The best tools like uBlock, Umatrix, Privacy Badger, etc. all miss plenty of trackers, but not for a lack of trying. A complete solution doesn't exist today, nor is there anything promising on the horizon that I'm aware of. I am very curious to know the source of your optimism (I don't have much at the moment).
> They have an agreement with MS to not block 3rd party trackers, and they say "in any case it's very difficult to do and nobody else even tries to do it". It's a misdirection.
They shouldn't have done that to be sure, they've said as much, and are paying the price. They also said that future agreements won't include that carve out. They screwed up and will hopefully learn a valuable lesson from all this.
I will say, you should have used more precise language and said something like, "they have an agreement to not block 3rd party trackers in their browser" (emphasis mine). Your statement suggests that they don't block those sorts of things across their entire line of products, which isn't true. You're adding to the confusion by using overly broad language that is not precise and not 100% truly accurate.
Finally, I'm not aware of anything that is widely available that is as good privacy-wise as DDG and is actually usable by the most people. Until something exists that's just as good privacy-wise and is somewhat useful, I see very little choice but to use DDG. We'll see how DDG behaves in the coming months and years. Long term, they really should figure out something besides ads as a business model, since the incentives don't align with privacy.
The best tools like uBlock, Umatrix, Privacy Badger, etc. all miss plenty of trackers, but not for a lack of trying. A complete solution doesn't exist today, nor is there anything promising on the horizon that I'm aware of. I am very curious to know the source of your optimism (I don't have much at the moment).
> They have an agreement with MS to not block 3rd party trackers, and they say "in any case it's very difficult to do and nobody else even tries to do it". It's a misdirection.
They shouldn't have done that to be sure, they've said as much, and are paying the price. They also said that future agreements won't include that carve out. They screwed up and will hopefully learn a valuable lesson from all this.
I will say, you should have used more precise language and said something like, "they have an agreement to not block 3rd party trackers in their browser" (emphasis mine). Your statement suggests that they don't block those sorts of things across their entire line of products, which isn't true. You're adding to the confusion by using overly broad language that is not precise and not 100% truly accurate.
Finally, I'm not aware of anything that is widely available that is as good privacy-wise as DDG and is actually usable by the most people. Until something exists that's just as good privacy-wise and is somewhat useful, I see very little choice but to use DDG. We'll see how DDG behaves in the coming months and years. Long term, they really should figure out something besides ads as a business model, since the incentives don't align with privacy.