Even so, it does not follow that this community should provide that commercialization venue. If you want me involved in solving your business problems or monetization strategy, we should discuss terms and rates first.

Sounds like a reasonable set of options!

If you work for a company or own the company you are still making a self- promotional post for a company, and the rule applies.

So if the exact same post is posted by a friend instead it’s suddenly accepted? Why is self-promo meaningfully less desired than third-party-promo if they have similar results?

You seem to be vastly in the minority.

Might be! That one’s framed as just personal preference and not policy suggestion because I don’t think “allow all things I like and ban everything I don’t” makes for good governance ;)

So a more restrictive rule?

More restrictive in one sense (what content and what’s ok to “promote” for) but more allowing in another (you can talk about something even if you are involved or associated).

Thank your for replying, this is encouraging and sounds like moderation of this community is shaping up.

Whichever side the ruling falls I think that feedback channel would be very good. Just having a way for a submitter to ask from mod(s) why the submission was targeted might be the difference between them turning into a great contributor vs either just leaving or starting to play circumvention games (in especially bad cases turning into antagonistic trolls). Speaking from how I’ve seen those dynamics play out in other communities.

deleted by creator

Thank you for thoughtful engagement!

I think that becomes even more problematic. Why is it better that I shill for a company I’m getting kickbacks from (some VPN providers excel at this game) rather than one I’m responsible for? Besides, this just lead to submarining (“viral marketing” is an entire industry!) and people pretending to “have just stumbled across this project, what do you guys think?” or being “just a happy customer”… And to some extent t becomes a game of social status, where well-connected people can just ask their friends to post on their behalf.

Judge the message and topic, not the messenger (as long as they are human acting in good faith and not “written with help by AI”, obv).

Besides of those issues, my personal preference would be to keep the focus on self-hosting. So talk of hardware or shipped software might be on-topic but not service providers. There are plenty of places to discuss cloud-hosting, VPNs, which PaaS is best, or whatnot.

And I would actually be much more interested in seeing a post from a founder talking about things their company is doing relevant to self-hosters, vs yet another post of “which provider is best right now and what do you use?” or “Company X currently has a sale/launched product Y”.

While it might filter out some good stuff, I would be all for a ban of any promotion of commercial or proprietary products and services alltogether but allow for self-hostable and in particular FLOSS stuff (where I guess some carve-out or clever formulation could be made to allow for commercial but self-hostable software - either stance on that one seems fine to me).

I would like some clarity on general apparent self-promotion of open source projects as well. As in, points 1-4 don’t apply and 5 depends on your definition of “advertisement”.

I’m bringing this up because I (once) previously attempted to share a project¹ I maintain on here. I did take some effort to include some context and discussion points for selfhosters in order to make it more tailored and stay safe on Rule 3. It was quickly removed by mod. I tried reaching out to one of the mods to try to understand what was wrong. They were friendly and said they weren’t involved and would forward to the relevant people and since then I haven’t heard back. It would be very helpful to be able to get some feedback on why submission was removed so we can learn how future submission attempt could be improved (or abandoned).

¹: FLOSS, no commercial or otherwise proprietary parts or relations, no slop or clank in the process

Sounds frustrating and I can see how that can be confusing. Had similar peeves with other imposed limitations that initially drove motivation of developing this project so can relate!

While we have to recognize that there is inherent conflict in expectations of “browser doesn’t disclose my location” and “website knows my timezone” and that Konform Browser will continue defaulting to privacy, you highlight gap in UX and user control that I agree can be improved on. Shouldn’t be too much work to add more make more discoverable selective settings UI for this too in a future release.

There’s some other aspects that often play into this particular scenario and can vary per site:

• Apps showing relative time like “10 hours ago” or “in 15 minutes” should not be affected by any of this.
• Scheduling for events on services like the ones you mention also shouldn’t be affected by this: Time for events is global but display will be affected.
• There are are a lot of bugs in webapps out there that can be interacting with localtime in incorrect ways. It’s complicated¹.

Try being a part of a team in multiple timezones, some of which follow Daylight Savings Time (from different dates) and some not. Now schedule a recurring weekly meeting for the same time and coordinate that over chat. This is just inherently messy. Communicating this properly in UI is subtle and confusion like the one you described often arise when webapp developers assumptions and user assumptions don’t align. Some even say we should do away with timezones alltogether.

