this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
166 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

31639 readers
80 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
ranok@sopuli.xyz
tmpod@lemmy.pt
166
Mozilla to protect Firefox users from bounce trackers - Stack Diary (stackdiary.com)
submitted 5 months ago by boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

This is exceptionally frustrating.

If someone posts a YouTube link on Facebook it will show the thumbnail and the description and that's it. There's literally no way to locate the video because it obscures the address, ensuring that the only way to reach that link is by clicking it and running through Facebook's tracking system (l.facebook.com).

YouTube itself has also begun doing the same thing, obscuring the title and channel in the browser, so you can't even search for the video via FreeTube or NewPipe or anything else.

Reddit is also doing this now by hijacking links and redirecting to out.reddit.com

Sad days.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is why we use extensions

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I have all kinds of software that are supposed to stop this. They don't work.

I even manually add the tracking domains and they still don't work.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Its called using third party front ends. The extensions just redirect and replace

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm all ears, what ya got?

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Extensions or front ends?

For extensions I use libredirect and for YouTube I use invidious. Libreredirect redirects YouTube links and replaces embedded YouTube videos.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 5 months ago

None of those frontends work. Every single time they just take me to a dead site.

[–] Konstant@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Twitter also was one of the first hijacking links a long time ago.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago

Unsurprising. But yeah I see them everywhere now.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

How about stopping link hover from showing its own nonsense in the status line, Mozilla. The status line should always show the real link destination.

[–] something_random_tho@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It could only know that by navigating to the link in the background. That would have side effects, like them being able to track you even when you don't click on links.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

If the link is to a redirector then that's what should show in the status line.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fine! If there's Javascript fuckery going on, then the status line should say "WARNING: JAVASCRIPT FUCKERY!"

[–] planish@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

That should just be the title bar now

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I don't pretend to know how any of this works, but the link is obviously already there in the browser, otherwise it couldn't direct you to it.

[–] Bezier@suppo.fi 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But it doesn't always point to the destination. Instead, it points to another page that then redirects you to the destination.

Your browser does not know the address of the destination, only the addresss of the middleman tracking webpage.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 5 months ago

See other reply

[–] something_random_tho@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The point of this is that it's a redirect. The link isn't taking you to xyz.com, it's going to abc.com which redirects to xyz.com. The abc.com server redirects to the second link -- there's no way to know where it'll take you unless you follow it.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Except if you hover over it, the browser will show you where it's redirecting to and not the tracking URL. That's the whole point.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

thats the website maker's fault, not the browser's

[–] solrize@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

No it's the browser's fault for enabling the deception. You have to assume that any given website is malicious. The browser is a security product that is supposed to be on our side and protect us from evil websites. Blaming the website for exploiting protection failures puts the responsibility in the wrong place. It's like taking counterfeit antibiotics, getting sick, and blaming the germs.