this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
88 points (98.9% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
245 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
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
I am not an expert so I would highly recommend looking into more credible sources but my guess would be, since this is most likely not a very popular add-on, any browser with it would stand out considerably more relative to not having it.
Typically its common for browsers that want to reduce fingerprinting (tor, mullvad etc) recommend not installing new addons as then you stand out from crowd.
I'd say, since there are so many alternative ways to get this filter list, even if its a marginal increase in fingerprinting, its not worth installing it as an add-on.
websites cannot look at the list of your addons. they have to detect the presence of each, which is mostly possible when the addon makes changes to the page content, or replaces browser APIs in certain ways.
because if an addon does something that a website can detect, that'll make you stand out
I'm glad someone with more knowledge then me responded.
If you were, you would know that a website has no way to see what extensions you have installed, unless those extensions modify the page in a way that JavaScript can detect.
Which is why I was super clear about not being one. Glad you were able to get the opportunity to say what another user already said a day before.