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.
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?
I am not going to hear opinions from a VPN seller on Tor onion network. This is just bad. Moreover, CactusVPN is nowhere near a reputed VPN provider.
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
Likewise Firefox has no issues, and user.js functionality does not exist in other browsers. Therefore, no hardening is possible on those, and Manifest V3 implementation ensures gorhill’s recommendation is true.
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
This is false. Vivaldi cannot be hardened.
Privacy and security has nothing to do if te product is FOSS or not
This is BAD. I will prefer stopping the discussion here. This is straight up GrapheneOS community tier reasoning.
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?
I am not going to hear opinions from a VPN seller on Tor onion network. This is just bad. Moreover, CactusVPN is nowhere near a reputed VPN provider.
Likewise Firefox has no issues, and user.js functionality does not exist in other browsers. Therefore, no hardening is possible on those, and Manifest V3 implementation ensures gorhill’s recommendation is true.
This is false. Vivaldi cannot be hardened.
This is BAD. I will prefer stopping the discussion here. This is straight up GrapheneOS community tier reasoning.