35 ms·

DuckDuckGo Extension to Block FLoC, Google’s New Tracking Method in Chrome

552 points by csbartus 5y ago

zenincognito 5y ago
No thank you. I appreciate what DDG is trying to do but in the end, a search engine that makes money from selling ads trying to protect me from another search engine that also sells ads is just feeding the ecosystem. I am going to put my money into FF no matter how annoying some of the things in it are.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mpercy 5y ago
  FF as in Firefox?
  - 11235813213455 5y ago
    yes
    - toastal 5y ago
      Though the official shorthand is “Fx”
      - asddubs 5y ago
        the official shorthand that literally nobody uses?
        mavhc 5y ago
        And is already used by many other things
        toastal 5y ago
        https://github.com/mozilla?q=Fx https://github.com/mozilla?q=Fx It seems Mozilla uses it a lot
      - gkbrk 5y ago
        I've never heard anybody refer to Firefox as Fx, but I've seen FF used as a shorthand for Firefox a lot.
      - thih9 5y ago
        If I saw that, I’d think about sound effects or special effects.
      - lovemenot 5y ago
        FFx sake !
- erdo 5y ago
  I'm honestly ok with ads, I am not ok with "personalised" ads
  - jjbinx007 5y ago
    Indeed. If I buy a magazine then ads are targeted at readers of the magazine but they don't track me, invade my privacy, follow me around wherever I go or occasionally try to hijack me. If a newspaper or online magazine had traditional ads that were embedded in the page as static images (no distracting video please) then I'd leave my ad blocker off.
    - WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
      Careful what you wish for. I go to a local website for local news, and they display five big banners which you must scroll through — one and a half screen — before you get to see the actual content, headline included. True, those are not targeted ads, they are sponsored content, but I wouldn’t even bother setting up my adblocker, had they made them less annoying.
  - ikornaselur 5y ago
    It always surprises me when people say that they're fine with personalised ads, even going so far as saying that if they're getting ads they want them to be personalised. I guess I _can_ understand why, they want them to be potentially useful if they're seeing them... To me though, sure, show me ads, fine, whatever, but don't build them around a profile of me to try to manipulate me directly based on my potential interests and behaviour. Any time I can disable any "personalisation" of ads, I do.
    - sjwright 5y ago
      I just don’t like the idea of having my own devices conspire against me to compromise my own privacy.
    - zo1 5y ago
      I would be fine with actual personalized ads. Hell, I'd give them even more data if they needed it to accomplish such a feat. But the best they can do is try sell me washing machines after I've already purchased one, or show me youtube snippets of scenes from Netflix shows I've watched recently (yes this one really did happen. No idea how, still checking).
- Ruthalas 5y ago
  Is there another search engine you recommend instead?
  - dunkeylim 5y ago
    neeva? maybe brave search in a few months?
  - jhoechtl 5y ago
    https://www.mojeek.com/ https://www.mojeek.com/
    - quickthrower2 5y ago
      Thank you!
    - qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
      Why is this preferable?
    - owly 5y ago
      I’d never heard of Mojeek. While their mission is admirable, a few test searches using technical terms resulted in several suspicious sites. DDG search using the same terms provided results from commonly trusted sites. Obviously mojeek is new and will improve, but be careful out there.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  Under terms of an agreement, FF sends search bar queries to a "search engine that makes money from selling ads." The search engine belongs to an online ad services company. FF belongs to Mozilla Corporation. The agreement is between the ad services company and Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation pays the salaries of the developers who maintain FF. Almost all of Mozilla Corporation's income, certainly 100% of their profits, comes from the agreement with the online ad services company. Sadly, donations are not what keeps Mozilla and FF in business. Sure, DDG might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but so is Mozilla. They sell out every FF user who does not change default settings. This must be a significant number of users, because the online ad services company pays millions to Mozilla for that "service". That means heaps of queries coming from FF are "feeding the ecosystem".
  - ArneBab 5y ago
    They try to get away from that model, though. Not very successfully (how to get people to pay for a browser?), but they try.
    - ronjouch 5y ago
      > "They try to get away from that model, though. Not very successfully [...], but they try." Honest question: do they? What evidence supports the assertion that they do try? I haven't seen any story suggesting Mozilla is trying to get away from that model of funding Firefox. > "(how to get people to pay for a browser?)" The Thunderbird email client (formerly maintained by Mozilla) switched to being independent from Mozilla and asking for donations; so far they are successful. Donations are now sustaining a team of 15, thanks to yearly 2.3 M$ donations [1], and they keep hiring. "A team of 15 isn't remotely enough to sustain Firefox", you may say, and you'd be right. But then, if Thunderbird is able to find enough donation money for 15, what would Firefox (who is way more popular than Thunderbird) be able to score if it found the courage to make its case to its users, and ask for money? Could it afford a staff of 150? More? [1] https://groups.google.com/g/tb-planning/c/-jbmYvYdX1g https://groups.google.com/g/tb-planning/c/-jbmYvYdX1g , https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/m9td33/thunderbird_raked_in_23_million_in_donations_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/m9td33/thunderb...
- propertymagnate 5y ago
  Really? I can appreciate not wanting to use DDG for a number of reasons, but because they are pushing for financial legitimacy on the basis that there can be an ad industry but it shouldn't be an arms race? Yes thank you, please make a market out of privacy! edit: I should probably say, please prove that privacy respecting markets are viable, I'm not suggesting the commoditisation of everything, lol.
  - simias 5y ago
    I use DDG as my main search engine but I share the parent's concerns. In the end an ad-driven business model will always pit the interests of its users vs the interests of the advertisers. Should DDG become ultra-successful, how long until they start making concessions to privacy to increase revenue and growth? After all not so long ago Google themselves were "the good guys" and we were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Turns out that "Do No Evil" only really works until it starts clashing with "Make More Money".
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      Honestly I use DDG because in most cases the search results returned are more relevant. I’ll go to google if it’s something that could be explained by a YouTube video or Reddit thread or a Pinterest board, but Google really wants to push you toward the larger sites — even if the content is less relevant. If I recall DDG doesn’t even use cookies. So they’re showing ads based solely on the search terms, which personally I’m ok with as long as it doesn’t clutter the page too much. Showing me ads when I’m in a discovery mindset is ok and is less intrusive; it’s way worse when you’re in a consumption mindset and the ads are just obnoxious (I’m looking at you, YouTube ads).
      - freebuju 5y ago
        My experience with DDG has been the opposite of yours. The results some of the times are just annoying. Mostly because I want it to be good enough to replace Google with it. I click on a second page from results and it turns out to be some dead unattended page. I gave up trying to be too optimistic about DDG and use Google with no javascript and no cookies saved on the domain in my browser. My problem with search is a user one. Not an ethical one. When I search for something I want the best results. I don't care if some cute furry animal had to be sacrificed in the production of this utility. Btw, DDG has a settings button hidden somewhere that allows you to tweak a few settings and save cookies if you wanted.
- dazc 5y ago
  There are varying degrees of selling ads though. DDG and Google both sit at opposing ends of this spectrum.
  - account42 5y ago
    At the moment. Google also used to be known for providing better, mostly text based, ads that didn't spam you with popups or blinking animations. That did not stop them from becoming evil.
- dandellion 5y ago
  I wish there was a way to donate directly to Firefox. Unfortunately, the only option is to donate to Mozilla and they will likely use the money to fund their other initiatives and continue to neglect Firefox.
- troyvit 5y ago
  How should a search engine make money? What are some other models they can try?
- Beached 5y ago
  I guess the issue is how the ads are generated. adds generated on generic search terms are ok with me as long as they are well marked. ads generated on a deep and creepy level of privacy invasion, completely irrelevant to what I'm searching is not ok. I'm content to live In a search world when I type "how to do xxxxx" an add for a software company that provides xxxxx as a service is the top two or three results. I'm not content with getting cold calls from salesmen 1 to 2 hours after I type in a search for gartner magic quadrant xxxxx. (this happens all the time) if the ads served are keyword based on the current search, and clearly marked as add, I'm ok with it. I even click on the ddg ads if the seem relevant on purpose, because I know it generates them revenue. I go out of my way to click on anything I know is a Google ad.
erdo 5y ago
Even without privacy considerations though, duckduckgo seems to give me better results, I've been using it as my default search engine for years
- dx034 5y ago
  Are you based in the US? I found them really bad for localized results outside of the US, even when local mode is enabled (although that's annoying to do manually). In the end I used !g for so many search queries that I switched back again.
  - erdo 5y ago
