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

91–100 of 266 posts

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#91

Post by brokensegue »

ucaetano wrote: post #88
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

that kind of snarky comment is not helpful

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#93

Post by frenchy »

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…

I would go to my package manager and install a new ISP, of course /s

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#94

Post by SolarNet »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #47

Isn't it anti-net-neutrality? Is it ok to build it into a major browser? I actually block all the tracking, malware, ads, social networks, fraud, gambling, porn (except a couple of porn sites I like :-)) etc domains I could find information about but this is my personal conscious choice, I have manually installed extensions for this and built the lists. Shouldn't other people do the same themselves too if they choose…

Client software can be chosen by the user. Net neutrality is about protecting the user's choice to use the network how they wish. Choosing which piece of software to use is a part of that. In addition - unlike ISPs - browser vendors are not a natural monopoly, and there is established case law preventing it, so it's not about net neutrality, just anti-trust.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#95

Post by ucaetano »

brokensegue wrote: post #90
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…

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 lin…

> 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?

I don't know (that's why I'm asking). On one side, you could argue that they are providing a service to users, on the other hand, they become a content gatekeeper if they do it by default.

Chrome, for example, blocks suspicious sites, but that's a very clear line you're drawing. With ads and tracking, it becomes muddled.

It would be similar to adult content in the UK, where AFAIK you have to proactively enable it through your ISP, it comes blocked by default.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#96

Post by brokensegue »

ucaetano wrote: post #95
brokensegue wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lin…

> 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? I don't know (that's why I'm asking). On one side, you could argue that they are providing a service to users, on the other hand, they become a content gatekeeper if they do it b…

ok then I suggest you go back and write a clearly usable definition before trying to apply that definition to "net neutrality." or else make up a new term

it's hard enough to get the public to understand this concept without also waffling over the meaning in the tech community.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#97

Post by hobarrera »

ovao wrote: post #55
nasredin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT. I think we need to standardize the sarcasm tag on the Internet. Not one of those RFC that no one implements, but something concrete, perhaps baked into the HTML standard. (If the W3C include DRM, they can include sarcasm). Or maybe something like ISO, but people ignore them too. /S

There’s actually a special character for this, unfortunately not in Unicode, called SarcMark. http://www.sarcmark.com

Why not the Irony Sign?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#98

Post by walshemj »

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.

and lower rankings organically and for ppc get a low quality score on your add and it can really hurt your AdWords account

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#99

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

ucaetano wrote: post #88
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> If you consider browsers an integral part of the internet infrastructure, it is. If not, it isn't.

No, it simply doesn't have anything to do with whether it is internet infrastructure. Prioritizing stuff according to the user's wishes/under the user's control without price discrimination is not a neutrality violation, even when network operators do it.

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

Idiot.

Re: Firefox 57 delays requests to tracking domains

#100

Post by zlynx »

peterwwillis wrote: post #86
testvox wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, peo…

This is an interesting example because the kernel's open() interface blocks for 4,000 ms all the time. Heavy swapping or the ext3 journal is full and some other app just called fsync().

Apps have to handle it. If they don't, because for example, they access the disk while also trying to be a display compositor, then they are simply broken. It does not matter if the kernel is usually fast enough. Because sometimes it isn't.

Post reply on HN