This should help us cut down on the trolls. We recommend other instances do the same, because they will likely be targeted also.

I apologize for all their gore-posts as well, no one should have to see that. We’ll try to look for more admins from different time-zones as well to get them faster.

The two other possibilities we have currently as options, are turning on required email verification, and as a last resort, closing signups. I personally would rather not do either, but they are options.

Many thanks to @k_o_t@lemmy.ml and @AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml for banning those trolls.

  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    They don’t need your name to track and identify you. Se tracking tecnics used in Big Tech sites. TowerData log everything you post there, using it to profile you, Aso MS, FB uses pixelAPIs, Google geolocations and compare datas from other sites you visit which use Google APIs and analytics, also from Alphabet and NEST, also Google companies. Reddit is the oposit of Lemmy in anonymity. Instagram and WhatsApp naturally have nothing to do with anonymity or privacy, none of the Zuckerbot sites respect this. Look in the Browserleaks and see what Data can be seen by a website if they want and if you don’t use a protection more than ad/trackerblocker. (Datas shown in my case are all wrong or N/D, only true that I live in Spain (if I don’t use a VPN) and don’t use a Touchscreen. But it has needed a lot of settings which a normal user don’t do or not even knows.

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      I know numerous cross site tracking techniques. This is not how tracking works. Keyloggers need to have JS scripts directly running, which uBO blocks. Same goes for cookies, which get erased upon each browser session, so this is meaningless. Cookies need to persist across sessions to do what you say.

      Blacklight detected scripts belonging to the companies Alphabet, Inc., Neustar, Inc. and TowerData, Inc…

      These scripts have to run in the first place, which is largely also blocked by Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection.

      uBlock Origin is like a condom to use internet at this point.

      • Zerush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        In Vivaldi this is also blocked by the inbuild ad and trackerblocker (same filters as uBO and more.). But how much user know this? The most use Chrome or Edge, using FF because they think it’s the most secure, but searching with Google (default in FF, which also send data to Alphabet (Google).

        Now Google try another dirty trick with the Trending API to profile the user, same as with Idle and FLoC before.

        While surveillance advertising is legal to create revenue for these companies, there is not going to be a truly free internet and a permanent war between Google & co and developers who remove these attempts from the users which take privacy seriously. Cookies since time ago are not a problem, tracking and profiling the user are much more sofisticated, there are pixel tracking, fingerprint, CSS exfill, CDN, among others, even scripts to access cam, mic, keyboard and mouse. Worse in mobile.

        • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          I think working against the Chromium/Blink monopoly is very important. Outside of Firefox, browsers with a configurable user.js and userchrome.css does not exist in Chromium land.

          Chromium is also not a base for Tor Browser or TailsOS browser and is too leaky. Also gorhill, uBO and uMatrix maker, recommends Firefox over Chromium/Blink browsers.

          • Zerush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            It isn’t so, we need to work against surveillance advertising, this is the underlying problem, not the browser engine, apart uservivaldi.css is full configurable, it’s not a simple Chromium like others.

            Also Firefox, although in some points more private than Vivaldi and in others less, creates income with surveillance advertising, that is, in collaboration with Google (Alphabet INC and NEST), APIs that in Vivaldi are optional and can be deactivated in the configuration or already they are removed by the devs, but not so in Firefox. What is missing I can put with a catalog of extensions that is ten times that of Gecko.

            I also use Firefox for some things, but I don’t really see it as better or more private. But much more basic. Regarding TOR, it is a browser capable of accessing .onion networks, but apart from this, using it without VPN leaves you much more exposed there than with FF or Vivaldi on the normal network, this is not its function. That is to say, using it in the normal network, it is only slower, but it does not protect one iota more, it is a common mistake to believe it. You can check it on Browseleaks.

            • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 years ago

              Nobody cares about catalog of extensions, even though Firefox has larger addon base. What is cared about is how well extensions are allowed to function, and Chromium browsers with complete Manifest V3 implementation has killed ad blockers in its fullest state.

              As for surveillance advertising, that will only be killed when capitalism dies, or when the ad blocking users increase so much, the paywalling and privacy invading sites start to further paywall and self kill their websites.

              Vivaldi is also closed source, and their reasoning for justifying the closed source code is too shady. https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-browser-open-source/

              Vivaldi browser is part open-source, part closed-source

              Of the three layers, only the UI layer is closed-source. This means that roughly 92% of the browser’s code is open-source coming from Chromium, 3% is open-source coming from us and only 5% is our UI closed-source code.

              There is nothing like partly open source. What decides open source? 1% closed? 2%? 5%? 10%?

              It’s the Vivaldi brand

              The Vivaldi UI is truly what makes the browser unique. As such, it is our most valuable asset in terms of code. The obfuscation is partly there to improve performance, but it also very much is the first line of defense, to prevent other parties from taking the code and building an equivalent browser (essentially a fork) too easily.

