That reminds me, I forgot to enable it
Just curious but installing adblock and track-blockers isn't the first thing you do with a new browser installation? Just wondering how it got turned off in the first place :P
Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
21–30 of 314 posts
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#22Any time a site asks me to disable tracking protection, it has the curious effect of reinforcing my desire to leave it enabled - that site has made it clear that they are intentionally and unapologetically violating my privacy for a quick buck.
the problem with this line of thinking is that newspaper people need to actually make a buck. Or else there are no newspapers.
So sell regular old display ads. Native ads are the future (again).
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#23Any time a site asks me to disable tracking protection, it has the curious effect of reinforcing my desire to leave it enabled - that site has made it clear that they are intentionally and unapologetically violating my privacy for a quick buck.
For me, most often I disable ad blocking for the site, so we have the opposite reaction!
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#24I see the same behavior (v52.8.0). Damn. Also, from a German IPv4: > The new European data protection law requires us to inform you of the following before you use our website: > We use cookies and other technologies to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests. By clicking “I agree” below, you c…
There is also this https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/? where the Post offers a free sub, a basic sub (requiring consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us), and a Premium EU ad-free sub (No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking).
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#25Perhaps a link will help. You'll see this if you click on articles and don't have a subscription, a modal of a kind will pop up asking you to "unblock ads." Clicking on the link[0] to unblock ads brings you to a page giving steps for "disabling Firefox’s native ad blocker," showing a gif for turning off tracking protection. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/steps-for-disabling-firefoxs-...
I have found that I can close the tab and then click on the link again to open another tab. It usually doesn't take more than three tries.
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#26Any time a site asks me to disable tracking protection, it has the curious effect of reinforcing my desire to leave it enabled - that site has made it clear that they are intentionally and unapologetically violating my privacy for a quick buck.
the problem with this line of thinking is that newspaper people need to actually make a buck. Or else there are no newspapers.
Maybe the newspapers entire value is tied to a fraction of the staff and they wonder why we are all collectively disinterested in funding their worthless printing presses, managers, secretaries, and buildings?
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#27Good, the word "tracking" is a lot scarier than "ad", should make most users think a bit harder about the choice. However, it's highly irresponsible for them to tell users to do it, as it's a switch, not a whitelist (which is good since that would eventually defeat the entire purpose). I think the best you get is disable for a session.
It is a whitelist. There's a button that says "Disable For This Site" and the preferences page lets you manage the exceptions list.
Well, guess they changed it. Maybe anyone careful enough to turn on Tracking Protection already knows enough to never whitelist, no exceptions. Whitelist just Google and Facebook and you're basically back to where you were without it.
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#28Not only should you use privoxy with tight settings to block everything You should also disable QUIC in chrome Anything related to webassembly (like you know what it's doing...huge security risk there) any video card accelerator interface middleware (information ratline) you should turn all urls back to mozilla or google in the advanced settings (about:config and chrome:flags) back to 127.0.0.1 to disable them get an…
Sites like wapo need to find a better way to make money than being a blog for bezos and the CIA to mindrape everyone with disinfo nonsense Sometimes you can lie by omission and democracy really DOES die in darkness Ask WAPO who Imran Awan is, and why they didn't tell you for over 2.5 yrs now? Let's talk about the most viciously censored scandal in US history that is being blockaded by what has become a completely sep…
[deleted]
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
the problem with this line of thinking is that newspaper people need to actually make a buck. Or else there are no newspapers.
Maybe the newspapers entire value is tied to a fraction of the staff and they wonder why we are all collectively disinterested in funding their worthless printing presses, managers, secretaries, and buildings?
Maybe so, but this discussion usually conflates four sentiments:
1. I do/don't think the content is worth the subscription.
2. I do/don't think advertising should be used to support the business.
3. I have issues with the privacy implications of advertising.
4. I don't want to pay but I also don't want to deal with ads.
Though maybe you're expressing a fifth? "I don't see why they need to spend this much money to make this content."
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#30Why are different organizations taking such an affront to Firefox's tracking protection? I don't have this problem at WaPo with uBlock + uMatrix. As far as I understand it only takes effect by default in private browsing mode.
I think it's more crucial than ever that everyone use adblockers and refuse to support sites that retaliate with anti-social behavior. Yes, news orgs need funding, but there's no requirement that they use the web's current ad model to get it.