¹: Someone even made list of lists of falsehoods programmers believe about time

If you’re talking about Librewolf’s “resist fingerprinting”:

To set the record straight, ResistFingerprinting was originally developed by Tor Browser developers, and is for some time now part Firefox (and therefore all forks) behind the privacy.resistFingerprinting (“RFP”) preference. So credit there goes to those devs, Tor Projectt, ad Mozilla. Konform Browser and Tor Browser have this on by default. There is also the related more recent and complex privacy.fingerprintingProtection (“FPP”) system. LibreWolf has historically been on RFP too - I’m not up to date if that’s still the case or if they’ve migrated over to FPP yet as I understand that is the intention of maintainers. The difference between the two is more than I bear to explain here and a bit of a rabbit hole x)

Hm, could you be more specific exactly what your issue is, and what behavior you are expecting? It sounds like you could be referring to this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1364261

There is a workaround mentioned at the bottom of that thread which should have the same result on all three browsers (and sounds like what you want, except having to disable ResistFingerprinting?). Just like for the forced-light-theme, I think it can make sense to provide a more convenient and obvious way to change the timezone without having to impact the other privacy protections. Might take a look at that but most likely after ESR153.0 is out of the way. If I read you right: Do you expect to be able to toggle this per-site, or would you be satisfies with a global toggle similar to the one we already have for allowing dynamic themes under RFP?

Thanks! Would be great to hear your thoughts and experience after trying it out, if you do! BTW, I keep fishing for feedback not just because I like hearing user stories but also since with no telemetry (or a qa team; lol), user reports become that much more valuable in development, catching issues and better understanding the UX ^^

But can it fool creepjs?

What does that mean for you, exactly? I know that there is a lot of different ideas out there on how to interpret these results and what “good” means so would be helpful to know what your expectations are to give meaningful answer to such question.

Anyway, I just tried running the test at creepjs.org and this is result: Test hangs at “57/58: Currently collecting: Private Click Measurement complete”, with no errors in the js console.

Having compared results with some other fingerprinting suites previously, default settings should give plausible fingerprint corresponding to user base of existing browser. Only Cloudflare seems to hate it: Turnstile in strict mode throws a redirect loop when their troubleshooting tool says all is fine. Is that because fingerprinting protection “works to good” or is broken? You tell me!

I would appreciate an outside and less biased review, comparison or benchmark on stuff like this! Want to try and report back?

“Facebook Container” seems redundant if you already use Multi-Account Containers and set it up accordingly, yes. Other than that it doesn’t sound over-the top at all and a reasonable configuration.

Doesn’t Strict mode block third-party cookies anyway?

Almost, but not entirely. For that you need First-party Isolation (privacy.firstparty.isolate pref: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330467),

containerises first-party cookies too, but I wouldn’t need that.

It does do that - if it didn’t, there wouldn’t be any “multi-account” to it.

With a profile like that you might also find Konform Browser relevant to your interests with more private defaults and convenient toggling of modes and features. https://konform-browser.codeberg.page/

It comes with a debloated version of Multi-Account Containers, which can also be installed as a normal addon into other Firefox builds: https://codeberg.org/konsortium/multi-account-containers-lite

There is some talk about this on the readme (“About”) page with more detail on differences in the release notes.

On “AI”, tooted about this here. As one example, the “AI chatbot” feature is disabled and hidden by default. If user still chooses to enable it via preferences, stock configuration only has one available provider: localhost where user runs their own app (for example llamafile.ai) locally outside of the browser while proprietary integrations¹ and telemetry are removed even when feature enabled. I think for all of the AI-features, both the default-disabling and making them work better (or at all) without remote cloud goes deeper in Konform Browser than others like Librewolf.

Another example is about:translations, which when enabled² actually works properly when offline after translation models have been downloaded; they are not bundled with browser.

Let me know if any more questions after reading that!

¹: Like ChatGPT and others

²: “Basic Functionality” and “Just Make It Work” presets enable local translations feature and downloading of translation models.

https://codeberg.org/konform-browser/gentoo

Let’s not forget that Win7 was almost 25% as responsive as Win2k3, which could even hold a candle to GNOME.

Unnecessary hostility. They can not and are not retroactively changing license on past contributions. The only thing affected is upstream future contributions. If nothing was lost, how can it be “theft”?

So can we take the code from up to about a mo the ago

Yes.

No mention if it is EME-Free (no DRM playback possible)

DRM/EME/WidevineCDM integration disabled by default. They can still be enabled via the usual preferences. They will also be fully enabled like in FF (including downloading and installation of trusted binaries) if user enables “Just Make it Work” preset.

Settings and prefs and bookmarks sync is a strong want from me, I just want to do so self-hosted, and not via Mozilla’s servers.

Konform Browser still supports enabling that and has UI to make configuring custom Sync- and Accounts server endpoints more straightforward.

Separately, profile import feature also supports other Firefox-based browsers as of recently.

Not like Apple cared to look at it when people reported it to them. So much for App Store safety.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47744660

You still need to use a privacy-centric browser

Check out Konform Browser. Least leaky one out there.