this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
815 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
12 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don't forget about YouTube! https://www.techradar.com/computing/social-media/youtubes-test-run-of-the-three-strikes-youre-out-policy-against-ad-blockers-seems-like-a-bit-much
I expect adblockers will find a way around that. If nothing else, AdNauseam should work, as it tells the site that you clicked all of the ads it's blocking (making it much harder for them to build a profile on you).
I don't really understand AdNauseam. Can't they also not build a profile with a normal ad blocker, but you also completely avoid interacting with the trackers (so better for performance, data usage, etc)?
Yes and no. It's harder, but even with an adblocker, your internet signature (things like browser size, are you blocking ads, did you send a "do not track" header, etc) is enough to identify you in a lot of cases. AdNauseam goes the opposite direction, instead of hiding your data, it fills their data collection with so much garbage that they'll have a hard time figuring anything out about you. From what I understand, it doesn't actually load the ads, just sees where the ad points to, and tells the ad provider that you clicked it while at the same time blocking it. So it would be very slightly worse in terms of performance and data usage compared to uBlock Origin, but not in any noticeable way, since the stuff it sends is much smaller than any actual content.
Been wondering how they detect how many videos you've watched without being logged in.
Cookies can be cleared, IPs can be changed, and if we all use something like the Mullvad Browser fingerprinting will be far more difficult.
I just spin up new virtual machines, with different flavors of linux. They're all fairly interchangable at this point.
So at the current moment, is there a way to use TOR browser and route it through Mullvad since TOR Browser would most likely be more anonymous having a larger, more common fingerprint?
Do you mean Mullvad VPN or the browser?
Sorry, I meant TOR Browser, as using TOR Browser + Mullvad VPN and default Mullvad DNS with exit and entry nodes in two different countries and cities + anti quantum computer algorithm to prevent MITM and other attacks alongside obfuscation alongside the Wireguard (IPV6 if you can, not every one can) has to be about the most secure setup I can conceive of possibly (only using TAILS could possibly further protect you). Probably overkill, but I like optimizing for the future when attacks become more prevalent in cyber security.
I recommend every one tries Mullvad Browser, but i don't think it's the best idea for me and so I went back to TOR Browser.
I was able to get Mullvad and TOR to play nicely together, I couldn't at first until a reboot I hadn't noticed I had forgotten to reboot at the time.
Are you routing your Mullvad Browser traffic through TOR?
I'm sure there will be a way round it, I suspect there are some people that may give up trying to find that workaround fairly quickly though and that may be who YouTube is targeting.
Also since people may want to be logged in for a couple reasons, e.g. so the algorithm is more tailored to them (yes yes I know YouTube algorithm bad), they can like/comment, subscribe, use watch lists, etc.