this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2025
238 points (97.2% liked)

Privacy

3131 readers
181 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dhar@lemmy.ca 21 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Waterfox bypassed my ad blocking DNS and served me ads. I uninstalled it, not gonna try it again until they get serious about privacy.

[–] angband@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

they're doing that with dns over https, which is secured against your attempts to avoid corporate tracking. look for a doh blocklist.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Thats weird because I run it with uBlock Origin and the only time I've ever seen an ad was after a site updated and uBlock had yet to adapt to it yet.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think they're talking about pihole not ubo

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I'm not going to accuse them of user error but I'm having trouble imagining how a browser without a tunneling engine could bypass that.

It would need a false endpoint before the user and the send all the otherwise blocked traffic through on a single channel and at that point everything is completely compromised.

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It could just have enabled DNS over HTTPS in the settings, hence not having used the user set up DNS at all.
Except for getting the IP of the DNS that they then connected via HTTPS.
Librewolf uses Quad9 by default IIRC.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Honestly, it may have nothing to do with the browser.

For instance at&t's newest fiber gateway (bgw320-500/505, 3-4 years old at this point) has a known issue that bypasses pihole for all Wi-Fi devices. Such that only hardwired devices can utilize its DNS services. Even with the pihole acting as DHCP server

[–] Jack@lemmy.ca 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Between 2019 and 2023, Waterfox was owned by advertising company System1.

So be careful of Waterfox if you agree more with Bill Hicks when it comes to advertising.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 27 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Using "them" instead of being precise, leaves who the party tracking you is up to the imagination of the reader, which in turn just makes it sound paranoid.

How did the Firefox devs come up with "let's not ask our users where they are, and just track them without asking them first."?

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago

Good they disabled that diabolical feature.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

6.6.6

Triple six. The evil fork of Firefox (ad-provider owned, etc).

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This is like the third account I've seen make this claim, are these bots?

Alex Kontos returned the project to being independent and seperate from System1 in 2023.

This update removes AI and anti-privacy features that Firefox built in. If you're against that then you're a worthless tech bro.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Eh, I have a constitutional right to not be up to date with the latest browser drama. It's just drama.

Plus, 6.6.6. The pun and connection was just too good to let pass. Relax. Get a grip. Get a life.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 1 points 3 days ago

You actually can be held liable for spreading falsehoods, it's called defamation.

While I don't think your actions have gone quite that far, you're incorrect to say you have a constitutional right to defame others.

[–] VeryInterestingTable@jlai.lu 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like I placed might eggs in the correct basket for once.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -2 points 4 days ago

I feel that.

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -4 points 4 days ago