3 ms·

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't they including built-in tracker blocking with a 'strict' list that can be chosen, plus they are working on site-level isolat

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't they including built-in tracker blocking with a 'strict' list that can be chosen, plus they are working on site-level isolation that is behind a config flag for now (1st party isolation) and as far as I know, they're the only browser that has multiple anti-fingerprinting measures that can be toggled by the resistFingerprinting config flag? If they default disabled web fonts, geolocation etc., they'd lose whatever little market share they have as those have become important web tech already. You can still disable all of them either by means of about:config toggles or through simple extensions like uMatrix. Not sure if Chrome even allows disabling any/all of them.

monadic2 7y ago
> If they default disabled web fonts, geolocation etc., they'd lose whatever little market share they have as those have become important web tech already. I doubt people would even notice the font side of things.
- imgabe 7y ago
  They'd notice. Maybe they wouldn't notice that they notice, but they'd get a general feel that things look worse.
  - robolange 7y ago
    Agreed. I used panopticlick and it showed me that web fonts were one of the biggest discriminators. I disabled them and tested on a sample of normal end user type Web sites. The web got real ugly looking real fast. If Mozilla disabled web fonts by default, normal end users would draw the conclusion that Firefox couldn't properly render the web, and would flock back into the arms of Chrome.
    - zzzcpan 7y ago
      They could ship web browser with all common web fonts to render them from disk without fetching. This would allow disabling of fetching of web fonts without breaking websites. Also could eliminate fonts as a fingerprinting vector altogether if system fonts were ignored as well.
      - snazz 7y ago
        That’s actually not a bad idea. Lots of sites do have custom fonts, so maybe it would be a good idea to still put some icon in the address bar when the site has web fonts that didn’t come with the browser.
      - robolange 7y ago
        What about fonts which are not licensed under an open source compatible license. What about fonts that are not "common" but are used by some popular Web site? Your request is doomed to failure. Like it or not, Web authors have been given the power by Web fonts to have total control of the fonts on their Web pages, and they ARE using that power. Any attempt by a low market share browser to change that fact is doomed to blow back on that browser.
        zzzcpan 7y ago
        I'm sure they can afford to buy rights to important non open source fonts or fund the design of similarly looking open source fonts to ship as aliases. There is no reason for the madness with fonts to continue.
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
        Decentraleyes does exactly that (at least with scripts, I do not know if they do the same with webfonts and css files)
- have_faith 7y ago
  Even google news renders weird without custom fonts if I remember correctly. Lots of sites use font files as icon sets etc.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  The only think that they would notice is when buttons break due to the lack of web fonts.
dependenttypes 7y ago
> aren't they including built-in tracker blocking with a 'strict' list that can be chosen This is not in any way better than ublock origin. Anyone who knows to select the strict list also knows how to install an adblocker. > If they default disabled web fonts, geolocation etc., they'd lose whatever little market share they have as those have become important web tech already I am not saying that they should disable them by default, but they should at least make it easier for people who care about their privacy to disable them. (Although I do not think that any desktop user is going to miss geolocation) In addition to that I am annoyed that they keep supporting such technologies that can be used for tracking in the working groups rather than push back on them.
- cptskippy 7y ago
  > web fonts I installed NoScript recently and was surprised to see so many sites linking to typekit or other centralized repos for JS related to rendering fonts. Why do sites using webfonts have JS dependencies? Is it something to do with licensing? Between products like DTM and typekit, Adobe has been quietly positioning itself to be a tracking/advert power house.
  - whelming_wave 7y ago
    For paid fonts where you license them for web use (sometimes by the view/download!), it isn’t unusual for them to require you to use their css/js/etc to embed the font so they can track where your license is being used, by how many people, etc. That’s the justification they present, at least.

monadic2 7y ago

> If they default disabled web fonts, geolocation etc., they'd lose whatever little market share they have as those have become important web tech already. I doubt people would even notice the font side of things.

imgabe 7y ago
They'd notice. Maybe they wouldn't notice that they notice, but they'd get a general feel that things look worse.
- robolange 7y ago
  Agreed. I used panopticlick and it showed me that web fonts were one of the biggest discriminators. I disabled them and tested on a sample of normal end user type Web sites. The web got real ugly looking real fast. If Mozilla disabled web fonts by default, normal end users would draw the conclusion that Firefox couldn't properly render the web, and would flock back into the arms of Chrome.
  - zzzcpan 7y ago
    They could ship web browser with all common web fonts to render them from disk without fetching. This would allow disabling of fetching of web fonts without breaking websites. Also could eliminate fonts as a fingerprinting vector altogether if system fonts were ignored as well.
    - snazz 7y ago
      That’s actually not a bad idea. Lots of sites do have custom fonts, so maybe it would be a good idea to still put some icon in the address bar when the site has web fonts that didn’t come with the browser.
    - robolange 7y ago
      What about fonts which are not licensed under an open source compatible license. What about fonts that are not "common" but are used by some popular Web site? Your request is doomed to failure. Like it or not, Web authors have been given the power by Web fonts to have total control of the fonts on their Web pages, and they ARE using that power. Any attempt by a low market share browser to change that fact is doomed to blow back on that browser.
      - zzzcpan 7y ago
        I'm sure they can afford to buy rights to important non open source fonts or fund the design of similarly looking open source fonts to ship as aliases. There is no reason for the madness with fonts to continue.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      Decentraleyes does exactly that (at least with scripts, I do not know if they do the same with webfonts and css files)
have_faith 7y ago
Even google news renders weird without custom fonts if I remember correctly. Lots of sites use font files as icon sets etc.
dependenttypes 7y ago
The only think that they would notice is when buttons break due to the lack of web fonts.

dependenttypes 7y ago

> aren't they including built-in tracker blocking with a 'strict' list that can be chosen This is not in any way better than ublock origin. Anyone who knows to select the strict list also knows how to install an adblocker. > If they default disabled web fonts, geolocation etc., they'd lose whatever little market share they have as those have become important web tech already I am not saying that they should disable them by default, but they should at least make it easier for people who care about their privacy to disable them. (Although I do not think that any desktop user is going to miss geolocation) In addition to that I am annoyed that they keep supporting such technologies that can be used for tracking in the working groups rather than push back on them.

cptskippy 7y ago
> web fonts I installed NoScript recently and was surprised to see so many sites linking to typekit or other centralized repos for JS related to rendering fonts. Why do sites using webfonts have JS dependencies? Is it something to do with licensing? Between products like DTM and typekit, Adobe has been quietly positioning itself to be a tracking/advert power house.
- whelming_wave 7y ago
  For paid fonts where you license them for web use (sometimes by the view/download!), it isn’t unusual for them to require you to use their css/js/etc to embed the font so they can track where your license is being used, by how many people, etc. That’s the justification they present, at least.