In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default

Post by whalabi » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:31 AM UTC

lrem wrote: post #24

shadykiller wrote: post #3

Switched to Firefox a few months back. Havn’t missed Chrome at all

I work at Google, but use Firefox for all my private things... Except when I run into a page that's broken in Firefox. And except when I need developer tools. And except when I need the browser to translate sites for me. And except when I'm shopping, as Google does a good enough job with payment details. And except Google properties, because who knows what weird HTTP 3.7 will Chrome use to save some ocean boiling?

Post by babuskov » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:37 AM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #26

iliketosleep wrote: post #15

It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. Ads are inevitable, and in some ways beneficial to both content providers and consumers (i.e. revenue can be earned from users without any direct payment). But are invasive forms of tracking such as 3rd party cookies really that necessary? Could websites survive using only contextual advertising without the excessive tracking?

I don't agree ads are beneficial for users (or "consumers" as you put it). They could be, but you pay with your focus/time. I'd rather pay for the content then, or get a free (demo) version (I regard a RSS feed as such). Tracking, however, is on the long term never beneficial for the users. It is a behemoth of a privacy nightmare. This article is about ad trackers .

Post by gear54rus » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:39 AM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #39

iliketosleep wrote: post #15

It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. Ads are inevitable, and in some ways beneficial to both content providers and consumers (i.e. revenue can be earned from users without any direct payment). But are invasive forms of tracking such as 3rd party cookies really that necessary? Could websites survive using only contextual advertising without the excessive tracking?

The ads that I find most useful are the ones which mimic olde newspaper/magazine ads by simply showing things relevant to their general readership. The advertisers don't need to know a thing about me, they just need to know the general demographics and interests of the publication. For example, the ads on this blog[1] are far more relevant and less invasive/annoying than anything that Google ever showed me before I s…

Post by a_imho » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:40 AM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #26

iliketosleep wrote: post #15

It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. Ads are inevitable, and in some ways beneficial to both content providers and consumers (i.e. revenue can be earned from users without any direct payment). But are invasive forms of tracking such as 3rd party cookies really that necessary? Could websites survive using only contextual advertising without the excessive tracking?

I don't agree ads are beneficial for users (or "consumers" as you put it). They could be, but you pay with your focus/time. I'd rather pay for the content then, or get a free (demo) version (I regard a RSS feed as such). Tracking, however, is on the long term never beneficial for the users. It is a behemoth of a privacy nightmare. This article is about ad trackers .

Post by buboard » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:45 AM UTC

estomagordo wrote: post #47

iliketosleep wrote: post #15

It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. Ads are inevitable, and in some ways beneficial to both content providers and consumers (i.e. revenue can be earned from users without any direct payment). But are invasive forms of tracking such as 3rd party cookies really that necessary? Could websites survive using only contextual advertising without the excessive tracking?

How could ads benefit users? Obviously, if the revenue that content creators receive from ads came directly from the consumers, the middle (ad) man would be cut out and all others would benefit.