Apart the information is wrong, the Google attempt with WEI DRM has nothing to do with the browser engine, it's a web API wich give the webs the ability to block any browser, be it Chromium, Gecko or WebKit, if it does not include a Google token that "certifies security". That is, it doesn't matter if you use Firefox, Safari or any other, if it doesn't have this token, Game over. Such nonsense on the part of Google cannot be allowed. It is legitimate that web pages are given a tool to protect themselves, but it cannot depend on a commercial company to decide which browser deserves this token and which does not, this should by far depend on an independent technological institution. Let's see if this has been made clear once and for all.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which part of toot is wrong?

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That Vivaldi hasn't enhanced safe browsing, you can select it in the settings, if you want and you can see in the screenshot. Firefox has it established, it is called Firefox Safe Browsing, same with Safari, but all these are the safe browsing API from Google, also in Vivaldi, in which you have the posibility to desactivate it, because it isn't really needed, it has filters in the inbuild ad/trackerblocker which do the same (include Filterlists from ABP, uBO, DDG and you can add others, if you want), without this Google API. I think it's good enhanced, and without the obligation of having to use this Google thing.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

maybe tell people you don’t do this sort of thing

Neither the post not the original toot claim Vivaldi does [Enhanced Safe Browsing].

And your comparison about standard safe browsing is irrelevant. It never submitted the info to Google and was always optional feature on all browsers. Also it protects not only from links, but infected files too, based on their hashes.

And while Vivaldi having ad blocker natively is a boon as that's one less extension to fingerprint you on, it's far worse than uBlock Origin. Though fingerprinting aspect is irrelevant on Vivaldi as they have no protections against it. So there is really no reason to not use uBlock Origin.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Browserleaks say other things, websites know my Public IP (this from the ISP central server), when I don't us an VPN, almost all other data, apart of screen resolution, The OS is shown wrong (Windows32), also most other data are wrong or n/d, which give also wrong fingerprints, or fingerprints of millon other users, The adblocker isn't even detected, because of the anti-adblock filters. Anyway, both Vivaldi and the Defender in Windows make it impossible to download infected files, they are blocked in the moment. Extensions, well, I can use them, eg.Trace for Fingerprint spoofing/randomizing, but then most of the pages I visit don't work or don't work as hey should. Thids with the safe browsing it's always a compromise between too much and too little and I think I have it pretty balanced. For this reason I only use the Site Bleacher extension, Nitter Redirect, Link-Unshorten and some specific ones not related to security and privacy (graphic Tools, informations, etc.).