    I'm in France, possibly I don't use the localisation feature much. (I actually do use it occasionally to find specialist retailers so I don't have to use Amazon, as it's easy to buy from any other EU country here. German based retailers for audio equipment, or France based retailers if I want to buy cooking equipment etc)
  - dazc 5y ago
    I agree, for localised results Google is much better. I guess it depends what your normal search activity is to how much you'll notice the difference? For everyday searching I find DDG perfectly adequate and enjoy the ad-free, google-product-free experience. !G is handy sometimes though.
    - danielbln 5y ago
      DDG has ads though.
      - dazc 5y ago
        Not to the extreme that Google does though - and you can also turn them off.
  - UncleSlacky 5y ago
    For European results at least, Qwant is pretty good (and like DDG doesn't log or track users): https://lite.qwant.com/ https://lite.qwant.com/
dx034 5y ago
uBlockOrigin already blocks FLoC in their privacy list and there are ideas to integrate it further as I understand [1]. So for all of us using that extension, there's no need to install DDG as well. [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553
- erdo 5y ago
  This was a bit confusing for me to read at first. DDF is of course a search engine and doesn't need to be installed. DDG now also has an extension which blocks FloC (a feature which the uBlockOrigin extension seems to not have full support for - correct me I could be wrong, but that looks like an open issue?) So you can install the DDG extension now, or install the uBlockOrigin extension - but possibly have to wait for full integration.
  - sodality2 5y ago
    Issue was just closed - https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553
- Epskampie 5y ago
  The "solution" of installing an extension is a bit shortsighted. Google can and will just remove the possibility for extensions to block FLOC in the future, when it's deemed profitable to do so.
  - hoffs 5y ago
    That's what people have been saying for years about ad blockers. Did it happen yet?
    - Epskampie 5y ago
      It's not profitable yet because people can still switch to other browsers. When chrome has a monopoly, they will be gone in a heartbeat. Also, look into what chrome recently did to the APIs adblocker extensions use, even in the current market google is already making adblockers less potent in chrome.
CodeGlitch 5y ago
Brave has also disabled FLoC: https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/ https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/
- UncleSlacky 5y ago
  Vivaldi too: https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-get-floced/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
- Yizahi 5y ago
  That's only while Google graciously allows to disable it at all. When Google will decide to make Floc permanent, these Chrome mods called Brave and Vivaldi will be forced to do it too.
  - lessname 5y ago
    it's actually been completely removed from brave nightly as the link says
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    how will they be forced?
    - Yizahi 5y ago
      When Google will remove ability to switch Floc on or off from the code of Chrome browser and all it's mods.
      - supermatt 5y ago
        They have their own builds.
      - jefftk 5y ago
        Brave would hard fork Chromium rather than go along with something like that
ryankrage77 5y ago
Tried the DDG extension, it changed my default search engine without asking. Uninstalled.
- AlchemistCamp 5y ago
  Isn't changing your default search engine to DDG the main appeal of the DDG extension?
  - warxmike 5y ago
    lol
  - kilnr 5y ago
    That argument starts to lose some of its power when DDG is recommending the extension specifically to block FLoC.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      The whole site is disingenuous, it's pushing an agenda not presenting facts.
- blackbear_ 5y ago
  > Search with DuckDuckGo by Default — install, and we'll set your default search engine and homepage to DuckDuckGo Search so you can start your Internet searches without being tracked. First bullet point in the description.
  - ryankrage77 5y ago
    This wasn't mentioned in the article, and it's the second bullet point in the description on the FF extension page (and it's worded differently on my end too). I was interested in using it purely for blocking trackers.
pharmakom 5y ago
I’m OK with ads and I’m even OK with personalised ads. I’m not OK with companies correlating my browsing with my real world identity or giving that data to governments. Has anyone figured out some clever cryptography to enable personalised ads without the privacy concerns?
- izacus 5y ago
  Isn't FloC exactly that? All the data stays on your device and it only gives an identifier of a pretty big group of people to the websites?
  - pharmakom 5y ago
    How private is FloC + IP though?
gkbrk 5y ago
I started displaying a banner on my website [1] a while back for visitors using Chrome/Chromium telling them to "give Firefox a try for the future of the open web". I don't know how many people came across that or clicked the link, as I don't track that, but I enjoy doing my tiny part in letting people know. [1]: https://www.gkbrk.com https://www.gkbrk.com
- rapnie 5y ago
  Might say "Optimized for privacy-respecting browsers. Chrome users might experience issues [more info]"
  - johnchristopher 5y ago
    In what way is the site "optimized for privacy-respecting browsers" ? The browser is the thing being optimized. Does it mean to say that the website operators will intentionnaly not respect privacy of Chrome users but they will for Firefox ? “Chrome users might experience issues” but what issues ? It reads like a dishonest TOS like the one used by service providers using catch-all statements to cover their backs. It sounds like the old “optimized for Internet explorer and 837 by 394 resolution” for websites that were not optimized in any way but it was just the people behind it not able or unwilling to do better.
    - sjwright 5y ago
      As a web developer I don’t test in Chrome—I develop against Firefox and sanity check using Safari iOS. Therefore my site is explicitly optimised for Firefox. Chrome users might experience issues. Or they won’t. I have no idea.
      - HenryBemis 5y ago
        Your "about" clearly states it: Some say I argue on the internet too much, but those people are wrong. I don't know what you do/sell on said websites, but if you still have a job it means that those who hired you haven't received (enough) complaints yet.
theonlybutlet 5y ago
To be honest though, for the general public not using adblockers, is FloC not better privacy wise than your traditional cookies?
- manuelflara 5y ago
  I'll leave this quote from the EFF article on FloC[1] > Google’s pitch to privacy advocates is that a world with FLoC (and other elements of the “privacy sandbox”) will be better than the world we have today, where data brokers and ad-tech giants track and profile with impunity. But that framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-idea https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...
  - jnxx 5y ago
    > But that framing is based on a false premise Another false premise is that the "old tracking" will stop because of the "new tracking".
    - halflings 5y ago
      Chrome is entirely removing third-party cookies by 2022. https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-party-cookies-chrome-two-years-privacy-safari-firefox https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-par...
      - Macha 5y ago
        Fingerprinting and connecting to logins has been a thing forever, just look at advertising companies offering cross-device targeting. Or just how aggressively google wants you to login to youtube these days.
        5y ago
bipson 5y ago
I don't know man. I was really happy about DDG existing and making an effort (although I am not a user). But they now clearly shifted from a "Noble Actor" to a "Competitor" with this aggressive marketing. I don't appreciate these marketing campaigns that are directed at the competition. I never liked the "I'm a Mac"-campaigns, nor the all the "Bing"-fearmongering. It signals to me that you're not a fighter for a noble cause, letting the product speak for itself, but actually in for yourself in the first place. I'm rather turned off by this.
- ArneBab 5y ago
  Preventing noble actors from doing aggressive marketing causes them to stay small. Marketing is required to get market share nowadays. If the marketing causes people to find you to whom your are the better choice, then it is good marketing ⇒ https://www.draketo.de/anderes/honest-marketing https://www.draketo.de/anderes/honest-marketing
  - bipson 5y ago
    Maybe I was using too much understatement: The kind of marketing is not only "aggressive", it is overly aggressive IMHO. It is vilifying, demonizing. You can do aggressive marketing all you want, but in my eyes when arguments become hyperbolic, they get less and less believable. The way they write their piece, FLoC is the worst thing that has ever happened, worse than everything that came before (how on earth is this worse than strictly personalized cookies all over the place?!) and only DDG and their extension can save you.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  But why even try a different product if you don't know why it exists? And what makes it better? How do you communicate that? Different messages have different appeals. Perhaps DDG's marketing "secret sauce" is word of mouth? And the message you don't like - as an admitted non-user - isn't meant to drive your behavior, but the WoM behaviour of current committed users?
- matsemann 5y ago
  I agree. I used to think both sides were about equal. And then one side got more extreme and did really bad things to lots of people. The other side called them out. I think calling them out wasn't very nice, so they're basically twisting my hand forcing me to ~vote~ select the extreme option. Not my fault.
newbie578 5y ago
I would much rather have personalized ads than have the early 2000s ads (hot single ladies, making $100k a day, etc.). It seems to me that no matter what Google does, there will be pitchforks ready. What is so horrible about FLoC if I as the user am protected and my personal identity is kept in check, and only contained within my browser. I'll stop using Chrome when there is a better alternative.. Firefox is a downgrade in each aspect, Edge is Edge (lol) and you can put a gun to my head but I won't use Safari, I have no idea how someone can even use Safari, the UI is so unintuitive, and they tried making it so simple that it is a pain in the ass to do anything more advanced.
