this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
139 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

84143 readers
2302 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 36 points 2 days ago (3 children)

More generic and therefore worse for fingerprinting. Though that’s only because it’s built in and standardized.

[–] 5gruel@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

what does that even mean? what aspect is more generic that could be used for fingerprinting?

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

fingerprinting can be based on detecting what resources are blocked, and sometimes also how are they blocked. but blocking will become the baseline, so nefarious companies will have less of chance to tell the difference

[–] 5gruel@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

thanks for the explanation. I misunderstood the statement. makes more sense that it makes fingerprinting harder.

[–] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Every Firefox will have this. Every Firefox doesn't have uBlock

A better way to phrase it is "Not every Firefox install has uBlock".

The way you worded it suggests to native English speakers that Firefox and uBlock are mutually exclusive, which isn't the caze

[–] Corvidae@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is there any value in redundancy?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

no, but no harm either. they use the same lists so one of them will just be doing nothing whenever the other removes something.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

no, but no harm either

Some harm, but (somewhat) minor. Installing addons for Firefox makes you more susceptible to browser fingerprinting due to fewer people having the same setup. It's harder to fingerprint your browser if you're just running defaults

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If it's shipping by default, it's better for preventing fingerprinting. If it's default on the browser, that's one less indentifying detail

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This one took me a second. You’re not the one fingerprinting, other people are. It’s worse for the fingerprinters, better for you. “Worse for fingerprinting” means it’s more difficult to use as a fingerprint

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

So we're saying the same thing? That makes way more sense