3 ms·

There's just too many defense mechanisms on popular websites that would simply make Ladybird flagged as a bot and render the website unusable. I wouldn't mind a

by diath 8mo ago

There's just too many defense mechanisms on popular websites that would simply make Ladybird flagged as a bot and render the website unusable. I wouldn't mind a toggle to switch between this and normal behavior but having that as a default would be bad for wider adoption.

drnick1 8mo ago
If those "popular websites" are the likes of Facebook and Instagram, I don't see that as a big loss. That being said, I find that most of the Web works just fine on Tor, so it's certainly possible. Most of the issues seem related to the (known) the exit IP being overused or identified as Tor.
- diath 8mo ago
  > If those "popular websites" are the likes of Facebook and Instagram, I don't see that as a big loss. Personally I wouldn't mind either but my point is that they probably want to cater to the average person, and not just security conscious tech savvy people, and if that's the case, then you really can't exclude FB/IG/YT and others from working properly in your browser.
  - roughly 8mo ago
    > they probably want to cater to the average person, and not just security conscious tech savvy people Why? The average person is well served by large existing players, whereas security conscious tech people are extremely underserved and often actually willing to pay.
    - ulyssys 8mo ago
      Specific numbers aside, one possible reason is they want to increase adoption to gain user volume, in order to have an effect on the larger ecosystem. Once you have non-trivial network effects, you could continue to influence the ecosystem (see: MSIE, Firefox in its early days, and Google Chrome). There are probably multiple paths to this. This is one.
      - roughly 8mo ago
        Influence isn’t all about the raw numbers - if yours is the browser of choice for developers, that’s going to give you a stronger voice than just being the fourth best browser. Think about Twitter - by all accounts, Twitter’s user numbers were dwarfed by the other networks, but they punched way above their weight because the entire political policy making and reporting apparatus was on there.
  - drnick1 8mo ago
    Firefox tries to position itself as that secure and private alternative, but this is mostly marketing. For a long time, Chromium had better site isolation, and the default Firefox settings are permissive when it comes to fingerprinting. Out of the box, it seems that Brave wins here, but for now using Brave means accepting a lot of extra commercial stuff that should not be in a browser in the first place (and that increases the attack surface). I have been using the Arkenfox user.js for Firefox, but it's unclear how much good it does or if it isn't counterproductive (by making the the user stand out).
- xmcp123 8mo ago
  Most of the web works with Tor, but to make tor successful at the things it is intended to do you have to disable JavaScript. This kills the internet.
bluGill 8mo ago
Only if there is not widespread adoption.

by diath 8mo ago

drnick1 8mo ago

If those "popular websites" are the likes of Facebook and Instagram, I don't see that as a big loss. That being said, I find that most of the Web works just fine on Tor, so it's certainly possible. Most of the issues seem related to the (known) the exit IP being overused or identified as Tor.

diath 8mo ago
> If those "popular websites" are the likes of Facebook and Instagram, I don't see that as a big loss. Personally I wouldn't mind either but my point is that they probably want to cater to the average person, and not just security conscious tech savvy people, and if that's the case, then you really can't exclude FB/IG/YT and others from working properly in your browser.
- roughly 8mo ago
  > they probably want to cater to the average person, and not just security conscious tech savvy people Why? The average person is well served by large existing players, whereas security conscious tech people are extremely underserved and often actually willing to pay.
  - ulyssys 8mo ago
    Specific numbers aside, one possible reason is they want to increase adoption to gain user volume, in order to have an effect on the larger ecosystem. Once you have non-trivial network effects, you could continue to influence the ecosystem (see: MSIE, Firefox in its early days, and Google Chrome). There are probably multiple paths to this. This is one.
    - roughly 8mo ago
      Influence isn’t all about the raw numbers - if yours is the browser of choice for developers, that’s going to give you a stronger voice than just being the fourth best browser. Think about Twitter - by all accounts, Twitter’s user numbers were dwarfed by the other networks, but they punched way above their weight because the entire political policy making and reporting apparatus was on there.
- drnick1 8mo ago
  Firefox tries to position itself as that secure and private alternative, but this is mostly marketing. For a long time, Chromium had better site isolation, and the default Firefox settings are permissive when it comes to fingerprinting. Out of the box, it seems that Brave wins here, but for now using Brave means accepting a lot of extra commercial stuff that should not be in a browser in the first place (and that increases the attack surface). I have been using the Arkenfox user.js for Firefox, but it's unclear how much good it does or if it isn't counterproductive (by making the the user stand out).
xmcp123 8mo ago
Most of the web works with Tor, but to make tor successful at the things it is intended to do you have to disable JavaScript. This kills the internet.

bluGill 8mo ago

Only if there is not widespread adoption.