Asklemmy

All great advice, but I personally cannot urge people towards pCloud. I have one of the permanent tiers, but I found the service frustratingly buggy and, when contacted, support was rude and unhelpful. There are so many little odd limitations on the pCloud file system it was frustrating. I also worry that their buy-once business model is not sustainable.

Sync.com provides an even more secure service (zero-knowledge across the board) with similar (better than US anyway) privacy protections in the host country (Canada) that has been, so far for 2 years of use, rock solid (I couldn't go a week without pCloud farting out some error). The subscription model is affordable and generous and the customer-facing pages for sharing files are very professional looking (important to me, because I professionally share files and pCloud looked like a hobbyist page in this regard AND leaked private information).

EDIT: Regarding iCloud. Not only is iCloud end-to-end, but you may turn on zero-knowledge encryption now, as well (Advanced Data Protection I think is what they call it) so that Apple doesn't even have the keys to decrypt your data, making it quite similar to sync.com now.

If the web is DRM'd in a way that requires chrome or windows then it could be difficult to bypass.

I remember the days of, "sorry, you must use Internet Explorer to use this website" when visiting my bank.

DRM is already applied for certain content in websites such as Netflix, etc, and it makes it waaaay harder to bypass.

For example, Netflix (and the others) use DRM to block Linux computers from higher quality content. Why? I guess "hackers" and "think of the children". Truth is... content is already pirated from the second it gets released on any of these platforms... so they are not really fixing anything... I guess they really want you to use a tracking OS.

Imagine this kind of system but for an entire website. Big companies imposing their devices and software as the only way to access a website... which is really just HTML and Javascript files, entirely platform agnostic... but who cares? They are struggling for money so they are squeezing every little possibility.

It's a big threat because once it's easy to block unapproved browsers, lots of people will do it. Yeah, there will always be a few weirdos like us that don't enable it, but just imagine when it's your bank, your insurance company, your government, and most every linked-to page on Lemmy. You'll be forced to use Chrome to interact with large parts of the internet then.

If it's a random site, then fuck it, I'll just not visit it again. That's their issue, not mine. If it is something important, I'd try changing the user agent. That works most of the time.

Look into user agent extensions for Firefox. Sometimes tricking a website into thinking you're using chrome is enough to get the site to work.

Could you maybe still go back and find those links? I use FF for well over 10 years now. And I would say, the amount of websites that do not work, are less than one a year. The only reason are really bleeding edge css filter or MediaDevice instantiations (Webcam, etc.). Video, JS, and HTML is nearly Browser agnostic by this time. I would love to see those non working firefox websites everybody always talks about.

This is one of the reasons to use FF. I know it can be a bit inconvenient, but these sites don't care about optimizing for anything but Chrome because it has such a huge market share.

And you can keep a second browser installed for the few times this happens, e.g. Chromium or Brave. Also an addon to change your user-agent string for a website works 90% of the time.

But it probably won't be, if we're being honest.

That's why we need to take matters into our own hands and refuse to use their services and support FOSS with all our efforts. The government ain't gonna do shit, this is a DIY project to save the open internet.

Hey could you press alt+F4 to make my internet faster please?

Our saviour, the last bastion.

UUCP

Gemini