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
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
More generic and therefore worse for fingerprinting. Though that’s only because it’s built in and standardized.
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
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
So we’re saying the same thing? That makes way more sense
what does that even mean? what aspect is more generic that could be used for fingerprinting?
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
thanks for the explanation. I misunderstood the statement. makes more sense that it makes fingerprinting harder.
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
Is there any value in redundancy?