Acceptable Ads is bullshit on many levels:

• It’s made by an ad company
• The same ad company runs multiple popular ad blockers (including AdBlock Plus)
• There are no standards on privacy invasion

uBlock Origin, or at least uBlock Origin Lite on Chromium-like browsers, are must-haves.

The best browser you can set up for a family member, IMO, is Firefox. Disable Telemetry (which should rid them of Mozilla’s own ad scheme too), install uBlock Origin, remind them to never call or trust any other tech support people who reach out to them, and maybe walk them through some scam baiting videos.

I’m still evaluating which Chrome-likes are best at actual ad blocking, and the landscape is grim.

…For now. Looks like they’re going to get rid of it too (which makes sense, because they copy Chromium’s codebase).

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-chromium/developer-guide/manifest-v3

I think that’s the point: Google has been shutting down Manifest V2 extensions one step at a time, and it’s been experimenting with anti-ad-block tech on YouTube with one user group at a time.

disingeneous to call it adding ads

Who called it adding

With all due respect, Mozilla is now (and, for a while, has been) an ad company. When an ad company tells you ads are necessary, you should not trust them. Plenty of lousy things have been entrenched as social norms, but it is the job of the entrenchers to justify their existence… Which Mozilla is definitely not doing here.

Brave can keep the old APIs but they’ll still be affected, because developers for Chromium-compatible browsers still have to decide whether they want to create or support apps that will only work in a subset of browsers, and figure out how to distribute them outside the Chromium store.

Corrupt politicians can simply ignore the law. If they didn’t ignore it, they wouldn’t be very corrupt.

Telegram hasn’t been secure since basically day 1. IIRC it went something like

Security experts: Never roll your own cryptography.
Telegram: We rolled our own cryptography!
Security experts: Don’t. And it’s broken.
Telegram: uhhhh… We fixed it.
Security experts: It still looks really bad. Stop it.
Telegram: says nothing

I want Mozilla to make a browser that preserves privacy. They keep making it worse. And I don’t see how giving them money is helping them improve.

And my comment won’t cost them any money either, as @Matt@lemdro.id pointed out:

Plus donations to Mozilla cannot even be used for Firefox development due to the structure of the foundation and corporation.

I don’t think Mozilla should be deprived of money, and Firefox (or a lightly modified fork like Librewolf) is and probably always will be my default browser… But they’re getting plenty of money from elsewhere, so they probably don’t need ours.

I would encourage people to withhold donations from Mozilla. They have plenty of money rolling in, and in the past year they used it to overpay their CEO disproportionately, and to buy an AdTech company with private data that they sell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#Negative_salary-performance_correlation

https://www.fakespot.com/privacy-policy (search “personal information is sold”)

Update: Apple’s role in adding extra location data to your request has been added to this post

Apple and a couple other providers have been experimenting with a multi-hop system of making your connections private.

Here’s what Cloudflare says.

Here’s what a competitor, Invisiv, says.

Both pages are pretty hard to parse (IMO Cloudflare uses more jargony language: “ingress”/“egress server” - really?) but they get to the same point.

Your data takes a path like this

1. Your computer, your IP address, your message to a destination gets encrypted in a couple layers and passed on.
2. Your ISP knows exactly who you are and that you’re reaching out to server 1. They can’t see your data but to them, you’re using a VPN probably.
3. The first server also necessarily knows who you are, unpacks one layer of your request and sends it on to a second server (in Invisiv’s case, Fastly; in Apple’s, Cloudflare).
4. The second server now knows that data was requested from the first server, and it can see the name of the domain you’re requesting (YouTube, for example) but because the request came from the first server, it theoretically won’t know it’s you making that request
5. The data moves on from the second server to the destination, with the destination only knowing it’s receiving data from the second server, and not knowing about the first server.

The obvious issues here:

• Do you trust the people providing the multi-hop VPN-like service?
• Do you trust the two servers, which have necessarily entered into an agreement of some sort, to not collaborate regarding transmitting data?
• How easy is it to audit the code we can see?
• What else is going on with your data?

In the case of Apple/Cloudflare, reputation is rather poor. From PRISM to false advertising to notification telemetry, Apple hasn’t exactly delivered on their promise. In terms of Invisiv, the company has some big names on board but Fastly and Cloudflare both have a rather significant grip on the internet (with Cloudflare’s being bigger) but any CDN gets a good view into personal data most of the time.

Update: in the case of Cloudflare/Apple, Apple adds additional location data to your request, making its “private” relay leak approximate location data the same way your IP address could leak it. To wit:

Apple relays geolocate user IP addresses and translate them into a “geohash”. Geohashes are compact representations of latitude and longitude.

But on the bright side: a VPN has far more issues than either of these, as it’s basically #4 above except the same service also has your identity by necessity. An untrustworthy VPN is as harmful as an untrustworthy ISP, with very little separating them.