3 ms·

I think bifrost's answer was better, "because its hard." It was not worth the effort for people to make tor friendly websites before, I am hoping that now that

by dfc 13y ago

I think bifrost's answer was better, "because its hard." It was not worth the effort for people to make tor friendly websites before, I am hoping that now that the cpunks have been vindicated more developers will take the time to make sites that are privacy friendly.

DanBC 13y ago
I'd be amazed if more than a tiny handful of people close their facebook accounts or move away from Google or install (and use) PGP / GPG. FB has had privacy complaints for years and it did nothing at all to prevent people signing up in droves. The number of people not using FB because of privacy is tiny. To imagine that website owners will make privacy friendly sites is, and I say this as politely as I can, nuts. Look at the god-awful mess they make with accessible sites (legally required for many sites) or gracefully degrading sites (best current practice) or mobile sites (a huge user base, where not serving them affects sales or repeat visits). Most of these sites need advertising. Thus they usually need your information. Have any of the sites expressing outrage at spying done anything to reduce the amount of tracking that they use? I'll make you a bet: If by 2013-12-25 there are more mainstream sites offering 'privacy portals' or tor-friendly options or the equivalent I'll pay $20[1] to the EFF. [1] I'm poor! And a skinflint!
- dfc 13y ago
  Lets make this fun. First we need to do some housekeeping. Define what me winning will look like. AKA define what "more" means? Can we agree that hidden services like DDG's hidden service count? I have no problem setting the bar fairly high for what sites count. As far as I am concerned billybobsblog.com does not count. Second, if I "win the bet" this equally poor person will donate an additional $20 to the eff.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Excellent! I'm pretty flexible about what counts as winning. If DDG's recent upswing is maintained I guess that counts as a win. If some other mainstream sites announce privacy services I guess that counts as a win too.

by dfc 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

I'd be amazed if more than a tiny handful of people close their facebook accounts or move away from Google or install (and use) PGP / GPG. FB has had privacy complaints for years and it did nothing at all to prevent people signing up in droves. The number of people not using FB because of privacy is tiny. To imagine that website owners will make privacy friendly sites is, and I say this as politely as I can, nuts. Look at the god-awful mess they make with accessible sites (legally required for many sites) or gracefully degrading sites (best current practice) or mobile sites (a huge user base, where not serving them affects sales or repeat visits). Most of these sites need advertising. Thus they usually need your information. Have any of the sites expressing outrage at spying done anything to reduce the amount of tracking that they use? I'll make you a bet: If by 2013-12-25 there are more mainstream sites offering 'privacy portals' or tor-friendly options or the equivalent I'll pay $20[1] to the EFF. [1] I'm poor! And a skinflint!

dfc 13y ago
Lets make this fun. First we need to do some housekeeping. Define what me winning will look like. AKA define what "more" means? Can we agree that hidden services like DDG's hidden service count? I have no problem setting the bar fairly high for what sites count. As far as I am concerned billybobsblog.com does not count. Second, if I "win the bet" this equally poor person will donate an additional $20 to the eff.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Excellent! I'm pretty flexible about what counts as winning. If DDG's recent upswing is maintained I guess that counts as a win. If some other mainstream sites announce privacy services I guess that counts as a win too.