All I was saying is it isn’t ready for use as a browser, it states on the github that it is in pre-alpha. It doesn’t have the threat model goal of protecting fingerprintable metrics. Using this over security and privacy hardened firefox, even in the future once all the web standards are supported, will worsen your privacy. There needs to be intentional development of anti-fingerprinting measures.

I like choice, this isn’t ready and OP should have added more context then just a title and a github. This is not a privacy browser, this is a tech demo.

But it is when you call others stupid for having the belief in a god.

Echo chamber in like a theoretical sense? It looks dead silent, even dead, to me. I should mention I think its a good thing. Maybe my instance defederated at some point and I’m “missing out” on all the fun hate speech? /s

Well if I take things seriously, I always knew that the soldier grabbing the coffee from the women was rude. I think it is better to ask forgiveness and feed the poor hungy sewerman than honor social norm and let him die of caffeine withdraw.

Yes, by educating I mostly mean word of mouth. But also sharing of user friendly guides like PrivacyGuides. An alternative browser can only disrupt Google’s control on the web by gaining significant market share, which requires convincing and converting users to the better software alternatives to Chromium. We must educate because we are the tech educated minority, and we require the assistance of the majority to oppose googles unilateral control. I think Gecko is a better option to put development time behind (or better yet Servo), or abandoning many of the privacy invasive web standards and creating a new internet (which of course would never see wide use).

TLDR: We need the majority to be more educated about tech or things will keep getting worse regardless of a new browser engine or anything else.

My point exactly. It isn’t ready and OP gave no context for why this relates to privacy. Better suited for the open source community on Lemmy.

This is true. I agree that developers should use more inclusive language in their documentation. I mostly just thought people saw the other post already.

“Singular they” has been common in english since somewhere in the 1300s. Idk how it is confusing, and even if it is, do those individual’s opinion outweigh like grammar? If people are confused they can learn, lest they be confused forever. “They” in this instance would be replacing “he”, so I think the benefit is clear. Or avoid ambiguity by just saying “the developer” (cus I think it was Dev documentation iirc).

Edit:
Maybe it was referring to the browser itself? Therefore “it” would make things much less confusing.

I was only commenting that this post has been posted already twice, once in a closely related community. I have already had to argue with people supporting the Dev’s choice to be bigoted. I will just scroll past, just not excited to see more transphobes crawl out of the woodwork.

It think the discussion of this issue has been thoroughly explored in your other post on the “free and open source” community. People know about this now. Is there anything else to cover? All that will be talked about is either “wow, that was an overreaction from the Dev, they seem close-minded” or “you should separate the tech from the developer” or people (bigots) just saying they think he made the right choice.

The discussion is stale.

The only reason Firefox still has any market share is probably because it is old enough. I highly doubt this browser will ever stop google forcing a new web standard. We need to educate the general users to make better tech decisions if we want change. We can stay hopeful about this engine. Still would have liked it if servo was getting more development.

It seems more nuanced than that. Reading over the pull request I saw that brought up, but the “they” was referring to a developer receiving a feedback from the application in some way.

Firefox and chromium are open source. You can just remove mozilla and google telemetry during compile, or disable in the settings.

Fingerprint is 100% still useful even with telemetry. This is not a privacy browser and is still in early stages, volatile and easy to fingerprint (not even counting it is a different web engine and so has an even smaller userbase than Firefox). Also, a content blocker is good for cyber security, so regardless of fingerprinting, this is not ready for privacy-conscious people.

I made my original comment to add context about why this browser shouldnt be used if you care about privacy. If OP had said “this is a promising new independent player in the browser world, look forward to seeing what they do in the future when its more stable” I wouldnt have said anything.

Lol, but also JS being volatile in the current browser makes it easier to fingerprint.

It is just disappointing. But people forget that there are many FOSS projects that we widely use where the developers have shitty ignorant opinions. Maybe peoples uproar is directly related to the refusal to merge a simple grammar change, which seems very anti-open source. Or maybe that the Dev has a code of conduct that speaks about inclusivity which they weaponized to justify not merging, as to be “politically-inclusive” (aka some people dont believe that “they” can be used for one person lmao). It just feels like they are choosing a weird hill to die on and also being a hypocrite by being so intentional obtuse, and of course the devs abrasive and accusatory method of responding on multiple occasions.

I think it is harder to separate the Dev from their creation when it relates to open source. It really is a passion of the heart a lot of the time. But that doesn’t make the tech any less interesting.

That doesn’t make it private. Privacy on the modern web requires anti-fingerprinting, otherwise any website with tracking scripts can easily start creating a shadow profile for you.

Edit:
What I mean is it isn’t a browser anyone who cares about their privacy should use (yet or every depending on development). Not close to ready yet. OP didnt put any context either for why they posted it.

Is this browser private? Does it implement proper sandboxing and have any methods of anti-fingerprinting? I hope it eventually see the implementation of a robust content blocker. What makes this related to privacy and not instead just open source. While it is nice to see an independent web engine, if there is no method of anti-fingerprinting, the privacy of this browser is severely limited.

Here is my explanation:

Situation: User asks for gender inclusive language reasoning not everyone is male. Dev responds saying that the user is trying to advertise their personal politics in the project pull-request, suggesting that by personal politics they mean “inclusive pronouns”.

Reason it is transphobic: Note the Dev does not mention cis women, they dont mention women at all (but it isn’t like women are accused of pushing an agenda related to inclusive language). It is heavily implied to be trans people because of the dogwhistle language. Trans people are the main targets who are accused by others of pushing an agenda when it relates to personal pronouns. At the very least it is male-centric, which apparently from the context of the PR was making some contributors uncomfortable. If the Dev had said, “I got other more important stuff to do, someone edit the text and request a merge”, no one would be talking about it. It was his immediate 0 to 100 response accusing the user of pushing a political agenda. They dont need to say the words “I am transphobic” to say something transphobic.

Another app with mentioning, Simple Time Tracker

Gladly