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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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).
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.
Well, that logic also leads to Tor network being DARPA funded, and Mozilla being Google funded, and Tor Browser being Mozilla Firefox based. Do you not use Tor for communications at all?
Likewise, Vivaldi uses Chromium code, made by Google. Does that not make it unethical, since Google serves as the AI of US military drones that bomb people?
Likewise, the food that is produced has plenty closed source machinery and software involved, and not 100% processes are ethical. Why not grow your own food entirely? Oh wait, the fertilisers you want to buy may also not be 100% ethically produced or shipped.
Idealism debates go in more directions than you think. Eventually, you and I have to work with realism in mind, and that is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. Virtue signalling, even for oneself, does not work that well when you get into more nuances than you calculate for.
No, I don’t use TOR, it’s not really more anonym in the ordinary web than other browsers, it’s only slower and less secure.
Certainly Chromium is made by Google, but as OpenSource, the script can be modified, well as degoogled Chromium or let the user decide which Google APIs need and which not in the settings, as Vivaldi do, because there are also users which need some services for their work. A lot of online services and profesional sites need services que offers Google and which don’t have valid alternatives. Because of this, also Gecko use them, but you have to modify the script to eliminate it, in Vivaldi you can do it in the settings or at least in flags.
As you can see, FOSS have advantages for devs, but not so much for a normal user who need certain features for his work, study or activities. Privacy and security has nothing to do if te product is FOSS or not.
The normal user need a good tecnical support and devs which respects the need of the user (most features are added by request made by the users in the community of Vivaldi where the devs and even von Tetzchner itself particpate). Nothing to do with the habits of Big Tech and prefab FAQ pages as support, or implement or rest functions, without consens of the users, as FF do…
Where are here the advantage of FOSS over a product OpenSource who use 5% auditable and customizable by the user but proprietary code?
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.
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.
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.
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/
There is nothing like partly open source. What decides open source? 1% closed? 2%? 5%? 10%?
“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.
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
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.
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.
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”.
A closed source browser cannot be a FOSS advocate. That is called grifting.
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).
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
Well, that logic also leads to Tor network being DARPA funded, and Mozilla being Google funded, and Tor Browser being Mozilla Firefox based. Do you not use Tor for communications at all?
Likewise, Vivaldi uses Chromium code, made by Google. Does that not make it unethical, since Google serves as the AI of US military drones that bomb people?
Likewise, the food that is produced has plenty closed source machinery and software involved, and not 100% processes are ethical. Why not grow your own food entirely? Oh wait, the fertilisers you want to buy may also not be 100% ethically produced or shipped.
Idealism debates go in more directions than you think. Eventually, you and I have to work with realism in mind, and that is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. Virtue signalling, even for oneself, does not work that well when you get into more nuances than you calculate for.
No, I don’t use TOR, it’s not really more anonym in the ordinary web than other browsers, it’s only slower and less secure. Certainly Chromium is made by Google, but as OpenSource, the script can be modified, well as degoogled Chromium or let the user decide which Google APIs need and which not in the settings, as Vivaldi do, because there are also users which need some services for their work. A lot of online services and profesional sites need services que offers Google and which don’t have valid alternatives. Because of this, also Gecko use them, but you have to modify the script to eliminate it, in Vivaldi you can do it in the settings or at least in flags. As you can see, FOSS have advantages for devs, but not so much for a normal user who need certain features for his work, study or activities. Privacy and security has nothing to do if te product is FOSS or not. The normal user need a good tecnical support and devs which respects the need of the user (most features are added by request made by the users in the community of Vivaldi where the devs and even von Tetzchner itself particpate). Nothing to do with the habits of Big Tech and prefab FAQ pages as support, or implement or rest functions, without consens of the users, as FF do… Where are here the advantage of FOSS over a product OpenSource who use 5% auditable and customizable by the user but proprietary code?