Ironic- https://i.imgur.com/jBMKcN5.png
In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
141–150 of 437 posts
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like Mozilla Thunderbird? Like most email clients it blocks loading external resources by default. Or am I missing something?
I meant to say a browser based client but I will look into Thunderbird a bit more. I misunderstood the purpose of Thunderbird - it's marketed as a messaging app, which it is, but I didn't realize it did email as well.
I have been using thunderbird for years and didn't even know it did IM. It does a decent job at email and calender stuff.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla gets a lot of money from its partnership with google. That’s why google search is the default on Firefox. Google probably wouldn’t want them to block all their ads.
I understand that but I do think it should be something Mozilla should offer, even if it’s a premium service only. The web should not be held hostage by AdTech imho, and as a non for profit Mozilla should be able to generate revenue (and before the Mozilla Corp people jump in, for operations and r&d) from essential services centered around online privacy (cloud storage, vpn, dns etc) with like minded 3rd parties.
Why would anyone pay for Mozilla to do adblocking when they could install an ad blocker for free.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brendan Eich worked against equal rights. Don’t you know Karl Popper’s formulation - a tolerant world cannot tolerate intolerance.
No he did not. He funded a political campaign. No I do not know that formulation and I completely disagree with that. It's like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit.
It's a rather well-known saying. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance.
The core point is, if you have a society that accepts anything and everything, that society will not end up with all the things, because it'll also accept people working explicitly to get rid of some of the things. It will instead end up with few things, being run by "dictatorship of small, intolerant minorities"[0]. Therefore, if the society wants to stay accepting, it has to carve an exception - it needs to reject anyone who doesn't also accept anything and everything.
Reasoning behind the "paradox" is sound, but its application to real world varies. In particular, I've recently noticed that the "paradox of tolerance" is primarily being wielded by small, intolerant groups that want to aggressively force their way on everyone else.
--
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#145Those who want a world where Firefox has a higher market share and mind share, please consider doing the following: 1. Evangelize Firefox to people you know any chance you get and show them all the reasons why its better than Chrome (focus on privacy as an important point). Show them how great browsing can be with a few key extensions (like uBlock Origin, Containers, Privacy Possum, etc.). This does not imply that Mo…
I would suggest that Mozilla has enough money already- they just don't spend it on Firefox. Donating only validates their current budget and gives them a mandate to keep building their sprawling portfolio of side projects.
There was some discussion about this a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20850950
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#146A big reason why I stick with Chrome is because Firefox's menu pisses me off how it's this popup box with huge icon rather than Chrome's more traditional list of text. Sounds stupid, but that's a big enough reason for me.
It doesn't sound stupid to me. Browser features are so rich and similar nowadays that only the smallest differences swing an user one way or the other.
For example I was averse to Firefox for a long time because I didn't like the way scrolling pages felt.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes why would you not want companies investing in diversity? Especially if they are the interface to our online world?
I suppose if he wanted to donate to a diversity campaign, he'd donate to one directly. Wikipedia is a big one for this: the donation campaign is all about 'keeping our servers running', and then huge chunks of the spending goes on community feelgood stuff. I've nothing against diversity campaigning but if you were to treat donation like any other 'purchase' you'd be pretty miffed if you thought you were ordering a ch…
> I suppose if he wanted to donate to a diversity campaign, he'd donate to one directly.
This interpretation of his comment is... generous. I agree that there's a legitimate point around wanting your donation to go specifically to browser development and not overhead or other side-projects, but it's pretty clear that he was using the word diversity contemptuously.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's something a person would say with a salary depending on ads. Who likes tracking and popups? TV programming butchered? Endless garbage in the mail? Come on.
In the same way that nobody likes taxes, traffic stops, or insurance salesmen, but almost anyone sees their necessity, things can be beneficial without being enjoyable .
I don't see the necessity of insurance salesmen. It's a particular way the industry decided to organize itself, but it isn't prima facie necessary for insurance - the valuable part - to function.
As for taxes and traffic stops, these help me and people around me. Advertising is made to hurt me, to rob me of my money by subtly manipulating my consumption choices. It's a malicious act.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's the opposite. We're in a bubble here. It's easy enough for a software engineer to say they'd pay for the content that's on the web when we have the disposable income to do so without even breaking stride. If you ask the average person whether they'd prefer to pay for web content or cop ads and trackers, they'd probably tell you to shove your subscription service or whatever alternative you can come up wi…
The problem with paying for content for people outside of that bubble is that the prices are way too high. Consider how much money an average visitor earns a site through ads. In relation, paying 5USD a month for an ad-free subscription to that same content seems ridiculous. I'd wager that's even more money than a newspaper subscription sans the printing costs.
Does an average visitor earn a site 5 USD per month? That sounds way too high. 5 cents, maybe, if they're a regular visitors. If sites asked users to pay what they earn off advertising to them on average, prices would be very low. Unfortunately, there's nothing stopping sites from asking for money and still advertising.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Google and Facebook take the majority of that money, leaving the rest of the publishers less and less of that pie.
Which is why they need more competitors, and being unable to use their trackers means smaller competitors can get a chance.
Alternatively, we need to corner the market into a kill box by letting it depend on a few large players, and then start shooting at it with regulations, technology and cultural shifts.
Personally, I do not want a healthy competition in adtech breeding further innovation. That's like wanting a healthy competition in bacteria breeding super germs. I want the adtech market to die.