23h ago

LibreWolf's defaults are too strict and slow down adoption

I believe LibreWolf's defaults are too strict and slow down adoption. Most options are either : all or nothing. No in-between.

Sadly, I believe the default settings are too strict and will slow down adoption by the mass, which would in term bring a better anonymity set.

It's not a great alternative to Firefox because LibreWolf is just not usable for the daily user: no DRM, no cookies, no history, websites that break... The browser should let the user choose:

Maximum compatibility (more tracking)
Mid-option (like a modded firefox but without the annoyances like cookies not being stored, having a fixed size, or forced light-mode/timezone)
Best privacy (pretty much the current mode)

I find myself forced to edit the default settings which is a huge privacy/fingerprinting risk. If we create 'settings groups', yes, the privacy will be hurt, but at least we will be more in each group.

What do you think about this?

You're viewing a single thread.

27 comments

You know... Firefox is also still there.
- I know, but it has tracking and data collection by default. Having a Firefox fork without that by default could be good
  
  Does it really?
  So far all the freakout has been due to changes to its terms of service. There's been no changes to the codebase that add any data collection.
  
  I’m not talking about the ToS thing. Firefox has been gradually collecting data, mainly telemetry, in a pseudo anonymous way or saying they are fully anonymous, but without providing any way to disable it easily. The provided opt-out check doesn’t remove all the telemetry checks, like the different pings being sent occasionally, telling them which version of Firefox you're using for their analytics and usage stats.
  The more Firefox grows, the more data they collect. It’s been like that for quite some time. Mozilla is a fake non-profit, higher-ups get paid a shit ton, and almost all their income comes from Google being the default search engine.

27 comments