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

Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 314 posts

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#71

Post by SCAQTony »

bscphil wrote: post #30

Why 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 th…

Are we really blocking ads or are we really blocking malware? Calling our privacy tools adblockers is a misnomer don't you think for any site can simple put ad in a div and not get it blocked.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#72

Post by kqr »

adtac wrote: post #62
rebuilder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like the clerk asking you to please take your hat and sunglasses off so their CCTV facial recognition system can identify you and keep track of your movements in the store.

So WP is afraid I'll shoplift articles? Because the purpose of CCTV cameras is security, not marketing.

So lets put it this way instead: As soon as CCTV starts being used for marketing, any employee asking me to remove my sunglasses will have the effect of enforting my desire to wear them indoors.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#73

Post by TeMPOraL »

newsbinator wrote: post #39
larkeith wrote: post #8

Any 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.

It's like a grocery store employee sidling up while you wait in line at the checkout, and politely asking you to put away your phone so you can examine the impulse-buy items on the racks around the checkout. They remind you that having a good grocery store in your neighborhood is important, and don't you want to support that?

> They remind you that having a good grocery store in your neighborhood is important, and don't you want to support that?

Yes, exactly. It'll make me reevaluate which neighbourhood shops to patronize.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#74

Post by robin_reala »

x0x0 wrote: post #41
ralfd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does GDPR compliance require a site to work if a user is not agreeing to be tracked? Functionally the user never clicking the agree button and not be able to access the site is equivalent to what the latimes is doing: http://latimes.com http://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/latimes.com/ > "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries."

I tend to think it's not compliant, but given there is a complete opt out (that does cost money), and the Post is, by its nature, very US oriented, I think it's unlikely to be a priority for regulators. What is the loss to a European of being unable to read the post?

They cover stuff outside the US, and people link to it. For example, this HN front-page article from a couple of days ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2018/10/0...

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#75

Post by beefield »

gwbas1c wrote: post #34
larkeith wrote: post #8

Any 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 is the payment model is broken. I'm not going to subscribe to a site that I only want to read a single article. We need a way to pay a few cents to read an article, ad and tracker free.

A monthly flat fee that gives access to practically all paywalled websites, video services and amazons digital bookshelf. The fee is divided to content creators based on time spent on content, not clicks. No ads, no other tracking. (You may need some time multiplier for different types of content.) I would imagine you could count me in with significantly larger monthly fee than what I currently spend on digital media. What I can't estimate is the ad revenue I generate to content providers.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#76

Post by lostlogin »

sadtruth wrote: post #64
Bud wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree with you. But do you have an alternative model ready? And if not, how much of the news media are you willing to let die off completely before you would relent?

How about Jeff Bezos pays out of pocket?

Workers of his just received a rise of $1-2 per hour, there are limits to what a trillion dollar company can do. https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-...

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#77

Post by akira2501 »

Bud wrote: post #47
bscphil wrote: post #30

Why 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 th…

I tend to agree with you. But do you have an alternative model ready? And if not, how much of the news media are you willing to let die off completely before you would relent?

> But do you have an alternative model ready?

All I want them to do is to stop using third-party companies to serve ads from unknown sources. If they're willing to traffic their own advertisements from their own servers, then I'm much less able or likely to block their advertisements.

I'm not mad at their model, I'm mad that the web is so absurdly vulnerable.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#78

Post by CamperBob2 »

sadtruth wrote: post #64
Bud wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree with you. But do you have an alternative model ready? And if not, how much of the news media are you willing to let die off completely before you would relent?

How about Jeff Bezos pays out of pocket?

Why, at that rate, he might have to shut the Post down in another 2 million years.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#79

Post by abdullahkhalids »

Bud wrote: post #47
bscphil wrote: post #30

Why 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 th…

I tend to agree with you. But do you have an alternative model ready? And if not, how much of the news media are you willing to let die off completely before you would relent?

I will wait till we get a micro-transaction system built directly into the browser (same system for every browser) that allows me to pay 1 cent per news article - maybe 5 cent for a super duper long essay. I am poor but I am willing to pay as much as 5 dollars a month.

My personal information is not for sale or distribution and I refuse to allow any computations on my computer that enable someone to gather it.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#80

Post by kd5bjo »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #65
ilovecaching wrote: post #61

For those of you advocating for a payment model over the ad model, I want you to consider two perspectives. First, consider the people who will be denied access to information on the basis of class. People who consider it a luxury to be online at all, let alone logging on to find a paywall for basic news. Now consider the editors at the Washington Post, who now have to cater the demographic who can pay their fees. In…

> First, consider the people who will be denied access to information on the basis of class. People who consider it a luxury to be online at all, let alone logging on to find a paywall for basic news. I am confused. Haven't (good) newspapers been paid products for a long time? Whats different about the internet version of newspapers?

There’s no secondhand market for digital newspapers. Physical newspapers were often given away for free by customers that had finished with them.
Post reply on HN