- ArneBab 5y ago
  They use your browsing history. That browsing history used to be sacrosanct: We spent years fighting to get every bug fixed through which even parts of the browsing history could be leaked. Now Google controls the browser and simply accesses the browsing history and hands a processed version of it on a silver platter to advertisement-sellers.
- why_Mr_Anderson 5y ago
  No. Since you mentioned 2000s, you know how revolutionary and welcomed were Google ads at that time. Text based ads all in specific positions? Give me more! It was so much better than the nightmare we had. But look at Google and web now ... it's back to square one, now with extra spying on top.
dnndev 5y ago
What about Microsoft edge?
- hnbad 5y ago
  In my humble opinion if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy. But Firefox is a good browser and "morally" a better choice for many reasons others have already summarized. Personally I use Edge as a developer because it's a Chromium browser (so it reflects most of my users' experience and works with a lot of tooling developed for Chrome), I already use Windows 10 and VS Code and it comes preinstalled. But I used Firefox between the initial release of Quantum and the release of the new Edge browser and while there are both benefits and drawbacks to its dev tooling, it's definitely a good browser and purely on a quality/UX level I see no reason not to use Firefox.
  - gkbrk 5y ago
    > if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy If Edge was still using its own layout engine, I would agree with this. But even on Windows 10, by using Edge you not only trust Microsoft, but also help Google's takeover and control of the internet. Using Safari, Internet Explorer, Links, Firefox or Serenity Browser all help a bit by reducing the Google browser marketshare. Using Brave, Edge, Vivaldi or Opera still help, but to a much smaller degree.
  - MayeulC 5y ago
    > In my humble opinion if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy. Oh, serving them your browsing history on a silver plate isn't really the same as letting them infer it from the scraps they could get from other browsers.
- why_Mr_Anderson 5y ago
  The moment MS surrendered to Google and adopted Chromium was the last momment when using Edge made even slightest sense. Why choose lesser evil?
troelsSteegin 5y ago
Is there an API that allows me to see, unpack, and set my own cohort? The FloC explainer [0] suggests the basic API just returns a stable hash [0]. I am curious about the space of cohorts. Also, whether there'd be an advantage to choosing a cohort for my task, vs just being anonymous. EDIT: that would appear to be TURTLEDOVE [1] [0] https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc [1] https://github.com/WICG/turtledove https://github.com/WICG/turtledove The FloC announcement is https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/2021-01-privacy-sandbox/ https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/2021-01-privacy-sa... The whitepaper explains the approach: https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/blob/master/proposals/FLoC/FLOC-Whitepaper-Google.pdf https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/blob/master/proposals/...
mcdonje 5y ago
Must be a bad floc if a duck is telling me to stay away.
- doctorhandshake 5y ago
  Couldn’t decide whether to upvote or downvote. Taking the high ground with this comment.
quantumwoke 5y ago
I hate Google Chrome with a passion after years of anti-consumer and anti-privacy tactics and now exclusively use and recommend the Brave browser [0]. [0] https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Yeah, looks like a straight upgrade from Google Chrome. It's got a built-in ad blocker even on mobile. There's a built-in ads platform which actually pays people for their attention and can be turned off. All it needs to compete with Firefox is browser extensions on mobile.
- lensi 5y ago
  Just remember, you will still be supporting the monoculture of the Chromium engine
austincheney 5y ago
One way to defeat these kinds of spyware techniques is to keep the browser permanently at a fixed address, such as localhost, and import content from other websites as necessary to a page at that fixed location. I am considering adding web scrapping to this file sharing privacy application I have written that already works in the browser. I could screen scrape content from other sites using a proxy on the terminal per user request and once piped to the browser privacy is protect by single origin policy and by a separation of content from address. I could even make the experience look like an embedded modern browser.
blfr 5y ago
Firefox is by far the superior browser for all your casual needs: browsing, reading, tweeting, banking, etc. It's good enough and fast enough but where it excels are addons. Adblocking works so much better on Firefox. It blocks even the mere shadow of ads, like "skip this ad" button on YouTube, no promoted tweets, no warnings about cookies, GDPR, ads and nonsense almost cease the exist. And Tree Style Tabs provides both ascended aesthetic and unparalleled usability. Where Chrome monits you with some annoying popup about tab groups, Tree Style Tabs brings order effortlessly. This is not a choice between a better browser that tracks you or whatever and some FLOSS alternative that sort-of works. There is a clear winner on merits and it ain't Chrome, not for this crowd, anyway.
Communitivity 5y ago
I use Firefox. So does my family. Everything I make for personal use works in Firefox and I don't bother testing with anything else. However, almost every web site or web app I make in my professional capacity gets tested with, and is expected to work with, ~95% of browsers. That means testing against Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera, UC Browser, Samsung Internet, and Internet Explorer. Edit: I forgot to add Safari, which I also test with. Anything less is not my brand of professionalism, because I am convinced my clients expect me to leave my personal thoughts and convictions at the door. If you want to only create sites that work in Firefox and maybe not elsewhere, then you can do that - but doing it ethically means telling the client upfront that you won't accept work that requires the site work for the widest audience reasonably possible. That said, there are two caveats. The first is ethics. I do not leave my ethics at the door and if I am being asked to do something unethical I will refund the money and walk. If it is illegal it will be reported, as otherwise I am an accessory. Clients agree to this upfront. The second is client requests. If the client wants it to work in Firefox and they tell me not to bother with the other websites, despite my advice against it, then that's what I do.
- tngranados 5y ago
  If you are leaving out Safari you are not testing on 95% of the browsers. At least market share wise, which is the only metric that makes sense.
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    You are correct, but if you don't own a Mac/iPhone, you cannot test on Safari.
    - ibdf 5y ago
      Browserstack
    - o_m 5y ago
      You can use services like Browserstack, but they are expensive and slow.
cblconfederate 5y ago
The best way to get ppl to stop using chrome is to fork it, and add new experimental functionality that doesnt exist in chrome. I don't know if it's feasible but missing features in new platforms (e.g. VR) will motivate people to switch and then it will become a self-reinforcing loop. Integrating metamask in the browser could be a game changerfor payments and identity management.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Brave browser is essentially Chrome with an integrated ad blocker. It also features rather unintrusive ads that compensate users with cryptocurrency for their attention and can always be turned off. Usage seems to be growing a lot.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    I support and promote brave, but i think they shouldn't just focus on the adblocking benefits, but they have the opportunity to bundle additional functionality that will be popular with both devs and users
- itsbits 5y ago
  There are lot of forks exist already. Microsoft Edge itself can be said as a fork. Although at present, Edge provides opt in on privacy options, we can't rely on MS product. Will suggest to look into another forks like Vivaldi Brave SRWare Iron I started using Brave for past couple of months and don't have much of complaints related to browsing experience.
Vaslo 5y ago
Have any of you tried Ungoogled Chromium? I found it pretty easy to setup on Windows despite being someone who gets easily confused trying to do anything command line-esque. https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium Obviously Firefox is an alternative, but i personally was turned off by recent censorship comments by Mozilla’s CEO which I won’t get into here.
- Yizahi 5y ago
  This is just cementing Google monopoly in browsers.
  - temptemptemp111 5y ago
    That's a nonsense argument.
- danaos 5y ago
  I did. Compiling is the a pain in the ** though. It takes almost 24 hours, and I can't even make use of ccache.
qwerty456127 5y ago
> It groups you based on your interests and demographics, derived from your browsing history For my whole life I have always been configuring my browsers to clear all history on close or disable it entirely. Is FLoC still going to work anyway? Is the history accumulated and analyzed on the server side?
qwerty456127 5y ago
> it won't be long before people or organizations work out what FLoC IDs really mean, e.g. what interests and demographic information they are likely correlated with. Isn't this good? I would rather set my actual interests in the browser settings! I also am upfront glad to tell them to anybody interested so we might find common interests or discover something new. The only reason I would rather hide such data actually is fingerprinting.
- gkbrk 5y ago
  Most likely what you mean setting interests in the browser settings (general interests) and the FLoC cohorts are on much different scales. A FLoC cohort will probably contain a few thousand people, combined with any other data points will probably be enough to uniquely identify you.
