Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

janbambas.cz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 266 posts

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#81

Post by mehrdadn »

thephyber wrote: post #41
flukus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trouble is the amount of popular websites that simply don't care how long the page takes to load, 30 seconds would be acceptable to many as long as they get their advertising dollars. Users won't know who to blame. They might blame the site but they're just as likely to blame Firefox, Microsoft, their ISP or a virus. There needs to be a display saying "hey, this site is slow because it's tracking you in 15 different…

You're not thinking about this from a game theory perspective. Slow down pages -> more users bounce -> fewer ad impressions -> less ad revenue.

> You're not thinking about this from a game theory perspective.

> Slow down pages -> more users bounce -> fewer ad impressions -> less ad revenue.

Game theory is the theory of how agents deal with each other. You left out the most crucial part of agents affecting each other!

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#82

Post by brokensegue »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #20
iscoelho wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality is in regards to the internet carrier, not the browser (or client). The browser is irrelevant to net neutrality.

I 100% agree with what you are saying, but in support of GP, I'm sure they were meaning the spirit of net neutrality (don't shape my request), NOT the legal definition of it.

the browsers requests are your requests

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#83

Post by ucaetano »

brokensegue wrote: post #80
ucaetano wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my thought: should browsers be content gatekeepers? (Honest question, this is a very tricky area) If Comcast decides to "block" 3rd party tracking and analytics content, would it be ok?

network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please. by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality.

> network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please.

Not exactly, network neutrality can mean almost anything. The way it is discussed in the FCC regards ISPs, but you can expand it to anything.

> by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality.

No. And ad-blocker isn't any different from a child filter. It is a tool specifically designed to block certain content explicitly enabled by the user.

And to expand: by your logic, it would be ok then for Chrome to block all links to Firefox?

Or for Microsoft to block all links to other browsers?

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#84

Post by peterwwillis »

mehrdadn wrote: post #34
mquander wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't complaining because it violates the spec, what are you complaining about? Is any change to any detail about how a browser works necessarily bad?

I understand the complaint. Let me put it this way: how would you feel if your ISP was delaying your connections to a subset of websites for a few seconds? It wouldn't violate any specs, as far as I know. But a lot of people have expressed the sentiment that they don't want middlemen messing with websites. It's not clear to me that Firefox qualifies as an exception to the rule, especially if this becomes something ot…

It's not even a NN-type middlemen issue for me, though that is exactly what's going on here. The bigger problem for me is causing regressions for users. On top of that they're causing regressions just because they don't like X traffic, and they're not even exclusively affecting X traffic - they're affecting unrelated traffic too. It's just an incredibly arrogant, annoying, bad thing to do to users who never requested this to begin with.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#85

Post by jjordan »

This doesn't seem like it should be built in at the browser level. The brower's job should be to process requests and render webpages as quickly as possible. If a user wants to intervene in that process, that is their prerogative, but it definitely should remain at the plugin level.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#86

Post by peterwwillis »

testvox wrote: post #48
peterwwillis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have both written software for standards-based protocols, and used software written to standards-based protocols, so no, I would not expect it. Not breaking backwards compatibility for existing users is the golden rule of software support. When an unfortunate pull-requester attempts to break backwards compatibility with Linus Torvalds' software, he has some very choice language to complain about the practice. If th…

Linux breaks backwards compatibly all the time. Just not for userland programs. But if you are expecting your kernal module to be low maintenance you are in for a surprise...

The kernel has a clear definition of what will be backwards compatible, and what never will be. In-kernel interfaces are never stable, and kernel-to-userspace interfaces are very stable, with an ABI docs directory breaking out what is and isn't.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/e7aa8c2eb11ba69b1b690...

If the kernel's user interface just started blocking on open for 4000 milliseconds for no apparent reason, people would not be happy. Firefox expects users to demand that app writers edit, recompile, test, and ship them a new app to prevent the block. This is .

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#87

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

ucaetano wrote: post #83
brokensegue wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please. by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality.

> network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please. Not exactly, network neutrality can mean almost anything. The way it is discussed in the FCC regards ISPs, but you can expand it to anything. > by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality. No. And ad-blocker isn't any different from a child filter. It is a tool…

> And to expand: by your logic, it would be ok then for Chrome to block all links to Firefox?

No, that wouldn't be OK. But not everything that is not OK is a network neutrality violation.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#88

Post by ucaetano »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #87
ucaetano wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please. Not exactly, network neutrality can mean almost anything. The way it is discussed in the FCC regards ISPs, but you can expand it to anything. > by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality. No. And ad-blocker isn't any different from a child filter. It is a tool…

> And to expand: by your logic, it would be ok then for Chrome to block all links to Firefox? No, that wouldn't be OK. But not everything that is not OK is a network neutrality violation.

> No, that wouldn't be OK. But not everything that is not OK is a network neutrality violation.

If you consider browsers an integral part of the internet infrastructure, it is. If not, it isn't. Happy to discuss naming, but it will mostly be useless.

But glad that you agree that Firefox preemptively delaying those sites is not OK.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#89

Post by mehrdadn »

testvox wrote: post #48
peterwwillis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have both written software for standards-based protocols, and used software written to standards-based protocols, so no, I would not expect it. Not breaking backwards compatibility for existing users is the golden rule of software support. When an unfortunate pull-requester attempts to break backwards compatibility with Linus Torvalds' software, he has some very choice language to complain about the practice. If th…

Linux breaks backwards compatibly all the time. Just not for userland programs. But if you are expecting your kernal module to be low maintenance you are in for a surprise...

Do you know what the reason for this distinction is? On Windows, it seems kernel-mode APIs seem to stay quite stable as well... there are exceptions mostly on the device driver side because hardware tends to evolve (e.g. display/graphics drivers), but generic drivers (= kernel modules) generally seem to be able to rely on backwards-compatibility too.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#90

Post by brokensegue »

ucaetano wrote: post #83
brokensegue wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please. by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality.

> network neutrality refers to network providers being neutral to the data they transmit. applications running over the network can do as they please. Not exactly, network neutrality can mean almost anything. The way it is discussed in the FCC regards ISPs, but you can expand it to anything. > by this argument ad-blockers violate net-neutrality. No. And ad-blocker isn't any different from a child filter. It is a tool…

i mean if you want to redefine network neutrality you are welcome to do so. I'm not sure what the definition you are using is or where it comes from.

i think your definition muddies the waters. if firefox shipped with a built-in default-on child filter would that be a net neutrality violation in your eyes? if it just slowed down adult content would it violate net neutrality? where even is the line here and is the line meaningful?

Post reply on HN