It don’t make sense, most adblocker use the same sources, if not enough, most of them perm`ts to ad own filters, even from other adblockers. Aditional extensions can be other privacy tols, like script nlocker or fingerprint spoofer, like Privacy Badger, Canvas Blocker, JShelter, etc., and others like Link Unshortener, URL Cleaner, things like this, complementary to the adblocker. Use several adblocker only slow down browsing or even can breaksome pages.
I imagine that for a very small minority of the population, that’s actually their kink. Writing sexually explicit and politically suspect text messages in order to force some unwitting federal employee to participate in some deranged message-au-trois. The world is filled with all kinds of people.
Are you absolutely sure that you flat-out “don’t have anything to hide” and would readily and truthfully furnish me with every information I asked of you? :P
I wouldn’t mind you finding out any information about me. I would mind you feeling entitled to me putting in effort and time to answer you. I’ve read all the suggestions people here posted and none made me reflect or get anywhere near changing my mind. Privacy centric people just have to accept not everyone is like them. I respect your need for privacy. I don’t understand why you obsessively require me to hold the same belief.
I wouldn’t mind you finding out any information about me. I would mind you feeling entitled to me putting in effort and time to answer you. I’ve read all the suggestions people here posted and none made me reflect or get anywhere near changing my mind. Privacy centric people just have to accept not everyone is like them. I respect your need for privacy. I don’t understand why you obsessively require me to hold the same belief.
I don’t think anyone requires you to hold any specific beliefs, nobody within this comment chain anyway.
It’s a bit akin to meeting someone on the street and being told “It’s nighttime!” while the sun is out. I’d definitely be interested in understanding why that other person considers it to be nighttime and I would at the very least be disappointed not to get a conversation out of it.
Three different fictitious requests:
“Can you spare some change?”
“Would you let me skip ahead of the queue please? I have an urgent appointment later on.”
“Will you let us share your user data with our partners in order to improve our services?”
I’m assuming here - and please correct me if I am wrong - that you would be likely to acquiesce to 3. in most contexts, maybe even more likely than to acquiesce to 1. or 2.?
Privacy sentiments are subjective beliefs, not an objective fact like nature.
I genuinely don’t see a point in engaging with you, even just based on what I stated above where you use your personal beliefs in line with objective, provable elements of the natural world. So I’ll choose not to. Cheers. 👍
Privacy sentiments are subjective beliefs, not an objective fact like nature.
I genuinely don’t see a point in engaging with you, even just based on what I stated above where you use your personal beliefs in line with objective, provable elements of the natural world. So I’ll choose not to. Cheers. 👍
While I obviously cannot force you to continue a conversation you do not wish to have, I’m a bit perplexed by what you’re saying here and at what point “belief” entered the conversation. If you’re saying that data, personal and otherwise, has no real, objective, provable value then surely that would go against all physical evidence? There must be some kind of misunderstanding here. Well, cheers ✋
Let me scroll through your phone, see if there are some nice pictures or chats, the google search history, browser history… Uuh what’s that Lovense Buttplug App for? Do you have any medical conditions or mental health struggles? How do you approach people on Tinder? What’s your salary?
“The you won’t kind providing me with your full birth name, ss#, address, mother’s maiden name, bank account number, pin, computer login, phone login” etc, etc.
You unfortunately can’t teach something like this to someone who doesn’t even understand the consequences of it. Or care. Leading a horse to water n all that.
You unfortunately can’t teach something like this to someone who doesn’t even understand the consequences of it. Or care.
You can absolutely explain it and teach it and make people care. It’s just not easy. I’ve only ever encountered uninformed “I have nothing to hide”-responses to equally lackluster throwaway explanations . It’s a very difficult and abstract topic, it doesn’t come naturally! Don’t treat privacy concerns as equivalent to pointing out dirt on someone’s clothes, treat it like calculus. Successfully conveying it requires time, conversation and didactics.