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    Sure, I don't advocate FLoC itself (because I don't want to be uniquely identified through fingerprinting) but I'm not sure I understand why particular FLoC cohorts actual meaning being discovered is considered bad. I actually feel like I want that to happen so I could probably tweak my cohort consciously.
    - nottorp 5y ago
      Besides the privacy implications, do you really want to only be served content that you have shown a previous interest in? Eventually this will lead to you living in an internet bubble that only ever shows you the same things. Would you be happy with that?
      - qwerty456127 5y ago
        I would prefer to be served content that I have actively declared interest in + some random content occasionally. We are already living in such bubbles by the way. At least people who consciously choose their bubbles probably tend to be more aware of that.
shoto_io 5y ago
Do you really believe it’s enough to stop using Chrome? Isn’t it rather: don’t use Google services including Android? Imagine this setup: Gmail used on mobile mail program. Surf the web with a mobile browser other than Chrome. Use Google as search engine. FLoC will still be able to make the connection. That’s what I believe at least.
snvzz 5y ago
I'm well covered on ungoogled chrome options on unix-likes. But... what is a maintained, open-source ungoogled chrome for Windows?
- vorbote 5y ago
  Check out https://chromium.woolys.com/ https://chromium.woolys.com/
- easton 5y ago
  ungoogled-chromium is the favorite if you want straight Chromium, although there is of course Brave or Vivaldi if you want additional features. https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/ https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-bina...
chumboslice 5y ago
This is disingenuous at best. Next.
ololobus 5y ago
I would rephrase it to 'Do not build websites that work 100% fine and fast only in Google Chrome'. Unfortunately, this is the case and most of users just choose the most convenient tool, while trading their privacy.
Causality1 5y ago
I try to sell friends and family on resisting Google's privacy invasions but lately it always goes the same way. "Yeah I know they know everything. How does that hurt me, like how does that cause me a problem in a real way that makes my life worse?" And I can't come up with a good answer for that.
- lovemenot 5y ago
  Substitute Google with the Chinese Communist Party and most Chinese people right now have the same attitude as your friends. How would those friends feel about Chinese people being able to gain their information independence from CCP? If they would be in favour, then at least metaphorically they answered their own question.
  - csemaan 5y ago
    If one honestly and genuinely believe Chinese people can get their news only from the CCP, one needs to consider fighting to gain his/her own information independence.
    - lovemenot 5y ago
      Yes, one does. Those who do fight to gain his/her own information independence including - as of now - a small minority of people in China with both the will and technical/political resources, should be well rewarded in doing so. It seems we may both be in favour of access to information independence. Wherever needed. The more the better.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    It's not something they care about at all. As long as the prices in Walmart didn't go up, about 90% of the people I know wouldn't care or even notice if China sank under the ocean. Trying to get people who've already accepted the US government spying on them to care about Google spying on them feels impossible.
indigochill 5y ago
I generally am on the pro-Firefox, anti-Chrome train, but there is one practical exception: websites that make use of in-browser audio synthesis often (in my experience) just don't work in Firefox. Audible Genius's Building Blocks course has a in-browser DAW that you need to use Chrome for. Flowkey (browser-based piano lessons) also only works in Chrome, as far as I've been able to figure out. So to anyone with an inclination, Firefox could use help on that front. Or if someone already knows of a Firefox-based solution, I'd be happy to use it. I just haven't found one yet.
- tziki 5y ago
  For better or worse, Chrome is still the browser to beat when it comes to newest browser APIs. My hobby project is an app that utilizes some of them and more than once I've found myself considering dropping support for other browsers. In principle I love Firefox but at the same time I'll have to wait at least a few months to start using the same APIs.
- rplnt 5y ago
  I mean, youtube doesn't work in firefox well. I can't count the number of times I had to restart the browser to play a youtube video. Google reveals it's not an uncommon issue on OSX. While I hated Chrome from the day one, I recommend it to people...
  - gcthomas 5y ago
    I watch YouTube exclusively on Firefox and never have a problem (I especially like FF's pop-out video window thing.)
- nsajko 5y ago
  FTR here's my deal breaker with Firefox: Just tried using it and was pleasantly surprised that it mostly worked fine with DWM (an X11 window manager), and it could play sound from my built-in sound card fine, even though I don't have pulseaudio. However, once I switched to the external sound card, Firefox wasn't able to produce any sound (tried Youtube and some local videos); so I'll be staying with Chromium, unless some patched version of Chromium (with privacy improvements) makes its way to the Archlinux repos.
ribfeast 5y ago
Multiple profiles have never been well implemented in any other browser. It's the only feature keeping me on Chrome.
- Natfan 5y ago
  Multi Account Containers in Firefox[0][1] works really well for me. I have tabs for administrative work accounts and personal work accounts, along with restricting anything from Facebook into it's own container[2]. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account... [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers [2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-container https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...
- approxim8ion 5y ago
  I actually love how multiple profiles are implemented in Firefox. I have a keybinding on my system to launch "firefox -P" so that I can pick which profile to launch an instance of right away. I juggle between 5 different profiles at any time and it works exactly as I'd like it to. Additionally, it is much easier to do than setting up a complex multi-account container setup.
qwertox 5y ago
Assuming my friend has a webpage and wants me to take look at it, or he is offering a webshop and knows my IP, or my notable User Agent. Or that I have an ATI FireGL graphics card installed, which is something which JS can query. He just asks me to visit a server he controls. Will he now be able to query a list of properties of my personality? Interested in space, in biking, according to my Google Ad Settings also in Fujian, for whichever reason that is unknown to me?
- bombcar 5y ago
  Reminds me of figuring out where a friend was by posting an image link to my server and watching the IP access logs.
imagine4asec 5y ago
You literally will get banned if you changed the words "Google Chrome" with "Apple". Not sure if Apple Astroturfs or if god mods, but it's incredible to see the difference. Has google been caught using slaves?
csemaan 5y ago
I have (mild) worries about privacy from all over the tech spectrum in our day and age, and I can understand people having these worries about big tech such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Mastercard, Walmart, but the list must spread all over the space of tech, devtech, socialtech, fintech, edutech, insurancetech, govtech, medtech, citytech, and whathaveyoutech. The problem is not constrained to Google Chrome, and the problem is certainly not solved by "taking side" in a made-up rivalry of Google Search and Duck Duck Go (childish to say the least)!
- csemaan 5y ago
  And I forgot very important gamingtech, and IoTtech ;-) What I am getting at is that there is a paradigm shift in privacy consideration and expectations in the last two decades (on top of another shift the previous 2 or 3 decades). We are living in a different age. The combat I read about in HN comments seems that of a rearguard... no offense.
throwaway189262 5y ago
They need to ban user tracking already. The advertising industry was fine for thousands of years without it. Instead of tracking users, you put ads in places your audience likes. Google and the other ad networks don't like this, because if you're choosing the sites you want ads on, there's no reason to use them as a middle-man Yeah, it's less profitable. But it's been proven to work since like 7000BC and it gets rid of all the privacy problems. All the invasive FBI style user tracking only existed for ~20 years. A mote in the history of advertising. Anybody who tells you online advertising won't work without it is a liar. On the plus side, maybe now people will see Chrome for what it really is. A vehicle and a weapon for Google to protect its shady business model. Just like Android.
s2th4d 5y ago
Interestingly enough, I knew that I had the DuckDuckGo Extension already. But then when I checked for it in my icon list of extensions, it wasn't there... Went to the Google Chrome Web Extension Store, it said that I had this extension and it was Disabled!!! I don't remember disabling it myself... maybe I did, or was it Google? I did re-enable it though. Start your conspiracy theories...
carlhjerpe 5y ago
Honestly, I'm grateful for Google implementing this. This means 3rd party cookies go bye bye and since It's Chrome everyone will rewrite their service to work w/o 3rd party cookies. Now i just have to block FLoC and sites will keep working for me. I might be ego, but i really couldn't give two shits about "the majority". I care about if I (and people in my close surroundings) can stay private or not.
ChrisArchitect 5y ago
Earlier post/discussion on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809688
bsean95531 5y ago
I don't like I won't use
blacklight 5y ago
If you care about your privacy, just don't use Chrome. No matter how many extensions you add to keep trackers at bay, you're still using a product developed by a company that will keep pouring money into developing new ways to circumvent ads and tracking blockers. The reason why Google can bully the web and get away with it is its market share. It's time to change that.

