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

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

wired.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 437 posts

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

#211

Post by claudiawerner »

ecmascript wrote: post #130
sprafa wrote: post #123

Earlier 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 like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit.

Many philosophers of free speech and first amendment jurisprudence would argue that some restrictions on free speech for the sake of free speech could hypothetically be permitted. The law does this all the time; it restricts action in order to help guarantee the freedom of action of others. The most basic formulation of this is in the harm principle, in which it is recognized that harm should not be permitted because it interferes with others' rights.

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

#212

Post by austhrow743 »

sakisv wrote: post #120
martin_a wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While wording could be improved, the point stands. I want my money to be used for working on Firefox (the core browser) and for that exclusively. Not something like Pocket or whatever Mozilla thinks it should bring out that nobody asked for. There is no way to ensure this, so I will not give any money at all.

> There is no way to ensure this, so I will not give any money at all. Please keep in mind that this is not a personal attack as I don't know you and I don't find it particularly constructive to engage in this kind of attacks, so please only focus on my argument: I cannot understand this way of thinking. On one hand we have the option to give Mozilla some money to use them however they see fit. This means that from t…

I think you left out an absolutely huge question that dwarfs all of those in importance.

What other good can I do with my dollars?

That donating to Mozilla wont make it worse is such a low bar when there are kids that need malaria nets or deworming or whatnot.

If you think about the opportunity cost of donating to an organisation thats doing some things you think are really important as well as some things that you think are only kinda sorta important, when there are organisations that focus 100% on things you think are really important, then that should clear things up for you.

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

#213

Post by nulbyte »

lordgrenville wrote: post #182
interactivecode wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes why would you not want companies investing in diversity? Especially if they are the interface to our online world?

Ignoring the specific case, it's totally reasonable to say "I want to donate to nonprofit X because of thing Y that they do that I value, but I'd like the money earmarked for that thing only, not for all their other activities, which I may or may not support". (Quickly googled example: https://www.nonprofitissues.com/to-the-point/can-earmarked-c... )

In the US, where Mozulla Foundation is organized, the organization often does not have a legal obligation to honor an unsolicited restriction. Mozilla would first have to solicit donations specifically for Firefox before a donor should reasonably expect donated funds to be used solely for Firefox.

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

#214

Post by marble-drink »

interactivecode wrote: post #68
skocznymroczny wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some way to ensure the donation money will actually go to Firefox and not to some sort of "diversity" campaign?

Yikes why would you not want companies investing in diversity? Especially if they are the interface to our online world?

"Diversity" in tech means "we should have programmers with skin colour X or genital configuration Y". But I don't care about people's skin colour or genitals.

It turns out people are diverse anyway and that's why not everyone end up in tech.

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

#215

Post by [deleted] »

brianpgordon wrote: post #147
richthegeek wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#216

Post by barking »

h0h0h0h0111 wrote: post #205
brianpgordon wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Perhaps OP feels that the specific strategy Mozilla employee for helping diversity is ineffective; in the same manner that refusing to donate to ineffective anti-poverty charities, is not the same as supporting poverty. Edit: rather than trying to read OP's mind or surmise what they may be thinking, I'll give my own experience on this. I have seen companies spend money on diversity as lip-service, or targeting groups…

I agree with this. It might not be that he feels contemptuously about eliminating discrimination but rather than that he's unhappy with the way diversity campaigns are run.

Sometimes it seems to me that whereas in the past we had Churches in a privileged position, telling us how to behave, that we now have NGOs doing the same thing.

For example there was just last week a report in the UK about how employees in oxfam shops had sign NDAs in settlements so that the organisation would not get negative publicity for not practicing as they preach.

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

#217

Post by RobertRoberts »

Ensorceled wrote: post #201
faeyanpiraat wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that they say they will use it for purpose X, but instead they use it for Y. A lie is a lie whether it is related to a donation or a purchase.

Mozilla is quite open about what they do and where the money goes, nobody is lying: "The direct work of the Mozilla Foundation focuses on fueling the movement for a healthy internet. We do this by supporting a diverse group of fellows working on key internet issues, connecting open Internet leaders at events like MozFest, publishing critical research in the Internet Health Report, and rallying citizens around advocac…

But what if you want to only support software development and not social development?

I think this is the crux of this thread of discussion.

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

#218

Post by nulbyte »

Ensorceled wrote: post #202
ecmascript wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He funded such a campaign, yes. With his private money on his free time. That is not discrimination. He even wrote sorry for causing hurt and pledged to promote equality at Mozilla. Your comment is a prime example of what's wrong with the tech industry in my opinion.

"private money" ... his salary, paid in small part by my donation to Mozilla, going to a cause that I definitely don't support. Seems we are full circle.

Is it your argument that he should only be paid his salary if he passes a litmus test? Or should he be paid his salary for the work he agreed to perform in exchange for it? In any case, I don't know that firing him was about his opinion (I hope not), but about the distraction the press coverage caused. I found it unfortunate nonetheless, even as a gay activist.

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

#219

Post by GoblinSlayer »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #108
Fnoord wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. Not at all a fan of cryptocurrencies but would a cryptocurrency like Montero be of help here?

Only if you believe that governments would ever let businesses receive hundreds of billions per year without any proof of who or where the payer was. In my view, these schemes will only be tolerated as long as they are tiny enough to fly under the radar.

They regulate bitcoin, but don't take all anonymity.

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

#220

Post by ecmascript »

parzivalm wrote: post #204
ecmascript wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you're right, I think I may already follow this since I do not tolerate Mozilla's intolerance. I have never seen any more intolerance than in people who thinks social justice is important. I do not tolerate these peoples intolerance. I obviously do not accept anything and everything, that is why I am upset at Mozilla and their actions. > "dictatorship of small, intolerant minorities" This. This is what a lot of…

By all means, you are definitely oppressed at work for making a sexual joke. Let's ignore the fact that that joke may be seen as harassment of others in the office. You shouldn't be called a Nazi, but if you are contributing to an intolerant culture then the company you work for has a perogagitive to get rid of you. And you are probably downvoted constantly because you are spewing beliefs and opinions that scream, "I…

I never wrote anything about being oppressed lol. I never even mentioned work, just community. A lot of open source projects utilize the same rules. If you so much as make a single dongle joke, you may be excluded.

I always say whatever I believe, even if I am at work. If the company would fire me over a joke then fine I wouldn't want to work there anyway. So far I haven't met any issues on that front. Also I don't work in the US so you can't really fire someone where I live because of a joke and it's outright illegal to do it over beliefs.

I do not get the mad men reference, since I haven't seen the show. But so what if I am? No one values or respects everyone's opinions, that is just such a load of horseshit imo. Obviously people here don't value or respect my opinion for example.

> are inappropriate and have no place in modern society

This is very funny, a biological hard fact has no place in modern society? I don't even understand how this is even a controversial thing to believe yet you believe it has no place in a modern society.

I do not wish to live in your definition of a modern society.

Post reply on HN