>>17794 Muh fingerprint is a meme. Basically everyone has a unique fingerprint, that's the point of fingerprinting. The important thing is to make sure that your fingerprint can't be used to track your usage across time or domains. There's extensions you can use to randomize your fingerprint so it can't be tracked. You don't want to randomize it for every request because then you actually will stand out, but if you set it to be different for each site but persistent per site and change every 24 hours, your fingerprint can't be used to link your usage from one site to another or on one site from day to day.

>>18619 Thats a great idea actually anon, can you list the plugins for mullvad that do this?

I'm on Floorp and it's nice, but since I started browser hopping this year I've come to realize that don't think I want to be on an ESR based browser anymore purely for performance reasons. Hopefully v12 ships soon which switches to rapid release, if not I might actually sit down and spend time figuring out how to unschizo LibreWolf enough

>>18619 You have no idea what you're talking about. >>18620 >Thats a great idea actually anon It's a terrible idea. Actually read up on fingerprinting before you try random ignorant nonsense. >can you list the plugins for mullvad that do this? Doing that would get rid of the entire point of Mullvad Browser.

>>18383 Because if that page/site goes down, your link is useless.

>>18360 What are you even saying?

>>18637 Don't use this garbage. Mullvad Browser is better in every way. And if that's not for you, just use Firefox with Arkenfox's user.js.

>>18740 Do you care to post an argument for this opinion?

>>17789 (OP) I'm using firefox, mostly because it's my smartphone browser of choice. I know it won't be around for much longer since google will have to cut their funding. I'll probably move to the least retarded chromium based alternative.

>>18138 been using it for many years exclusively. It's great for me as it just works, has all the features I need and good synch across devices

>>18877 NTA but the answer is that you can't "randomize" your fingerprint. The browser fingerprint is a function of how pages are downloaded and rendered. If you actually wanted to randomize it, you'd get unreadable fonts with random screen resolutions. Also change your browser & OS randomly because network stacks are also fingerprintable. So you can only modify values that aren't hardcoded and do not affect rendering, which affects a very limited number of bits in your fingerprint. As soon as your adversary tries to fuzzy match on it you're fucked.

>>18877 See >>17824

>>17789 (OP) Chromium for shitppsting and Firefox for work stuff

>>17789 (OP) Safari + Ghostery. It does one thing and does it well. No recommended news articles, studies, cryptofaggot integration, third-party shit, or engine made by an ad company.

Has anyone tried Falkon? How does it compare with something like Ungoogled Chromium?

>>17789 (OP) I ve been using Brave for years and i like it a lot, but Still, it s probably jewed as fuck and i don't know about it because i am not autistic enough. Works well out of the box for stopping pop ups and ads without an addblock tough. It s like using chrome, otherwise.

What's stopping me from just using one of those popular hardening user.js configurations on vanilla Firefox over just using LibreWolf or whatever?

>>17817 >install Zen >it opens a "huuur we're so awesome look all the shit we can do" tutorial of sorts (I don't give a shit) >comes with pre-pinned tabs >that is Plebbit and Twatter >the landing page is fucking Discord >smooth (aka gay) scrolling everywhere >compact mode is too compact (it should keep favicons in view) >is just a reskinned Trannyfox anyway Off to a bad start.

>>17898 Brave's side-panel isn't snappy enough nor is it wide enough. Otherwise it's pretty gud.

>>18138 Jack of all trades, master of none.

>>22084 >Safari + Ghostery Ghostery used to have their own fork of Firefox.

>>22346 Nothing. And that's what you should do. https://github.com/yokoffing/Betterfox

>>17796 True. Brave is shitty but it's the only one that i can still use my job tools on. Tried LibreWolf, it was great but couldn't do anything webbloated.

>>22381 Braves privacy is dubious at best though, I can't trust it especially after its shill campaign

>>22367 That won't protect you from their modified ToS though

>>22386 They modified their modified ToS to calm people down.

>>22382 >after its shill campaign I must have missed it. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I've witnessed more people shitting on Brave for dubious reasons* than I've seen people praising it. >*muh crypto bad REEEEEEE get that shit outta my face! When it's an opt-in only option. I suspect a bunch of Firetranny zealots are behind most criticisms. I wonder how they feel right now.

>>22447 Well it's not as good for privacy as something like furrywolf or mullbased and when it released basically every second post was about brave, kind of like how oleds are treated now

>>22346 >>22367 Don't use Betterfox. There's no reason to use it over Arkenfox, which is what it's based on in the first place. >>22451 LibreWolf isn't really that great for privacy.

Edge, but using a custom hosts file, uBlock Origin, and disabling JavaScript.

>>22910 >chrome with extra steps I see...

>>22910 >proprietary Absolutely not. Don't get me wrong, not everything has to be free software, but a web browser is very personal, it'd be insane to run it every day without having any access to the source code.

>>22914 very true >>22516 >LibreWolf isn't really that great for privacy. please elaborate. I've heard arkenfox.js is slightly better but a lot fiddlier to set up. Were you referring to the fact (I'm not sure how true it is) that anti-fingerprinting measures tend to create fingerprints themselves, only anonymizing you inside the relatively small pool of heavily privacy-oriented internet users? fwiw, I use librewolf and I like it ok. it's not perfect but I like not having to think about disabling html5 canvas or webRTC. if I do any browsing I really don't want anyone to see (like posting here) I use the Tor browser.

>>22923 >Were you referring to the fact (I'm not sure how true it is) that anti-fingerprinting measures tend to create fingerprints themselves, only anonymizing you inside the relatively small pool of heavily privacy-oriented internet users? Well, all the privacy-oriented users need to be using the same browser (with no customization) so they have the same fingerprint, otherwise, the privacy protections become unless since you'll stand out even more than the average Internet user. Using anything other than Mullvad browser (with a no-log VPN) or Tor Browser is a waste of time, in my opinion.

>>22914 >Don't get me wrong, not everything has to be free software Anything not open-source should be treated as compromised because it's impossible to prove that it isn't.