131–140 of 266 posts
Does anyone know where I can find the list of sites that are affected? EDIT: Seems to be here: https://github.com/mozilla-services/shavar-prod-lists
Here it is newline-separated in case you want to import it into the Adblock DNS filter for iOS: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anfedorov/1fa7dc8871b20da...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My company doesn't share or sell data with third parties (it's in our TOS – and could obviously change in some Orwellian future, but we'd have to update the TOS), it's the customer's data, they can use it in the same way they'd use any other data they collect. We don't do cross-domain tracking, or aggregate behavioral information across customers, and the way we've built it, it makes it pretty hard to tie any two v…
Jesus. Really? Downvotes? Pretend this person worked for facebook and made some statement regarding what the company does. (a) he would be fired on the spot by the company itself ( as he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the company ) (b) he would be laughed out the room because he does not control company decisions The same applies to every single company. Every single one.
The only real interpretation here is that, while ethically, you may be correct, you’ve expressed an opinion that “stealing is wrong” among members of the thieves guild.
Interesting approach. I hope more browser vendors will adopt it. It comes with an additional advantage: if a website still needs to function when tracking domains are delayed a second or so, they likely will function too with said domain completely disabled (e.g. using extensions). Sounds like a win from a user perspective.
I block ads, analytics and 3rd party fonts. Almost every site works just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an even better approach: uBlock origin + noscript
uMatrix is also great. It does a lot of the same things NoScript does, but at a greater granularity. I still use NoScript for its XSS protection features but have the main JS-blocking feature disabled because it's redundant.
Keep the blacklists up to date, and have scripting completely off by default. You get granular control on a wholly different levet than offered by NoScript (which I really no longer see a need for).
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…
Also I think tracking protection is off by default except in private browsing mode, and if it's something you need to explicitly enable that's no different from the "neutrality" issues caused by installing an adblocker (there are no issues).
This also ties into the whole concept of "a browser is a user agent" (http://words.steveklabnik.com/user-agent-moz-a), i.e. it advocates for you. Here it's trying to get the actual content loaded faster. ISPs are not user agents, they are more like a utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't be up to the browser to implement web standards? What should browsers be doing then?
What is the web standard about delaying scripts deliberately encoded into the page? Why downvote and no explanation? I want to know if I missed something.
The standard also defines that scripts that are not async have to be executed before later content can be parsed (because they can document.write()). They can still be loaded with any priority the browser wants; they just need to block observable DOM construction.
Tracking scripts should be blocked by default, not just delayed. If a user has some strange desire to be watched, give them the option to opt-in to their browser unblocking tracking scripts/domains.
There is in fact a preference to do that: Settings -> Privacy -> Tracking Protection, set to always.
It breaks some reasonably popular sites, which is why it's not on by default across the board right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should only affect pre-broken code. Like complaining that a compiler is doing something with undefined behavior than you wanted: I get that it's annoying, but maybe fix your code so it's not a problem?
This isn't even a broken code issue. This is a totally unnecessary functionality regression issue. Instead of just loading a page, they're waiting four seconds to load the page, because the page uses an asset on a domain they flag as a tracking domain. This is like if the compiler generated loops with 4000ms sleeps because the app links a library the compiler thinks is annoying. Technically the compiler never said it…
You make it sound like Firefox is just adding a wait for no reason.
The reality is that the page is asking Firefox to download dozens or hundreds of scripts [1]. Firefox needs to prioritize those loads somehow, because it generally doesn't want to open that many connections to the server in parallel. So it prioritizes the non-tracking bits over the tracking ones. If all the non-tracking bits are done loading, the trackers start loading at that point.
> This is like if the compiler generated loops with 4000ms sleeps
No, it's more like if your OS scheduler decided to prioritize some applications over others based on how much it thinks you care about them (e.g. based on whether they're showing any UI, or based on whether they're being detected as viruses by the virus scanner).
[1] For example, http://www.cnn.com/ shows 93 requests for scripts in the network panel in Firefox. If I enable tracking protection, that drops to 37 requests.
Or for another example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news has 67 script requests and only 20 with tracking protection enabled.
Or for another example, https://www.nytimes.com/ has 150 script requests and only 40 with tracking protection enabled.
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.
If the web page asks for 150 scripts to be loaded (e.g. that's what https://www.nytimes.com does right now), what is the fastest way to load them? "All in parallel" is not the right answer, so you end up prioritizing. At that point, maybe you want to prioritize the 40 non-tracking scripts (how many get loaded if I enable tracking protection in Firefox on that site) over the 110 tracking ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the anti-net-neutrality people are running out of fresh, not yet discredited arguments. In OSI model IIRC: Application (software) is layer 7. Physical connection is layer 1. I am sure somebody will correct me.
Not sure who you're claiming is anti Net Neutrality, but if that's levelled at me it's quite wrong. See my other comment in thread, but in short I don't think a user cares really that action is at a different level of the conceptual OSI model, they care if they can consume given media, if NN legislation shifts things so that the browser blocks the media from a particular server instead of that servers upstream ISP I…