perchlorate

This is pure FUD. They're still trying to block it, the latest three attempts happened this week. Two of them were done in the middle of the night as training exercise, maybe for 3-4 hours each, and the last one then happened in the middle of the day. All three broke large parts of the internet and were quickly reverted.

When something newsworthy happens in some region, all messengers get blocked in that region for days, Telegram included. They don't care about collateral damage to other websites then.

This doesn't make it a good idea to break HTTPS by default. Defaults matter, if everything ignored HTTPS errors by default, I would be talking to you over a MITMed connection right now. Because so much software stopped working, they had to roll back that braindead idea in less than a day.

Just don't do that. Some of us (hello) live in countries that perform or tried to perform HTTPS MITM on a massive scale, and only had to roll back because so much well behaving shit broke.

If software suddenly started accepting invalid certificates, they would have no incentive of rolling it back. HTTPS would make zero sense then.

Plain Waydroid might work depending on the exact application you're using. Try that first because it's pretty seamless and has good performance (as Android processes run directly on the OS).

I used it for three years before giving up and getting a used phone (for other reasons). My banking application detected all other emulators, but not Waydroid.

Just set mitigations=off if you want this, it's a meta-parameter that enables all the others. I used to run it on old hardware (Haswell) because of significant impact of all those mitigations on IO performance. It's not a problem anymore on my newer Zen 4.

Probably a bad idea in the general case if you work with anything remotely private (ssh keys, banking) and browse the internet routinely. I visit few weird sites and block JS almost everywhere, so it both made sense to me and was relatively safe.

Advertisers are going to use it as just another data point, though. Why give them any more information than they already have? You know some of the best technical people we have waste their lives working for advertisers, and they _will_ find a way to extract more information from these technologies regardless of how supposedly private they are.

I don't think there can be a technical solution to this problem unless advertisers are forced by government regulations to behave, with very heavy fines for non-compliance.

I personally really hoped for Mozilla to take a strong stance against advertisers and introduce an aggressive ad blocker, but it was pretty obvious they're not going to do anything like that because of the conflict of interest (Google's money). Now we get another conflict of interest on top that makes it even less likely.