              We don’t publish it under an open-source license and only release obfuscated versions of it.

              ​​If a new project based on our code implements features that are fundamentally against our ethics (damaging to human rights or to the environment in some way, for instance)

              Even though most of the security-relevant code for Vivaldi browser is in Chromium, there is some security-relevant code in the UI as well.

              “human rights” “some security-relevant code in the UI” “only 5% is our UI closed-source code” “to improve performance”

              I have rarely seen such weasel reasoning. Brave is worse despite open sourcing because of BAT, but they still do not do such PR talk.

              • Zerush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 years ago

                The Vivaldi code is 100% accessible by the user and auditable, it is even taught in the community how to modify it, naturally at your own risk. Both Edge and Chrome itself try to mimic Vivaldi’s functions, but not being allowed to fork it (that’s the meaning of ClosedSource in Vivaldi), with a pretty poor result. Releasing these codes, BigTech would have forked Vivaldi, which would have been the end for a small cooperative with a different concept in a market full of abandoned and discontinued projects, which everyone believed that setting their browser as FOSS, simply putting their logo on the Chromium or Gecko would be enough (already more than 70 browsers that ended up like this)

                Perhaps the definition of OpenSource requires a review, giving importance in the areas where it makes sense, in the more than 100 different browsers that circulate on the network, it is already irrelevant, especially if then they fall equally into the traffic model with the data of users, because they see that a browser requires an infrastructure, money and maintenance to continue it, apart of a good community.

                Mozilla shares data with Coogle, which finances them, Vivaldi has another business model that does not compromise user privacy and also works, in a small company owned by its employees, strictly subject to and exceeding EU privacy regulations that in US companies do not exist.

                Who is more capitalist and who is more ethical in their approach? Vivaldi, as the only browser company, is active in campaigns against surveillance advertising and active against Google’s tracking tricks. FOSS FF is conspicuous by its absence there, how strange. Check out Jon’s interview with Linux reps and why Manjaro and FerenOS use the ‘ClosedSource’ Vivaldi currently as the default Browser, other distros will surely follow. https://lemmy.ml/post/80937

                • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Releasing these codes, BigTech would have forked Vivaldi, which would have been the end for a small cooperative with a different concept in a market full of abandoned and discontinued projects

                  The privacy and security of users is more important than defending one’s own interests by putting users at risk with closed source internet interfacing code. Vivaldi does not prioritise users, but their own benefits.

                  Perhaps the definition of OpenSource requires a review, giving importance in the areas where it makes sense

                  Or perhaps… only 100% open source software should be regarded as open source software? Even 1% closed source code means it is not FOSS. You can argue with any FOSS advocate (not grifters like GrapheneOS community) over this and get an answer. The famous Underhanded C Contest tells us about possibilities with obfuscation of code, hence closed source internet interfacing code is far more dangerous.

                  If Lemmy had 1% closed source code, would it be called FOSS? No. Apple’s OSes have few open sourced components. Nobody calls it FOSS. Signal’s code is not fully FOSS anymore, even though they made clear it is only the spam number database, and there is ample debate on whether to call it FOSS or not.

                  Mozilla shares data with Coogle, which finances them

                  This is inherently false, unless you want to mention the optional Google SafeBrowsing list which is built into all Chromium browsers. Having Google search engine as default is not the same as “shares data with Coogle”.

                  Vivaldi, as the only browser company, is active in campaigns against surveillance advertising and active against Google’s tracking tricks. FOSS FF is conspicuous by its absence there, how strange.

                  A closed source browser cannot be a FOSS advocate. That is called grifting.

                  Check out Jon’s interview with Linux reps and why Manjaro and FerenOS use the ‘ClosedSource’ Vivaldi currently as the default Browser, other distros will surely follow.

                  Distributions that care about reputation and privacy do not switch their default shipped browser to closed source or Chromium based ones (except Ungoogled Chromium). Many Manjaro users changed their distros over the Vivaldi move, or removed Vivaldi altogether. It is not accepted in the FOSS community, especially amongst Arch users (which Manjaro is based on).

                  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    You are free to use FOSS and continue to be driven by Big Tech to finance it, if you think this is better. I care more about the ethics towards the user and TOS/PP of the product I use, worse in Mozilla than in Vivaldi. Worse in American products than in European, much worse. All the tracking APIs of Google, FB and others are FOSS, the worst malware is too, Google and MS itself have the most extensive catalog of FOSS and there are still those who believe that FOSS is a guarantee of freedom, privacy, security and ethics. No, it is not at all, perhaps it is for some individual apps or to share new products and developments, which is in browsers, in a market saturated with them completely irrelevant, in these other factors count.

                    Cheers