I once saw the explanation that when someone is looking through your window at your house you also close the blinds or even call the police even though you have nothing to hide.
I got someone to use Signal recently, because I don’t text outside of it. Last week, she asked me why that is. I sent this Bruce Schneier essay on the eternal value of privacy to someone who knows absolutely nothing about tech, and she understood.
I’m gonna try it again next time it comes up with someone else. I think this essay does a really good job of putting it into perspective, so I’m hoping this is the silver bullet I can continue to send when someone asks.
Overall, in general, I try to keep it in real world terms. Why do you close the door when you go to the bathroom? Why do you lock your doors? Why do you have curtains/blinds? etc., along with what some other intelligent people responded here.
Generally I’ve found the people who say this get privacy and secrecy confused. You close the door when you go to the bathroom because you want privacy, not because you have anything to hide. Everyone has a pretty good idea what you’re doing in there but you close the door anyways. Secrecy would be if you were cooking Meth in the bathroom and wanted to keep it a secret.
Just fyi: recently EFF is creating Privacy Badger browser add-on and GNU also has LibreJS. They’re technically not ad-blockers, though; apparently a tracker-blocker and a non-free-script-blocker, respectively.
This should be common knowledge that corporations live from criminal negotiations. Common people don’t understand this , and is simple and straightforward. Demonstrated thousand of times
However, the latest trend in the EU, is to pave way for a legislation to intercept encrypted messages on a government mass surveillance scale level.
They can achieved this by (pre)installing MTM (man-in-the-middle) software on new devices. Or require a user to install a (Trojan) app on their phone to be able to access a particular public service etc.
I do not think this will happen in many EU members, simply because they have more important problems, adding that most member states do not even have the means and infrastructure necessary for a control of this magnitude, nor is necessary this proposal from some old people who confuse a remote control with a cell phone. If there is a criminal investigation, there is no problem at all, that security forces can access chats and social networks with a court order. This has always been the case, they can even access the Onion network, but this only in individual cases, but widespread, well, sit tight. So don’t worry, as they say, nothing is eaten as hot as it is cooked.
As I predicted, it has finally decided against ChatControl, as expected. In any case, it would have been a fiasco to introduce this control that goes against the current legislation of each country and Europe’s own GDPR, that is, a monumental bureaucratic and political mess that required changing current legislation to accommodate this, this is of no one’s interest.
If I print up an invoice for the time I've spent blocking all their tracking cookies, do you think I could take it to small claims court? It's gotta be at least a couple hundred bucks worth of labor at this point.
In any case it gives the EU user the right to use all measures at their disposal to block this crap, to give the middle finger to YT. The use of ad- and trackerblocker are a right and even recommended by security experts and official institutions. Fuck surveillance tech by big compnies.
I understand that pages use ads to finance themselves, but this is one thing and quite another to abuse ads, as YT does, in addition from unverified origins, to destroy videos and concerts with 3-4 ads in the middle and even with advertorials of up to 10 minutes, annoying with popups to use premium, having thumbnails with clickbaits that also require an extension to avoid them and also for this shit of interrupting playlists after a certain time, yes or yes, this serves no one, not even the user and nor from the authors of the videos. All of this practically forces the user to put in place countermeasures to block all this shit, or to use some frontend or similar, if they want to see something from their subscriptions properly.
It is not because YT needs money, on the contrary, in recent years it has had more income than ever in its history, it is simply abusing its position in the market, practically as a monopoly and the greed of the shareholders. No other thing. Before it was not so pronounced and you could even use YT without an adblocker, having a banner in the header of the page or an ad at the beginning of a few videos or a promotional video in the list of recommendations, but this has changed drastically.
In any case, I think that if this continues, they are going to shoot themselves in the knee (Cobra effect), getting more and more users to use countermeasures and content creators moving to other platforms (like on Twitter with Musk going overboard)
Vivaldi Ad- and Trackerblocker statistics from last week of Octubre, showing ads and trackers blocked since then.
privacy
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.