552 points by csbartus 5y ago

No thank you. I appreciate what DDG is trying to do but in the end, a search engine that makes money from selling ads trying to protect me from another search engine that also sells ads is just feeding the ecosystem. I am going to put my money into FF no matter how annoying some of the things in it are.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mpercy 5y ago
FF as in Firefox?
- 11235813213455 5y ago
  yes
  - toastal 5y ago
    Though the official shorthand is “Fx”
    - asddubs 5y ago
      the official shorthand that literally nobody uses?
      - mavhc 5y ago
        And is already used by many other things
      - toastal 5y ago
        https://github.com/mozilla?q=Fx https://github.com/mozilla?q=Fx It seems Mozilla uses it a lot
    - gkbrk 5y ago
      I've never heard anybody refer to Firefox as Fx, but I've seen FF used as a shorthand for Firefox a lot.
    - thih9 5y ago
      If I saw that, I’d think about sound effects or special effects.
    - lovemenot 5y ago
      FFx sake !
erdo 5y ago
I'm honestly ok with ads, I am not ok with "personalised" ads
- jjbinx007 5y ago
  Indeed. If I buy a magazine then ads are targeted at readers of the magazine but they don't track me, invade my privacy, follow me around wherever I go or occasionally try to hijack me. If a newspaper or online magazine had traditional ads that were embedded in the page as static images (no distracting video please) then I'd leave my ad blocker off.
  - WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
    Careful what you wish for. I go to a local website for local news, and they display five big banners which you must scroll through — one and a half screen — before you get to see the actual content, headline included. True, those are not targeted ads, they are sponsored content, but I wouldn’t even bother setting up my adblocker, had they made them less annoying.
- ikornaselur 5y ago
  It always surprises me when people say that they're fine with personalised ads, even going so far as saying that if they're getting ads they want them to be personalised. I guess I _can_ understand why, they want them to be potentially useful if they're seeing them... To me though, sure, show me ads, fine, whatever, but don't build them around a profile of me to try to manipulate me directly based on my potential interests and behaviour. Any time I can disable any "personalisation" of ads, I do.
  - sjwright 5y ago
    I just don’t like the idea of having my own devices conspire against me to compromise my own privacy.
  - zo1 5y ago
    I would be fine with actual personalized ads. Hell, I'd give them even more data if they needed it to accomplish such a feat. But the best they can do is try sell me washing machines after I've already purchased one, or show me youtube snippets of scenes from Netflix shows I've watched recently (yes this one really did happen. No idea how, still checking).
Ruthalas 5y ago
Is there another search engine you recommend instead?
- dunkeylim 5y ago
  neeva? maybe brave search in a few months?
- jhoechtl 5y ago
  https://www.mojeek.com/ https://www.mojeek.com/
  - quickthrower2 5y ago
    Thank you!
  - qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
    Why is this preferable?
  - owly 5y ago
    I’d never heard of Mojeek. While their mission is admirable, a few test searches using technical terms resulted in several suspicious sites. DDG search using the same terms provided results from commonly trusted sites. Obviously mojeek is new and will improve, but be careful out there.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Under terms of an agreement, FF sends search bar queries to a "search engine that makes money from selling ads." The search engine belongs to an online ad services company. FF belongs to Mozilla Corporation. The agreement is between the ad services company and Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation pays the salaries of the developers who maintain FF. Almost all of Mozilla Corporation's income, certainly 100% of their profits, comes from the agreement with the online ad services company. Sadly, donations are not what keeps Mozilla and FF in business. Sure, DDG might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but so is Mozilla. They sell out every FF user who does not change default settings. This must be a significant number of users, because the online ad services company pays millions to Mozilla for that "service". That means heaps of queries coming from FF are "feeding the ecosystem".
- ArneBab 5y ago
  They try to get away from that model, though. Not very successfully (how to get people to pay for a browser?), but they try.
  - ronjouch 5y ago
    > "They try to get away from that model, though. Not very successfully [...], but they try." Honest question: do they? What evidence supports the assertion that they do try? I haven't seen any story suggesting Mozilla is trying to get away from that model of funding Firefox. > "(how to get people to pay for a browser?)" The Thunderbird email client (formerly maintained by Mozilla) switched to being independent from Mozilla and asking for donations; so far they are successful. Donations are now sustaining a team of 15, thanks to yearly 2.3 M$ donations [1], and they keep hiring. "A team of 15 isn't remotely enough to sustain Firefox", you may say, and you'd be right. But then, if Thunderbird is able to find enough donation money for 15, what would Firefox (who is way more popular than Thunderbird) be able to score if it found the courage to make its case to its users, and ask for money? Could it afford a staff of 150? More? [1] https://groups.google.com/g/tb-planning/c/-jbmYvYdX1g https://groups.google.com/g/tb-planning/c/-jbmYvYdX1g , https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/m9td33/thunderbird_raked_in_23_million_in_donations_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/m9td33/thunderb...
propertymagnate 5y ago
Really? I can appreciate not wanting to use DDG for a number of reasons, but because they are pushing for financial legitimacy on the basis that there can be an ad industry but it shouldn't be an arms race? Yes thank you, please make a market out of privacy! edit: I should probably say, please prove that privacy respecting markets are viable, I'm not suggesting the commoditisation of everything, lol.
- simias 5y ago
  I use DDG as my main search engine but I share the parent's concerns. In the end an ad-driven business model will always pit the interests of its users vs the interests of the advertisers. Should DDG become ultra-successful, how long until they start making concessions to privacy to increase revenue and growth? After all not so long ago Google themselves were "the good guys" and we were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Turns out that "Do No Evil" only really works until it starts clashing with "Make More Money".
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Honestly I use DDG because in most cases the search results returned are more relevant. I’ll go to google if it’s something that could be explained by a YouTube video or Reddit thread or a Pinterest board, but Google really wants to push you toward the larger sites — even if the content is less relevant. If I recall DDG doesn’t even use cookies. So they’re showing ads based solely on the search terms, which personally I’m ok with as long as it doesn’t clutter the page too much. Showing me ads when I’m in a discovery mindset is ok and is less intrusive; it’s way worse when you’re in a consumption mindset and the ads are just obnoxious (I’m looking at you, YouTube ads).
    - freebuju 5y ago
      My experience with DDG has been the opposite of yours. The results some of the times are just annoying. Mostly because I want it to be good enough to replace Google with it. I click on a second page from results and it turns out to be some dead unattended page. I gave up trying to be too optimistic about DDG and use Google with no javascript and no cookies saved on the domain in my browser. My problem with search is a user one. Not an ethical one. When I search for something I want the best results. I don't care if some cute furry animal had to be sacrificed in the production of this utility. Btw, DDG has a settings button hidden somewhere that allows you to tweak a few settings and save cookies if you wanted.
dazc 5y ago
There are varying degrees of selling ads though. DDG and Google both sit at opposing ends of this spectrum.
- account42 5y ago
  At the moment. Google also used to be known for providing better, mostly text based, ads that didn't spam you with popups or blinking animations. That did not stop them from becoming evil.
dandellion 5y ago
I wish there was a way to donate directly to Firefox. Unfortunately, the only option is to donate to Mozilla and they will likely use the money to fund their other initiatives and continue to neglect Firefox.
troyvit 5y ago
How should a search engine make money? What are some other models they can try?
Beached 5y ago
I guess the issue is how the ads are generated. adds generated on generic search terms are ok with me as long as they are well marked. ads generated on a deep and creepy level of privacy invasion, completely irrelevant to what I'm searching is not ok. I'm content to live In a search world when I type "how to do xxxxx" an add for a software company that provides xxxxx as a service is the top two or three results. I'm not content with getting cold calls from salesmen 1 to 2 hours after I type in a search for gartner magic quadrant xxxxx. (this happens all the time) if the ads served are keyword based on the current search, and clearly marked as add, I'm ok with it. I even click on the ddg ads if the seem relevant on purpose, because I know it generates them revenue. I go out of my way to click on anything I know is a Google ad.

