I'm curious if something like firejail may have a similar use-case here. I've only ever used it to block all connections to an application, but am wondering if it has similar functionality.
lerky
Goes without saying.
Yes. That. It's certainly not that my brain is perfectly smooth and completely hollow. That would just be ridiculous.
Good grief did I seriously misread June as July when I read about it? ... Hoooly shit I did... wow.
If you mean the browser extension, my recommended setup would probably be:
- uBlock Origin as your foundation
- NoScript to fill some fine-tuning JS-blocking gaps that uBO lacks (and vice-versa. Neither is a one-stop-solution in this regard... I miss uMatrix)
- CookieAutoDelete to do some useful while-browsing automatic cookie clearing
That combo covers the extension side of things. Something like DecentralEyes may also be useful, but I've had mixed results when I tried it years back. EFF's Privacy Badger also does some interesting stuff and gives you the ability to fully block cookies/etc. but it's a weird one to deal with so I'm not sure how much I'd actually recommend it.
Ideally all used on a hardened browser like LibreWolf, with a custom DNS like one of Mullvad's various options, and a VPN. Beyond that, using TOR?... but that's not really designed for ad/tracker blocking and is a whole different privacy concept.
Agreed. The chaos is just for kicks and PR so the pundits and politicians can claim with a straight face that he said he wouldn't. No doubt on my end that he ultimately intends to do it.
~~So I guess they nixed the plan to delay it? Obviously not a complaint, but surprised nonetheless.~~ edit: I got pulled into a timewarp I swear
CNBC changed the title and article contents. Version prior to the change: https://web.archive.org/web/20250716153251/https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/16/trump-powell-fed-fire.html
Though if you read through either version it's a chaotic bag of both denying and confirming. Ultimately seems like he told a room of Republicans he would, then denied he would after? So who knows.
It's also implemented as an actual feature rather than purely marketing fluff though, so the deception/ineptness goes further than just being an ad in my opinion. It clearly works for certain use-cases (e.g. disconnect the VPN and try to connect somewhere via browser or ping), but definitely not in the absolute way it (and particularly the "Advanced" setting) implies.
May I add a post-shoutout shoutout for the ones that have >1KB worth of custom encoded data in the URL when the actual tracking number is only ~10 digits (cough8bitdocough)? 'Cause those aren't shady at all.
And if it does then you just didn't worry enough, or the right way, or it was the worry's divine plan. Have you accepted worry into your heart? If you have a moment I have some worrying literature here...
Hmm, well poking around it doesn't seem to like using the necessary VPN interface, which with a killswitched wireguard ProtonVPN would be something like
--net=proton0
. This is territory I'm wildly unfamiliar with, but it appears to fail because point-to-point "/31 networks" aren't supported and as far as I can tell that's the only applicable choice in this situation.