@RangerMauve I'd usually recommend Travis, but with recent developments it's probably not a good idea. Maybe it's possible with the new github automation tools?
@RangerMauve Can you also publish an APK or to f-droid? I don't have Google Play on my phone...
BTW, you can now browse `dat://` archives using Datmobile on Android.
@njoseph Browser extensions should provide much better coverage than DNS blocking, so I don't see this as a problem in the browser. I'm more concerned about it's usage to circumvent DNS protections for other apps.
@RangerMauve If you run dat-webext (https://github.com/cliqz-oss/dat-webext) on nightly then everything works except the protocol handler. This means you can load Dats in the extension background. This is implemented with 100% Dat stack.
You can launch it on your device with web-ext: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Getting_started_with_web-ext
@RangerMauve Targeting Android or iOS? To get discovery-swarm running you'll probably need native-modules to expose TCP and UDP sockets to JS. Unless someone already implemented this you'll need platform-specific implementations.
Discovery-swarm already runs in android Firefox using libdweb. That could be an easier implementation path.
The performance has been shown not to hold for adblocking extensions (https://whotracks.me/blog/adblockers_performance_study.html), and there are many other problematic webextension APIs w.r.t. privacy.
The solution to these issues should be institutional, not technical. Google should impose performance constraints on extensions, and audit what data extensions are sending home. However, looking at the rampant malware on all their stores, this is something they're unlikely to do, so instead they'll nerf extension's capabilities.
Disagree with this article's thesis that the Webextension webrequest API should be removed.
By moving to a declarative blocking API you are limiting the possible ways for extension to function to blocking and redirecting. This is a very narrow use-case, based on the current prevalence of blocking extensions.
But this is not the only way to solve problems such as blocking ads and improve privacy, as shown by privacy badger and Cliqz' tracking protection.
A product's privacy claims are only as good as its default settings.
Providing options to change the default privacy-violating settings in some "Advanced" section doesn't make your product a privacy-respecting one.
@RangerMauve Nice! I was thinking about trying this out a while ago but didn't get round to it. Will you do it dat-js style or are you going to try running discovery swarm?