A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 24 users / day
- 109 users / week
- 157 users / month
- 324 users / 6 months
- 14 subscribers
- 2.02K Posts
- 9.18K Comments
Firefox has site isolation since a good while now, these are GrapheneOS community lies that Bromite has exclusive rights over it. These lies can be traced back to madaidan, and were debunked long ago: https://old.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/i80uki/_/g162g4r/?context=3
Firefox has Tor Project features like First Party Isolation and anti fingerprinting which is unmatched by any Google Chrome or Blink/WebKit variants. Therefore, for site isolation, one must choose Firefox. Bromite and Google Chrome have lots of issues like WebRTC leaks.
Firefox doesn’t have per-site process isolation. That info is from the dev of mull.
I’m not sure what info to take from that linked comment, sorry. I didn’t refer to madaidan or grapheneos.
WebRTC is obviously only a problem if you use it. I think I’ve never used WebRTC in an android browser.
The site isolation claims for the past 3 years are made by madaidan, and not u/subzer0carnage on reddit. To debunk your very own claim, let me cite the developer of Mull and DivestOS himself, from reddit, from 3 weeks ago.
Thx for the clarification. Maybe there was just a misunderstanding. I wrote site isolation but meant per-site process isolation in the first comment but added it in the following comment.
I was actually very inconsistent. I used “site isolation” and “process isolation” in the first comment and “per-site process isolation” in the second comment.