Why is that sensationlist? Unless you feel calling the technique “new” or “overlooked” sensational.
I am a novice on the topic so maybe I misunderstand but, doesn’t country-specific adblock filter lists, partially de-anonymize users? If yes, then the statement is accurate where it matters.
The article is completely accurate, they just say that we already knew it. This forum tends to forget that the majority of humans on Earth do not live on the forum.
I agree with this actually, but we can still call a spade a spade.
Because it isn’t a new technique and the privacy issues it presents were not broadly “previously overlooked” as the article states. Claiming something is more novel than it is kind of inherently sensationalist.
This is all relative.
If you go by this standard its is very much so overlooked. The article is seemingly geared towards “normies” who probably do overlook this and just use filter lists based on reddit and LTT suggestions.
uBO is more effective because it can inspect the actual requests rather than just block on domain name alone.
I think we’ll all agree that the more we talk about something deemed a problem, the better off everyone will be.
If we zoom out for two seconds, 99.99% of people remain essentially normies who know nothing about privacy. If, as a privacy-oriented community, we can make this subject audible to the big VPNs, Brave and blocklists, perhaps the situation will improve, for the good of everyone.
Normies don’t “just use filter lists based on reddit and LTT suggestions”, I think. They only know Firefox and NordVPN.
haha maybe I am just projecting my own personal experience to much then. I was introduced to pi-hole and by extension filter lists via LTT from this video.
Talk about a sensationalist title… 