What did they meme by this?
>>54319159
That they can't hide the fact that you visit tranny-scat.io around lunch every day.
>>54319159
the botnet meme
>>54319159
Gee I don't know. If only there were a link or something right next to it that would allow you "read more" about it
Press "Learn More" asshole
Press learn more, dingus.
Then switch to Firefucks.
Or don't read it, and just switch to Firefucks.
>>54319291
>>54319264
>>54319242
So does this mean I'm in the "boxnet" or whatever?
>>54319306
I doubt it
Maybe something like CCleaner can clean that shit
>>54319306
Chrome remembers that you enabled webcam and microphone on shameless-grannies.edu, so it knows it's OK to enable them next time
Your Google searches are stored externally, accessible through history.google.com
...and of course you could have an addon that records the sites you've been on (e.g. your adblocker), so of course that's a matter for the extension author to handle
>>54319306
Chrome is a botnet. Just by using it, you're part of it. Whether Chromium is botnet is up for debate, but it certainly can't be any worse.
Best thing you can do is visit privacytools.io and follow the instructions there (where they explicitly tell you to use firefox, and tweak it).
You use OSX and you don't use Safari
What is wrong with you
>>54319383
But I thought Chromium was "open source" aka "no botnet and zero viruses"?
Did I fall for a meme or something?
>>54319429
open source just means that the code is open to see (and build for yourself, if you like). Doesn't mean that there isn't bad code in it, just that people are free to audit it.
It is definitive that bad code used to phone home to google. I haven't read up on it recently, however, and it's entirely possible that that code has been removed.
Firefox is better, though. As of now, neither chrome nor chromium has a way to fix the WebRTC leaking, only a plugin that is easily circumvented.
Safari doesn't have WebRTC implementation as of yet, but by going with them, you lose out on FF add ons, as well as their about:config tweaks.
>>54319429
Here's one thing many people don't get
You can have open source software without it being audited properly. Just because you can grab that and look at that code yourself doesn't mean you will, or most will, as most people are there to use the program and not modify it.
So until someone notices the stink, it's going to be an issue still.
>>54319429
>Did I fall for a meme or something?
Yes.
The funny thing is you can't build chromium without Google account and agreeing to their terms to get an API key to pass to the build system.
Since the keys are unique Linux distros have their users all groups in little circles making them much easier to track and target compared to global chrome builds.
>>54319490
Good to know. Thanks.
>>54319429
>implying there are no open-source viruses or malware
