and (I am willingly bet) most likely never will or at the very least you can turn such hypothetical "future features" off if they ever appear.
 
MaZa said:
Ironically, I fear you may have been a victim of misinformation yourself or misunderstood something real bad. Firefox does none of those things, never has and (I am willingly bet) most likely never will or at the very least you can turn such hypothetical "future features" off if they ever appear.
Click to expand...

No they took a political position and I stopped using them for it.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Even your own article lays out two things clearly in black and white:
1) Google gets way more requests and complies with them.
2) Apple collects far less data as it’s not a part of their business model, and that is one of the reasons why Law Enforcement requests data from them far less frequently.
Click to expand...
This isn't a pissing contest to see if Google or Apple gives out more information. There are more Android devices out in the world, and therefore more of Google out in the world. Of course Google would get more requests, that is obvious. Also yes, Apple collects less information than Google because again Google is a much bigger company with much larger reach. That doesn't mean Apple isn't sharing your private information.
And blocking privacy tracking cookies between sites has never been something that users have had granular control over and it took Apple to final block Facebook and Google integration in basically all a majority of the web. Could you block their cookies before? Sure, and then not have Google or Facebook services work.
Click to expand...
It's not hard to go into a web browsers settings and turn off cookies. Also, blocking Facebook and Google from using cookies doesn't stop them from collecting information on you. Cookies just made things convenient for them.
You’re being obtuse as always because you have zero interest in giving credit to anything you despise. Address why this entire forums post is even relevant then? Google’s usage of tracking cookies across the web affected nothing before right?
Click to expand...
I'm not giving multibillion dollar companies credit for being less of a greedy asshole. Neither Google nor Apple are doing you any favors. You need to learn that there's no such thing as a good corporation. They all need to be regulated and made to serve the greater interest of the people and not shareholders. Let me know when Apple allows web browsers on iOS to use their own web engine, and not their webkit. Everyone who bought a Chromebook is forced into whatever Google wants them to, because ChromeOS is just Chrome the web browser. Everyone who bought an iOS based device is forced into using webkit. Microsoft gets repeatedly forced by the EU to stop pushing users to Edge, but Apple gets away with pushing web browsers on iOS to use Webkit.
 
1_rick said:
Google does this every day and nobody complains:

View attachment 597852
Click to expand...
That's how Chrome became the #1 used browser in the world. This is why I don't get why people insist to use Chrome when I don't see any difference other than Chrome loves to use ram. When Internet Explorer was the #1 web browser, they set standards based on how IE renders web pages, which was often incorrect. Now that Chrome is the #1 web browser, they can push for things like DRM, Manifest V3, and bake user tracking right in the browser itself. This is probably meant to avoid add-ons from fucking with Google's telemetry. If you like Chrome then you can install Chromium which has everything Chrome minus the Google proprietary code. If you like ad blocking and Chrome, then use Brave. Better yet, cut the Chrome crap and go FireFox and be done with it. Eventually other Chrome based browsers will use Google's crap so might as well rip the Chrome band-aid now. The more you use Chrome based browsers, the more power you give to Google.
 
I don't think it is that bad. At least it is easy to turn off, easier than third-party cookies.

Not saying Google is good, just that as long as there is a straightforward and effective way to turn something off I am not that concerned by its introduction.
 
DukenukemX said:
That's how Chrome became the #1 used browser in the world. This is why I don't get why people insist to use Chrome when I don't see any difference other than Chrome loves to use ram. When Internet Explorer was the #1 web browser, they set standards based on how IE renders web pages, which was often incorrect. Now that Chrome is the #1 web browser, they can push for things like DRM, Manifest V3, and bake user tracking right in the browser itself. This is probably meant to avoid add-ons from fucking with Google's telemetry. If you like Chrome then you can install Chromium which has everything Chrome minus the Google proprietary code. If you like ad blocking and Chrome, then use Brave. Better yet, cut the Chrome crap and go FireFox and be done with it. Eventually other Chrome based browsers will use Google's crap so might as well rip the Chrome band-aid now. The more you use Chrome based browsers, the more power you give to Google.
Click to expand...
Chromium is developed and maintained by Google.

People need to understand that Google's actions in this thread are literally nothing to be concerned about, as the implementation can be disabled quite easily. The bigger problem is Manifest V3, as Manifest V3 will forever change the web as we know it and it won't be for the better - Unless people like being forced to watch advertising, and unless people are comfortable with web pages opening on their browser only if Manifest V3 deems their whole PC from browser right through to OS and running background tasks as 'secure'.

This cannot be justified in the same way people justify their continued eroding of privacy, and the only way around it is to ensure any browser based on Chromium declines in popularity - In short, you use Firefox, or the web changes forever in a very negative way.

Every time someone posts negatively about Firefox I roll my eyes. As like operating systems, I don't really think of the fact I use Firefox, and everything just works. Firefox and ublock = A great browsing experience. If a web page insists on a browser based on Chromium so it can easily track your movements on the web, there's User Agent Switcher. The number of times I've had to use a user agent switcher I can count on one hand.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top