Doesn't this just identify you as "that one guy who blocks fingerprinting"?

It's similar to when you use Linux or an obscure privacy-preserving browser. You've made yourself way more unique just by doing that.

(I'm not sure how the math works out though, vs. actually running all that nasty tracking stuff.)

▲

some_furry 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are dozens of us!

But, yeah, anti-fingerprinting is still a useful signal if less people do it. So more people should do it; especially if they're less likely to be targeted.

"More haystack" makes their job harder.

▲

Aeglaecia 18 hours ago | parent [-]

i feel like this is the same as voting independant. it's the right idea in theory, but given the fact that 99% of people don't do it , righteousness is decreased. in this case very literally as having a unique fingerprint is entirely counter intuitive to the idea of privacy

▲

some_furry 15 hours ago | parent [-]

It starts with you. Doesn't matter if others won't. You can't expect anything to chamge if you, yourself, are not willing to change.

	▲	Aeglaecia 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I really want to be in a world where that's true. in the meantime we live in a zero sum survival of the fittest game where the powerful execute the weak for insubordination. in this world it is often necessary to take roundabout paths to reach the objective. for example, a constitutional representative in my country attempted to place restrictions on unfettered gambling advertisements. a single day later, photos emerged of that politician having dressed as a nazi for a costume party in his youth. that politician stood up for what was right and then got fired for it, by losing his job and his status in the court of public opinion, effectively achieving no change. exacting change isnt always such a simple process as embodying the end result.

▲

19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]