They aren’t say anything crazy in that post. But I already know that the sheep mentality and hypocrisy of the “community” only accepts the existence of the crappy Mozilla’s browser, which stays afloat precisely thanks to the biggest ad company in the world.
In terms of vibes, firefox and brave give off the same queezy “we care about your privicy” half trueth. Read as uncharitably as possable, mozilla gives off a neglectful abusive father vibe where brave has a potential crypto scammer vibe. Being so jumpy about software as I am, following KISS and appearing to have less unknown background machinery is comforting. (caugh I hate “safe browsing” caugh) Firefox probably in reality fails to be properly privacy focused but sells the illusion effectively, and thats a bad thing.
Also defaults are powerful and now
switching costs are high for me.
Well, actually FF defaults aren’t that great for privacy. Later on, crypto stuff is disabled by default on Brave, so it’s not like they are stealing your wallet… Agreed on the safe browsing stuff, which I think it’s on by default for both and it’s something I’d prefer not to have in my browser.
seven_phone@lemmy.world
on 21 Feb 08:59
nextcollapse
Seems like they are making a big deal out of nothing. This isn’t one of those instances where a false sense of security is being presented. If whatever tool that the user is using to test their ad blocking capabilities isn’t adequate. They will very quickly figure that out when they still get ads. How does any of this result in “Doing more harm than good”?
if the testing sites are indeed doing it then they are likely more efficient about it, trying to make money from selling the data they gather. Worst thing about them is they are completely unnecessary and pointless even if they were trying to help users with blockers. There is no point in testing your adblocker, just go to the sites you usually go and if you see ads then it doesnt work properly.
Who uses an adblocking testing site rather than just the sites they want to block ads on?
Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 21 Feb 17:47
collapse
Me when I develop something or test something with another ones tool or want a quick comparison: I don’t want to use something in production for a while just to see if the basics are met.
Those sites give me the opportunity to bomb me with all kinds of scenarios and I check what’s working for me and where not.
It’s not about a few sites that I could quickly check but about patterns.
threaded - newest
Surprise, the company that has shady adblocking practices doesn’t want you to use a tool to compare ad blockers…
They aren’t say anything crazy in that post. But I already know that the sheep mentality and hypocrisy of the “community” only accepts the existence of the crappy Mozilla’s browser, which stays afloat precisely thanks to the biggest ad company in the world.
In terms of vibes, firefox and brave give off the same queezy “we care about your privicy” half trueth. Read as uncharitably as possable, mozilla gives off a neglectful abusive father vibe where brave has a potential crypto scammer vibe. Being so jumpy about software as I am, following KISS and appearing to have less unknown background machinery is comforting. (caugh I hate “safe browsing” caugh) Firefox probably in reality fails to be properly privacy focused but sells the illusion effectively, and thats a bad thing. Also defaults are powerful and now switching costs are high for me.
Well, actually FF defaults aren’t that great for privacy. Later on, crypto stuff is disabled by default on Brave, so it’s not like they are stealing your wallet… Agreed on the safe browsing stuff, which I think it’s on by default for both and it’s something I’d prefer not to have in my browser.
The colour scheme looks quite painful.
Seems like they are making a big deal out of nothing. This isn’t one of those instances where a false sense of security is being presented. If whatever tool that the user is using to test their ad blocking capabilities isn’t adequate. They will very quickly figure that out when they still get ads. How does any of this result in “Doing more harm than good”?
if those sites are gathering information about adblockers to find ways to make them not work, they are harmful.
Don’t most advertising sites already do that?
I always assumed that they did.
if the testing sites are indeed doing it then they are likely more efficient about it, trying to make money from selling the data they gather. Worst thing about them is they are completely unnecessary and pointless even if they were trying to help users with blockers. There is no point in testing your adblocker, just go to the sites you usually go and if you see ads then it doesnt work properly.
Who uses an adblocking testing site rather than just the sites they want to block ads on?
Me when I develop something or test something with another ones tool or want a quick comparison: I don’t want to use something in production for a while just to see if the basics are met.
Those sites give me the opportunity to bomb me with all kinds of scenarios and I check what’s working for me and where not.
It’s not about a few sites that I could quickly check but about patterns.