"Blending in" is not the goal. Every internet user can be tracked. It's the nature of the computer network
The goal is to stop sending so many unnecessary details to so-called "tech" companies, intermediaries (middlemen) that have occupied the internet and engage in surveillance to support advertising services
The excessive details sent by the so-called "modern" browser, that they control (go figure), make it easier to market, sell and deliver advertising services
I don't use a browser to make HTTP requests
Advertising requires a popular browser
Every internet user can be tracked. IP address alone is usually enough
But IP address alone is not enough for today's online advertising. It needs a graphical browser, images, CSS, Javascript and so on. The complexity of these programs is a nightmare. Intricate behavioural surveillance of ad targets becomes possible
Tor is not generally used as a means to avoid advertising-related tracking that is accomplished using "fingerprinting". It could work for that but it's overkill
Using a "Tor Browser" (modified Firefox^1) that can show ads doesn't make much sense if the goal is to avoid ads
1. Mozilla, the source of Firefox, is "all-in" on internet advertising
What is the point of fingerprinting. (A: There could be multiple purposes.) If the purpose is tracking for internet advertising, then _internet advertising_ is the problem, not fingerprinting
Without the ability to advertise through a complex, popular so-called "modern" browser, tracking via "fingerprinting" becomes less valuable, perhaps even pointless
As such, the goal is to send fewer details and provide less potential for advertising and behavioural surveillance
If in doing that, every www user sends the exact same, minimum amount of detail with every HTTP request and thereby appears to "blend in", then maybe that's a useful side effect
But "blending in" alone doesn't stop advertising and behavioural surveillance. Perhaps it makes it less targeted, but it does not stop it. There is a reason that Firefox needs to be modified for Tor: it's a liability. The so-called "modern" browser has immense surface area and plethora of "features", e.g., a Javascript interpreter, that can be used for surveillance, fingerprinting and tracking, whether for advertising or anything else
I don't use it. The goal is not simply to "blend in". The goal is to deny the surface area, the "features", the excessive details sent, that can be used for online advertising and the fingerprinting and tracking that is _motivated by_ and associated with this advertising
As they say, "Don't feed the beast"
The goal is to stop sending so many unnecessary details to so-called "tech" companies, intermediaries (middlemen) that have occupied the internet and engage in surveillance to support advertising services
The excessive details sent by the so-called "modern" browser, that they control (go figure), make it easier to market, sell and deliver advertising services
I don't use a browser to make HTTP requests
Advertising requires a popular browser
Every internet user can be tracked. IP address alone is usually enough
But IP address alone is not enough for today's online advertising. It needs a graphical browser, images, CSS, Javascript and so on. The complexity of these programs is a nightmare. Intricate behavioural surveillance of ad targets becomes possible
Tor is not generally used as a means to avoid advertising-related tracking that is accomplished using "fingerprinting". It could work for that but it's overkill
Using a "Tor Browser" (modified Firefox^1) that can show ads doesn't make much sense if the goal is to avoid ads
1. Mozilla, the source of Firefox, is "all-in" on internet advertising
What is the point of fingerprinting. (A: There could be multiple purposes.) If the purpose is tracking for internet advertising, then _internet advertising_ is the problem, not fingerprinting
Without the ability to advertise through a complex, popular so-called "modern" browser, tracking via "fingerprinting" becomes less valuable, perhaps even pointless
As such, the goal is to send fewer details and provide less potential for advertising and behavioural surveillance
If in doing that, every www user sends the exact same, minimum amount of detail with every HTTP request and thereby appears to "blend in", then maybe that's a useful side effect
But "blending in" alone doesn't stop advertising and behavioural surveillance. Perhaps it makes it less targeted, but it does not stop it. There is a reason that Firefox needs to be modified for Tor: it's a liability. The so-called "modern" browser has immense surface area and plethora of "features", e.g., a Javascript interpreter, that can be used for surveillance, fingerprinting and tracking, whether for advertising or anything else
I don't use it. The goal is not simply to "blend in". The goal is to deny the surface area, the "features", the excessive details sent, that can be used for online advertising and the fingerprinting and tracking that is _motivated by_ and associated with this advertising
As they say, "Don't feed the beast"