erdo 5y ago

Even without privacy considerations though, duckduckgo seems to give me better results, I've been using it as my default search engine for years

dx034 5y ago
Are you based in the US? I found them really bad for localized results outside of the US, even when local mode is enabled (although that's annoying to do manually). In the end I used !g for so many search queries that I switched back again.
- erdo 5y ago
  I'm in France, possibly I don't use the localisation feature much. (I actually do use it occasionally to find specialist retailers so I don't have to use Amazon, as it's easy to buy from any other EU country here. German based retailers for audio equipment, or France based retailers if I want to buy cooking equipment etc)
- dazc 5y ago
  I agree, for localised results Google is much better. I guess it depends what your normal search activity is to how much you'll notice the difference? For everyday searching I find DDG perfectly adequate and enjoy the ad-free, google-product-free experience. !G is handy sometimes though.
  - danielbln 5y ago
    DDG has ads though.
    - dazc 5y ago
      Not to the extreme that Google does though - and you can also turn them off.
- UncleSlacky 5y ago
  For European results at least, Qwant is pretty good (and like DDG doesn't log or track users): https://lite.qwant.com/ https://lite.qwant.com/

dx034 5y ago

uBlockOrigin already blocks FLoC in their privacy list and there are ideas to integrate it further as I understand [1]. So for all of us using that extension, there's no need to install DDG as well. [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553

erdo 5y ago
This was a bit confusing for me to read at first. DDF is of course a search engine and doesn't need to be installed. DDG now also has an extension which blocks FloC (a feature which the uBlockOrigin extension seems to not have full support for - correct me I could be wrong, but that looks like an open issue?) So you can install the DDG extension now, or install the uBlockOrigin extension - but possibly have to wait for full integration.
- sodality2 5y ago
  Issue was just closed - https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1553
Epskampie 5y ago
The "solution" of installing an extension is a bit shortsighted. Google can and will just remove the possibility for extensions to block FLOC in the future, when it's deemed profitable to do so.
- hoffs 5y ago
  That's what people have been saying for years about ad blockers. Did it happen yet?
  - Epskampie 5y ago
    It's not profitable yet because people can still switch to other browsers. When chrome has a monopoly, they will be gone in a heartbeat. Also, look into what chrome recently did to the APIs adblocker extensions use, even in the current market google is already making adblockers less potent in chrome.

CodeGlitch 5y ago

Brave has also disabled FLoC: https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/ https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/

UncleSlacky 5y ago
Vivaldi too: https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-get-floced/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
Yizahi 5y ago
That's only while Google graciously allows to disable it at all. When Google will decide to make Floc permanent, these Chrome mods called Brave and Vivaldi will be forced to do it too.
- lessname 5y ago
  it's actually been completely removed from brave nightly as the link says
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  how will they be forced?
  - Yizahi 5y ago
    When Google will remove ability to switch Floc on or off from the code of Chrome browser and all it's mods.
    - supermatt 5y ago
      They have their own builds.
    - jefftk 5y ago
      Brave would hard fork Chromium rather than go along with something like that

ryankrage77 5y ago

Tried the DDG extension, it changed my default search engine without asking. Uninstalled.

AlchemistCamp 5y ago
Isn't changing your default search engine to DDG the main appeal of the DDG extension?
- warxmike 5y ago
  lol
- kilnr 5y ago
  That argument starts to lose some of its power when DDG is recommending the extension specifically to block FLoC.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    The whole site is disingenuous, it's pushing an agenda not presenting facts.
blackbear_ 5y ago
> Search with DuckDuckGo by Default — install, and we'll set your default search engine and homepage to DuckDuckGo Search so you can start your Internet searches without being tracked. First bullet point in the description.
- ryankrage77 5y ago
  This wasn't mentioned in the article, and it's the second bullet point in the description on the FF extension page (and it's worded differently on my end too). I was interested in using it purely for blocking trackers.

pharmakom 5y ago

I’m OK with ads and I’m even OK with personalised ads. I’m not OK with companies correlating my browsing with my real world identity or giving that data to governments. Has anyone figured out some clever cryptography to enable personalised ads without the privacy concerns?

izacus 5y ago
Isn't FloC exactly that? All the data stays on your device and it only gives an identifier of a pretty big group of people to the websites?
- pharmakom 5y ago
  How private is FloC + IP though?

gkbrk 5y ago

I started displaying a banner on my website [1] a while back for visitors using Chrome/Chromium telling them to "give Firefox a try for the future of the open web". I don't know how many people came across that or clicked the link, as I don't track that, but I enjoy doing my tiny part in letting people know. [1]: https://www.gkbrk.com https://www.gkbrk.com

rapnie 5y ago
Might say "Optimized for privacy-respecting browsers. Chrome users might experience issues [more info]"
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  In what way is the site "optimized for privacy-respecting browsers" ? The browser is the thing being optimized. Does it mean to say that the website operators will intentionnaly not respect privacy of Chrome users but they will for Firefox ? “Chrome users might experience issues” but what issues ? It reads like a dishonest TOS like the one used by service providers using catch-all statements to cover their backs. It sounds like the old “optimized for Internet explorer and 837 by 394 resolution” for websites that were not optimized in any way but it was just the people behind it not able or unwilling to do better.
  - sjwright 5y ago
    As a web developer I don’t test in Chrome—I develop against Firefox and sanity check using Safari iOS. Therefore my site is explicitly optimised for Firefox. Chrome users might experience issues. Or they won’t. I have no idea.
    - HenryBemis 5y ago
      Your "about" clearly states it: Some say I argue on the internet too much, but those people are wrong. I don't know what you do/sell on said websites, but if you still have a job it means that those who hired you haven't received (enough) complaints yet.

theonlybutlet 5y ago

To be honest though, for the general public not using adblockers, is FloC not better privacy wise than your traditional cookies?

manuelflara 5y ago
I'll leave this quote from the EFF article on FloC[1] > Google’s pitch to privacy advocates is that a world with FLoC (and other elements of the “privacy sandbox”) will be better than the world we have today, where data brokers and ad-tech giants track and profile with impunity. But that framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-idea https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...
- jnxx 5y ago
  > But that framing is based on a false premise Another false premise is that the "old tracking" will stop because of the "new tracking".
  - halflings 5y ago
    Chrome is entirely removing third-party cookies by 2022. https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-party-cookies-chrome-two-years-privacy-safari-firefox https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21064698/google-third-par...
    - Macha 5y ago
      Fingerprinting and connecting to logins has been a thing forever, just look at advertising companies offering cross-device targeting. Or just how aggressively google wants you to login to youtube these days.
      - 5y ago

bipson 5y ago

I don't know man. I was really happy about DDG existing and making an effort (although I am not a user). But they now clearly shifted from a "Noble Actor" to a "Competitor" with this aggressive marketing. I don't appreciate these marketing campaigns that are directed at the competition. I never liked the "I'm a Mac"-campaigns, nor the all the "Bing"-fearmongering. It signals to me that you're not a fighter for a noble cause, letting the product speak for itself, but actually in for yourself in the first place. I'm rather turned off by this.

ArneBab 5y ago
Preventing noble actors from doing aggressive marketing causes them to stay small. Marketing is required to get market share nowadays. If the marketing causes people to find you to whom your are the better choice, then it is good marketing ⇒ https://www.draketo.de/anderes/honest-marketing https://www.draketo.de/anderes/honest-marketing
- bipson 5y ago
  Maybe I was using too much understatement: The kind of marketing is not only "aggressive", it is overly aggressive IMHO. It is vilifying, demonizing. You can do aggressive marketing all you want, but in my eyes when arguments become hyperbolic, they get less and less believable. The way they write their piece, FLoC is the worst thing that has ever happened, worse than everything that came before (how on earth is this worse than strictly personalized cookies all over the place?!) and only DDG and their extension can save you.
chiefalchemist 5y ago
But why even try a different product if you don't know why it exists? And what makes it better? How do you communicate that? Different messages have different appeals. Perhaps DDG's marketing "secret sauce" is word of mouth? And the message you don't like - as an admitted non-user - isn't meant to drive your behavior, but the WoM behaviour of current committed users?
matsemann 5y ago
I agree. I used to think both sides were about equal. And then one side got more extreme and did really bad things to lots of people. The other side called them out. I think calling them out wasn't very nice, so they're basically twisting my hand forcing me to ~vote~ select the extreme option. Not my fault.

newbie578 5y ago

I would much rather have personalized ads than have the early 2000s ads (hot single ladies, making $100k a day, etc.). It seems to me that no matter what Google does, there will be pitchforks ready. What is so horrible about FLoC if I as the user am protected and my personal identity is kept in check, and only contained within my browser. I'll stop using Chrome when there is a better alternative.. Firefox is a downgrade in each aspect, Edge is Edge (lol) and you can put a gun to my head but I won't use Safari, I have no idea how someone can even use Safari, the UI is so unintuitive, and they tried making it so simple that it is a pain in the ass to do anything more advanced.

