Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 97327" data-source="post: 1062046">There are a few reasons why it is/was not popular:1. When JShelter started, they set the defaults to tight (e.g. blocking third-party XMLHTTPrequest) which sort of made it a hard to use extension.2. Although it is hyped a lot (fingerprinting), it is not much used in daily practice (advertisers have enough other means to track you).3. Some of their API-wraps were relatively CPU expensive, negatively influencing the&nbsp; cost (relatively high CPU) - benefit (few websites use fingerprinting) decisionAs Oldschool confirmed, they have balanced their settings (in favor of usability) and have improved in API-wrapping effectiveness (less CPU), so it gradually becomes a feasible option for most (even on my medium-low spec PC it runs fine now). In short with JShelter you get 90% of Brave fingerprinting protections and a bit more than Firefox resist fingerprinting on Chromium based browsers with the benefit of using the mode of operation you like best (e.g. default with website whitelist exceptions or default off with strict or default protection on selected/blacklisted &#039;murky&#039; websites).So thank you to the MT-members for keeping this thread alive ([USER=71262]@oldschool[/USER], [USER=90863]@n8chavez[/USER], [USER=59691]@Kongo[/USER], [USER=80838]@Jan Willy[/USER], [USER=72712]@Moonhorse[/USER], [USER=61091]@simmerskool[/USER]).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 97327, post: 1062046"] There are a few reasons why it is/was not popular: 1. When JShelter started, they set the defaults to tight (e.g. blocking third-party XMLHTTPrequest) which sort of made it a hard to use extension. 2. Although it is hyped a lot (fingerprinting), it is not much used in daily practice (advertisers have enough other means to track you). 3. Some of their API-wraps were relatively CPU expensive, negatively influencing the cost (relatively high CPU) - benefit (few websites use fingerprinting) decision As Oldschool confirmed, they have balanced their settings (in favor of usability) and have improved in API-wrapping effectiveness (less CPU), so it gradually becomes a feasible option for most (even on my medium-low spec PC it runs fine now). In short with JShelter you get 90% of Brave fingerprinting protections and a bit more than Firefox resist fingerprinting on Chromium based browsers with the benefit of using the mode of operation you like best (e.g. default with website whitelist exceptions or default off with strict or default protection on selected/blacklisted 'murky' websites). So thank you to the MT-members for keeping this thread alive ([USER=71262]@oldschool[/USER], [USER=90863]@n8chavez[/USER], [USER=59691]@Kongo[/USER], [USER=80838]@Jan Willy[/USER], [USER=72712]@Moonhorse[/USER], [USER=61091]@simmerskool[/USER]). [/QUOTE]

Verification