Any extension you add so you can have more privacy is misleading. Blocking requests/modifying HTML actually makes you more unique. The only real solution for privacy is TOR browser.
When you open a random content website, such as someone's blog or The New York Times, it could theoretically have code to detect the non-loading of several trackers. However, most likely, nobody has gone through the trouble of doing this.
Those trackers, such as Facebook and Google, aren't loaded at all, so they are unaware of the request that was not tracked.
What you are advocating is loading those libraries, etc., anyway and allowing them to have their way with your browser session. This will always be less private than not doing it. Even Tor Browser has all sorts of protections from these types of things in place, which you would need far less of if you just blocked these tracking libraries to begin with.
Yes, theoretically, my blog or The New York Times could start profiling the missing requests and send them over to Facebook through the back-end, which is what is referred to as 'server-side tracking' in the industry, as far as I know. However, the chances of most websites doing this are slim, as it requires at least some effort on the server side. The way these websites usually do this is by passing along the account information they have on you, such as e-mail addresses, phone numbers, etc. Even if you signed in on some site with Tor, they'd still send those things along if they had gone through this trouble.
Ironically, even Tor relies on clearing cookies, disabling JavaScript, and blocking specific requests to protect your identity, not just the origin obfuscation. So, the thing you are claiming makes it easier to track you, and suggesting that Tor is the solution is somewhat at odds.
> , it could theoretically have code to detect the non-loading of several trackers. However, most likely, nobody has gone through the trouble of doing this.
More and more sites are definitely doing that, in my experience.
It's two different kinds of privacy in this case. What the Badger offers is privacy from the domains run by advertisers. What you're talking about is privacy from the first party that you visit.
This isn't true. If you're the only person in a population with the extension, then it could be assumed that the connections without any successful fingerprinting are coming from you. But if even one other person has the extension, there's no way to tell you apart.
They are different concepts, but they are reliant on each other. Framing them as separate qualities is a false dichotomy pushed by webapps that want to market themselves as "secure" as they're set up to attack you.