ArneBab 5y ago
They use your browsing history. That browsing history used to be sacrosanct: We spent years fighting to get every bug fixed through which even parts of the browsing history could be leaked. Now Google controls the browser and simply accesses the browsing history and hands a processed version of it on a silver platter to advertisement-sellers.
why_Mr_Anderson 5y ago
No. Since you mentioned 2000s, you know how revolutionary and welcomed were Google ads at that time. Text based ads all in specific positions? Give me more! It was so much better than the nightmare we had. But look at Google and web now ... it's back to square one, now with extra spying on top.

dnndev 5y ago

What about Microsoft edge?

hnbad 5y ago
In my humble opinion if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy. But Firefox is a good browser and "morally" a better choice for many reasons others have already summarized. Personally I use Edge as a developer because it's a Chromium browser (so it reflects most of my users' experience and works with a lot of tooling developed for Chrome), I already use Windows 10 and VS Code and it comes preinstalled. But I used Firefox between the initial release of Quantum and the release of the new Edge browser and while there are both benefits and drawbacks to its dev tooling, it's definitely a good browser and purely on a quality/UX level I see no reason not to use Firefox.
- gkbrk 5y ago
  > if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy If Edge was still using its own layout engine, I would agree with this. But even on Windows 10, by using Edge you not only trust Microsoft, but also help Google's takeover and control of the internet. Using Safari, Internet Explorer, Links, Firefox or Serenity Browser all help a bit by reducing the Google browser marketshare. Using Brave, Edge, Vivaldi or Opera still help, but to a much smaller degree.
- MayeulC 5y ago
  > In my humble opinion if you're using Windows 10 there's no reason not to use Edge because you're already allowing Microsoft to invade your privacy. Oh, serving them your browsing history on a silver plate isn't really the same as letting them infer it from the scraps they could get from other browsers.
why_Mr_Anderson 5y ago
The moment MS surrendered to Google and adopted Chromium was the last momment when using Edge made even slightest sense. Why choose lesser evil?

troelsSteegin 5y ago

Is there an API that allows me to see, unpack, and set my own cohort? The FloC explainer [0] suggests the basic API just returns a stable hash [0]. I am curious about the space of cohorts. Also, whether there'd be an advantage to choosing a cohort for my task, vs just being anonymous. EDIT: that would appear to be TURTLEDOVE [1] [0] https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc [1] https://github.com/WICG/turtledove https://github.com/WICG/turtledove The FloC announcement is https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/2021-01-privacy-sandbox/ https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/2021-01-privacy-sa... The whitepaper explains the approach: https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/blob/master/proposals/FLoC/FLOC-Whitepaper-Google.pdf https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/blob/master/proposals/...

mcdonje 5y ago

Must be a bad floc if a duck is telling me to stay away.

doctorhandshake 5y ago
Couldn’t decide whether to upvote or downvote. Taking the high ground with this comment.

quantumwoke 5y ago

I hate Google Chrome with a passion after years of anti-consumer and anti-privacy tactics and now exclusively use and recommend the Brave browser [0]. [0] https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yeah, looks like a straight upgrade from Google Chrome. It's got a built-in ad blocker even on mobile. There's a built-in ads platform which actually pays people for their attention and can be turned off. All it needs to compete with Firefox is browser extensions on mobile.
lensi 5y ago
Just remember, you will still be supporting the monoculture of the Chromium engine

austincheney 5y ago

One way to defeat these kinds of spyware techniques is to keep the browser permanently at a fixed address, such as localhost, and import content from other websites as necessary to a page at that fixed location. I am considering adding web scrapping to this file sharing privacy application I have written that already works in the browser. I could screen scrape content from other sites using a proxy on the terminal per user request and once piped to the browser privacy is protect by single origin policy and by a separation of content from address. I could even make the experience look like an embedded modern browser.

blfr 5y ago

Firefox is by far the superior browser for all your casual needs: browsing, reading, tweeting, banking, etc. It's good enough and fast enough but where it excels are addons. Adblocking works so much better on Firefox. It blocks even the mere shadow of ads, like "skip this ad" button on YouTube, no promoted tweets, no warnings about cookies, GDPR, ads and nonsense almost cease the exist. And Tree Style Tabs provides both ascended aesthetic and unparalleled usability. Where Chrome monits you with some annoying popup about tab groups, Tree Style Tabs brings order effortlessly. This is not a choice between a better browser that tracks you or whatever and some FLOSS alternative that sort-of works. There is a clear winner on merits and it ain't Chrome, not for this crowd, anyway.

Communitivity 5y ago

I use Firefox. So does my family. Everything I make for personal use works in Firefox and I don't bother testing with anything else. However, almost every web site or web app I make in my professional capacity gets tested with, and is expected to work with, ~95% of browsers. That means testing against Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera, UC Browser, Samsung Internet, and Internet Explorer. Edit: I forgot to add Safari, which I also test with. Anything less is not my brand of professionalism, because I am convinced my clients expect me to leave my personal thoughts and convictions at the door. If you want to only create sites that work in Firefox and maybe not elsewhere, then you can do that - but doing it ethically means telling the client upfront that you won't accept work that requires the site work for the widest audience reasonably possible. That said, there are two caveats. The first is ethics. I do not leave my ethics at the door and if I am being asked to do something unethical I will refund the money and walk. If it is illegal it will be reported, as otherwise I am an accessory. Clients agree to this upfront. The second is client requests. If the client wants it to work in Firefox and they tell me not to bother with the other websites, despite my advice against it, then that's what I do.

tngranados 5y ago
If you are leaving out Safari you are not testing on 95% of the browsers. At least market share wise, which is the only metric that makes sense.
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  You are correct, but if you don't own a Mac/iPhone, you cannot test on Safari.
  - ibdf 5y ago
    Browserstack
  - o_m 5y ago
    You can use services like Browserstack, but they are expensive and slow.

cblconfederate 5y ago

The best way to get ppl to stop using chrome is to fork it, and add new experimental functionality that doesnt exist in chrome. I don't know if it's feasible but missing features in new platforms (e.g. VR) will motivate people to switch and then it will become a self-reinforcing loop. Integrating metamask in the browser could be a game changerfor payments and identity management.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Brave browser is essentially Chrome with an integrated ad blocker. It also features rather unintrusive ads that compensate users with cryptocurrency for their attention and can always be turned off. Usage seems to be growing a lot.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  I support and promote brave, but i think they shouldn't just focus on the adblocking benefits, but they have the opportunity to bundle additional functionality that will be popular with both devs and users
itsbits 5y ago
There are lot of forks exist already. Microsoft Edge itself can be said as a fork. Although at present, Edge provides opt in on privacy options, we can't rely on MS product. Will suggest to look into another forks like Vivaldi Brave SRWare Iron I started using Brave for past couple of months and don't have much of complaints related to browsing experience.

Vaslo 5y ago

Have any of you tried Ungoogled Chromium? I found it pretty easy to setup on Windows despite being someone who gets easily confused trying to do anything command line-esque. https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium Obviously Firefox is an alternative, but i personally was turned off by recent censorship comments by Mozilla’s CEO which I won’t get into here.

