This should be called DNS antidoting.
3 Likes
I noticed that L5 does not block facebook with the above because it uses IP6. So I have updated the scripts on the above link to block the IP6 addresses of Facebook as well.
4 Likes
I must have some bug in the service files for PureOs. When I run the blocking or unblocking scripts on the terminal on either L13 or L5, they work as expected. But the service files do not work. I mean that after a reboot the facebook addresses ought to be blocked but they are not.
On the other hand I made this systemd setup on my work machine which runs Manjaro Linux and there they work fine. I do not understand what is the difference with PureOs. Even
systemctl start blockfacebook
does not block on PureOs as it does on Manjaro.
In any case if you run the script blockfacebook by hand it always works
.
1 Like
Isnât there simply a way to tell your Librem 5 to not give out any valid information to anyone ever? Canât you just run something that gives out continuously changing false information, to everyone who queries it? Why give real information out voluntarily to anyone ever? As a client device and not a server, there shouldnât be any consequences to the Librem 5 owner if the Librem 5 lies about everything to everyone who has no business querying it. Corrupt the information pool and thus, poison the whole public information pool when big tech canât tell what is real vs what is fictitious.
1 Like
I do not believe in magic. It is different to wish for something than do it. Machines do not have their own mind. They follow specific logical instructions. What are the specific instructions which would do what you ask?
If that was possible, it could be done with iPhone and Android too.
2 Likes
Turning off Javascript in your web browser for general browsing certainly helps 
Browsers are pretty much operating systems unto themselves, and are unruly privacy nightmares.
I use one browser for general browsing without Javascript (LibreWolf), or Lynx (if I want to stay at the Terminal) and I use other browsers for other activities (such as banking, or this forum).
I am using the hosts file to block Facebook, though I appreciate the detailed solution presented in the OP!
2 Likes
In very general terms, there are two problems here:
- the act of using the web is giving out valid information i.e. the fact of your visit
- most web pages are mixed origin content i.e. the starting point - HTML page - comes from one site but all the content that it references (images, CSS, JavaScript, frames, âŚ) can come from other sites (NB: the distinction here is being made between something that is referenced and something that is linked to)
That is over and above any information explicitly leaked by the web browser (such as User-Agent and language information etc.).
Put simply, the web was not designed for privacy - and hence people look for practical ways to improve the situation.
Maybe there is something in your suggestion of âcontinuously changing false informationâ and âlying about everything to everyoneâ but you have to turn that into a practical implementation within a web browser.
PS Some web pages, intentionally or otherwise, malfunction if the user gets too aggressive with privacy measures. So that basically gives you the choice between not using the web page or playing their game.
1 Like
I am pretty sure that most of us that are using a Librem 5 (mine should arrive soon), will need to create our own web communities and web site standards as a means of getting real privacy and respect. At first, this will be very inconvenient. But eventually, there can be an abundance of websites and valuable resources that play by new rules. The new rules to the website owners are âyou play by my rules or I never visit your websiteâ. No tracking is allowed. I donât accept any cookies, I donât care about an âimproved browsing experienceâ - as they say. All I care about is that I maintain my anonymity and freedom from ads. At first, no websites will work that way. But eventually, competition will force them to comply if they want their business to have any reach to us.
1 Like
See also: A different way to internet? Project Gemini (That topic title would be better as: A Different Way to Web.)
Iâll believe that when I see it.
Another answer is: But eventually the government will force them to comply
but, again, Iâll believe that when I see it.
2 Likes
The governments of the world are the biggest violators. The big tech companies like Google and Facebook do much of the snooping work for them.
There is a bit of a quandary. I want the government to spy on organized crime. But honest individuals are entitled to privacy. So who sorts this out and how is that done?
2 Likes
Right now the answer is: the user takes responsibility to protect his or her own privacy as far as is possible ⌠and thatâs actually what this topic is about. It isnât a perfect solution to the specific problem of Facebookâs spying but it is better than waiting for âthe marketâ or âthe governmentâ to do something.
1 Like
The users doing something is a part of âthe marketâ doing something.
Thatâs trying to âhave your cake and eat it tooâ. You canât know someone is involved with organized crime without spying on them and so you canât know someone isnât without spying on them as well. So either you make a best effort attempt to limit the amount of excess spying (which is excess spending) or you make the cost of mass spying so low as to use that baseline to better focus the efforts. This is an oversimplification of some of the current state of affairs, but that is how the compromise of less privacy for all can and has happened in some regards. The alternative is to accept that more privacy for all includes more privacy and protections for organized crime, which has a very real likelihood of increased criminal activity.
Privacy, anonymity, and security have some overlapping goals, but also have many opposing goals. Thus the struggle to find a balance.
That assumes that âusâ is a large enough, and profitable enough, portion of the market to be worth going after. No advertising means reduced sales, which means higher costs for the same goods/services. What has actually played out time and again is some site will come along with no ads, tout its no ads status, then eventually fins the lack of customers and lack of financial stability uncomfortable (or lack of ability to scale with demand) and then eventually cave to diversifying the revenue stream to allow ads. There are exceptions sure, but exceptions by definition are the outlier not the trend.
Instead of having the mentality of âif they want us theyâll come to usâ the better mentality would be âlet us show them a better way so they have a reason to come to usâ.
1 Like
I try to think of things, the way they must have been up until roughly a hundred years ago, or so. Without telephones or any other means of electronic communications, the only illegal use of communications would have been found in in-person verbal communications. Although written communications were also available, few people if anyone would plot their crimes out in documented form by writing them down.
So are electronic communications an improvement when it comes to privacy? How can we re-create now, what we had 100 years ago? Back then, you could look around to see who was watching, and choose to whisper, if necessary. Now although you have a much bigger reach, you either brodcast blindly, or keep your mouth shut. There is little in-between these two extremes.
If Musk succeeds in his Neurolink venture, even your private thoughts might become public, like it or not.
2 Likes
DeCloudUs is a good option as well. It allows one to select google or facebook etc to block their sites at the dns level en masse. I use it and am happy with it.
1 Like
I do not know⌠I have second thoughts about all this after I read that Matrix, Thunderbird and I am sure other foss attempts can not produce enough money to keep their operations alive, and they ask for money. What if a poor person argues like this: I do not have the money to financialy support, say, Matrix. So I use Messenger and I pay them by allowing them to track my actions.
How do we answer this?
1 Like
My reply might be - âYou can still use Matrix/etc even if you cannot support it financially. Just sharing that you use Matrix on forums/social media, you are spreading the word. That is free advertising for them, which can sometimes be more valuable than a small donation.â
Something like that
2 Likes
IndeedâŚ, this is a good answer.
1 Like
FYI, TikTok is AS138699.
EDIT: TikTokâs analytics/trackers are showing up on many websites these days. (Visible in NoScript and uBlockOrigin extensions when visiting such websites.) Probably in IoT and/or content streaming devices, too.
1 Like
Ha ha ha, Great! The venture continues!!
2 Likes
Are you sure this is correct? I blocked it and still the browser shows tiktok.com
I also get other numbers. nslookup www.tiktok.com gives IPs such as
2.23.154.??? Eg 2.23.154.129
Running whois -h whois.radb.net 2.23.154.129 | grep origin
gives AS20940 and AS34164.
Now this comes here through a2047.api10.akamai.net
Is it proper to block AS20940 and AS34164? I wonderâŚ
1 Like