Yizahi 5y ago
This is just cementing Google monopoly in browsers.
- temptemptemp111 5y ago
  That's a nonsense argument.
danaos 5y ago
I did. Compiling is the a pain in the ** though. It takes almost 24 hours, and I can't even make use of ccache.

qwerty456127 5y ago

> It groups you based on your interests and demographics, derived from your browsing history For my whole life I have always been configuring my browsers to clear all history on close or disable it entirely. Is FLoC still going to work anyway? Is the history accumulated and analyzed on the server side?

qwerty456127 5y ago

> it won't be long before people or organizations work out what FLoC IDs really mean, e.g. what interests and demographic information they are likely correlated with. Isn't this good? I would rather set my actual interests in the browser settings! I also am upfront glad to tell them to anybody interested so we might find common interests or discover something new. The only reason I would rather hide such data actually is fingerprinting.

gkbrk 5y ago
Most likely what you mean setting interests in the browser settings (general interests) and the FLoC cohorts are on much different scales. A FLoC cohort will probably contain a few thousand people, combined with any other data points will probably be enough to uniquely identify you.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  Sure, I don't advocate FLoC itself (because I don't want to be uniquely identified through fingerprinting) but I'm not sure I understand why particular FLoC cohorts actual meaning being discovered is considered bad. I actually feel like I want that to happen so I could probably tweak my cohort consciously.
  - nottorp 5y ago
    Besides the privacy implications, do you really want to only be served content that you have shown a previous interest in? Eventually this will lead to you living in an internet bubble that only ever shows you the same things. Would you be happy with that?
    - qwerty456127 5y ago
      I would prefer to be served content that I have actively declared interest in + some random content occasionally. We are already living in such bubbles by the way. At least people who consciously choose their bubbles probably tend to be more aware of that.

shoto_io 5y ago

Do you really believe it’s enough to stop using Chrome? Isn’t it rather: don’t use Google services including Android? Imagine this setup: Gmail used on mobile mail program. Surf the web with a mobile browser other than Chrome. Use Google as search engine. FLoC will still be able to make the connection. That’s what I believe at least.

snvzz 5y ago

I'm well covered on ungoogled chrome options on unix-likes. But... what is a maintained, open-source ungoogled chrome for Windows?

vorbote 5y ago
Check out https://chromium.woolys.com/ https://chromium.woolys.com/
easton 5y ago
ungoogled-chromium is the favorite if you want straight Chromium, although there is of course Brave or Vivaldi if you want additional features. https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/ https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-bina...

chumboslice 5y ago

This is disingenuous at best. Next.

ololobus 5y ago

I would rephrase it to 'Do not build websites that work 100% fine and fast only in Google Chrome'. Unfortunately, this is the case and most of users just choose the most convenient tool, while trading their privacy.

Causality1 5y ago

I try to sell friends and family on resisting Google's privacy invasions but lately it always goes the same way. "Yeah I know they know everything. How does that hurt me, like how does that cause me a problem in a real way that makes my life worse?" And I can't come up with a good answer for that.

lovemenot 5y ago
Substitute Google with the Chinese Communist Party and most Chinese people right now have the same attitude as your friends. How would those friends feel about Chinese people being able to gain their information independence from CCP? If they would be in favour, then at least metaphorically they answered their own question.
- csemaan 5y ago
  If one honestly and genuinely believe Chinese people can get their news only from the CCP, one needs to consider fighting to gain his/her own information independence.
  - lovemenot 5y ago
    Yes, one does. Those who do fight to gain his/her own information independence including - as of now - a small minority of people in China with both the will and technical/political resources, should be well rewarded in doing so. It seems we may both be in favour of access to information independence. Wherever needed. The more the better.
- Causality1 5y ago
  It's not something they care about at all. As long as the prices in Walmart didn't go up, about 90% of the people I know wouldn't care or even notice if China sank under the ocean. Trying to get people who've already accepted the US government spying on them to care about Google spying on them feels impossible.

indigochill 5y ago

I generally am on the pro-Firefox, anti-Chrome train, but there is one practical exception: websites that make use of in-browser audio synthesis often (in my experience) just don't work in Firefox. Audible Genius's Building Blocks course has a in-browser DAW that you need to use Chrome for. Flowkey (browser-based piano lessons) also only works in Chrome, as far as I've been able to figure out. So to anyone with an inclination, Firefox could use help on that front. Or if someone already knows of a Firefox-based solution, I'd be happy to use it. I just haven't found one yet.

tziki 5y ago
For better or worse, Chrome is still the browser to beat when it comes to newest browser APIs. My hobby project is an app that utilizes some of them and more than once I've found myself considering dropping support for other browsers. In principle I love Firefox but at the same time I'll have to wait at least a few months to start using the same APIs.
rplnt 5y ago
I mean, youtube doesn't work in firefox well. I can't count the number of times I had to restart the browser to play a youtube video. Google reveals it's not an uncommon issue on OSX. While I hated Chrome from the day one, I recommend it to people...
- gcthomas 5y ago
  I watch YouTube exclusively on Firefox and never have a problem (I especially like FF's pop-out video window thing.)
nsajko 5y ago
FTR here's my deal breaker with Firefox: Just tried using it and was pleasantly surprised that it mostly worked fine with DWM (an X11 window manager), and it could play sound from my built-in sound card fine, even though I don't have pulseaudio. However, once I switched to the external sound card, Firefox wasn't able to produce any sound (tried Youtube and some local videos); so I'll be staying with Chromium, unless some patched version of Chromium (with privacy improvements) makes its way to the Archlinux repos.

ribfeast 5y ago

Multiple profiles have never been well implemented in any other browser. It's the only feature keeping me on Chrome.

Natfan 5y ago
Multi Account Containers in Firefox[0][1] works really well for me. I have tabs for administrative work accounts and personal work accounts, along with restricting anything from Facebook into it's own container[2]. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account... [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers [2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-container https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...
approxim8ion 5y ago
I actually love how multiple profiles are implemented in Firefox. I have a keybinding on my system to launch "firefox -P" so that I can pick which profile to launch an instance of right away. I juggle between 5 different profiles at any time and it works exactly as I'd like it to. Additionally, it is much easier to do than setting up a complex multi-account container setup.

qwertox 5y ago

Assuming my friend has a webpage and wants me to take look at it, or he is offering a webshop and knows my IP, or my notable User Agent. Or that I have an ATI FireGL graphics card installed, which is something which JS can query. He just asks me to visit a server he controls. Will he now be able to query a list of properties of my personality? Interested in space, in biking, according to my Google Ad Settings also in Fujian, for whichever reason that is unknown to me?

bombcar 5y ago
Reminds me of figuring out where a friend was by posting an image link to my server and watching the IP access logs.

imagine4asec 5y ago

You literally will get banned if you changed the words "Google Chrome" with "Apple". Not sure if Apple Astroturfs or if god mods, but it's incredible to see the difference. Has google been caught using slaves?

csemaan 5y ago

I have (mild) worries about privacy from all over the tech spectrum in our day and age, and I can understand people having these worries about big tech such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Mastercard, Walmart, but the list must spread all over the space of tech, devtech, socialtech, fintech, edutech, insurancetech, govtech, medtech, citytech, and whathaveyoutech. The problem is not constrained to Google Chrome, and the problem is certainly not solved by "taking side" in a made-up rivalry of Google Search and Duck Duck Go (childish to say the least)!

csemaan 5y ago
And I forgot very important gamingtech, and IoTtech ;-) What I am getting at is that there is a paradigm shift in privacy consideration and expectations in the last two decades (on top of another shift the previous 2 or 3 decades). We are living in a different age. The combat I read about in HN comments seems that of a rearguard... no offense.

throwaway189262 5y ago

They need to ban user tracking already. The advertising industry was fine for thousands of years without it. Instead of tracking users, you put ads in places your audience likes. Google and the other ad networks don't like this, because if you're choosing the sites you want ads on, there's no reason to use them as a middle-man Yeah, it's less profitable. But it's been proven to work since like 7000BC and it gets rid of all the privacy problems. All the invasive FBI style user tracking only existed for ~20 years. A mote in the history of advertising. Anybody who tells you online advertising won't work without it is a liar. On the plus side, maybe now people will see Chrome for what it really is. A vehicle and a weapon for Google to protect its shady business model. Just like Android.

s2th4d 5y ago

Interestingly enough, I knew that I had the DuckDuckGo Extension already. But then when I checked for it in my icon list of extensions, it wasn't there... Went to the Google Chrome Web Extension Store, it said that I had this extension and it was Disabled!!! I don't remember disabling it myself... maybe I did, or was it Google? I did re-enable it though. Start your conspiracy theories...

carlhjerpe 5y ago

Honestly, I'm grateful for Google implementing this. This means 3rd party cookies go bye bye and since It's Chrome everyone will rewrite their service to work w/o 3rd party cookies. Now i just have to block FLoC and sites will keep working for me. I might be ego, but i really couldn't give two shits about "the majority". I care about if I (and people in my close surroundings) can stay private or not.

ChrisArchitect 5y ago

Earlier post/discussion on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809688

bsean95531 5y ago

I don't like I won't use

blacklight 5y ago

If you care about your privacy, just don't use Chrome. No matter how many extensions you add to keep trackers at bay, you're still using a product developed by a company that will keep pouring money into developing new ways to circumvent ads and tracking blockers. The reason why Google can bully the web and get away with it is its market share. It's time to change that.