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

221–230 of 437 posts

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

#221

Post by oarsinsync »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #217
Ensorceled wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure that's a compatible position to be having, especially in the context of wanting a privacy-focused browser alternative to Chrome.

It's inherently a social development in the form of software.

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

#222

Post by Jonnax »

ecmascript wrote: post #200
Jonnax wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They funded a homophobic political campaign. Websites started user agent detecting Firefox and putting banners saying to not use Firefox because of their homophobic CEO. It's pathetic that people like you hide behind censorship arguments and "diversity of thought" when defending the right to attack minorities. This kind of disingenuous thinking makes me question anyone evangelising Brave as a web browser.

Just because someone donate to a political campaign that wants to stop same-sex marriage doesn't automatically make that person homophobic. He didn't attack any minority, stop spreading objectively false information. I am defending his right to believe whatever he likes in private. It will be a quick downhill (as we already have seen) as soon as you start listing bad values and try to hate on people that have these v…

"Just because someone donate to a political campaign that wants to stop same-sex marriage doesn't automatically make that person homophobic."

Really? What's the point in arguing stupid semantics.

People are defined by their actions.

He has a right to believe what he wants.

He also has to accept the consequences of those beliefs.

At the end of the day it's just a job. As CEO or an executive you're a figurehead. Your actions are publicly associated with the company you head.

You can decry the evils of "wokeness" or "social justice" but it's also the right of the employees of the company to complain or even campaign against the CEO.

Why is one political campaign acceptable and another not?

Because it really seems like you just don't agree with the politics of one.

Your disingenuousness is what I'm calling pathetic. Like calling up China?

An authoritarian country where the state owns all business whilst discussing the actions of a private company in America.

There are plenty of conservative companies in the USA which would be fine with his political contributions.

The idea of having no social consequences or accountability for your actions isn't a Chinese thing and it isn't an American thing. But it seems to be an effective playbook adopted by conservatives worldwide.

But anyway, it's not like I'm going to change your mind :)

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

#223

Post by Bantros »

onyva wrote: post #31
tannhaeuser wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tracking protection != ad blocking. If browsers would always heuristically filter-out ads, this would make them useless at best, or actually deceptive. See also other comment about incentives of browsers becoming misaligned with users (or indeed Brave which you mentioned yourself).

Ads are not of interest to users. I think their display is a waste of time and resources, as well as the risks associated. How blocking ads make a browser “misaligned” with users? It’s in fact the opposite. Brave is simply, like stated before, a Trojan Horse. Replacing google with another ad broker is not helping anyone. >> Brave browser (Stage 1) is a Trojan Horse for their actual business which is a blockchain-base…

You have to opt in to see ads as part of the Brave Rewards program and you also get credited for every ad notification you receive. It couldn't be more clear

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

#224

Post by spodek »

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…

Henry Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" is about not being able to send money to an organization without funding projects he doesn't want to fund, therefore not sending money at all.

Many consider it an important work, including myself.

It's short, with several free versions linked to from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau).

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

#225

Post by Ntrails »

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.

If I donate to cancer research and find out that the money went on a "diversity in research" campaign, I'd be of the opinion that my money had been misused. Not because diversity in sciences isn't important, but because that wasn't what I wanted to spend my donation on.

I think diversity is just being used as a proxy for "social do-gooding, rather than tech do-gooding" and the commenter feels the former is not the thing s/he cares to support. Which is fine! I choose not to support all sorts of nominally good things. Lets not witch-hunt people for caring about different things.

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

#226

Post by GoblinSlayer »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #66
Fnoord wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

All widespread forms of online payment require proof of identity and hence take away all anonymity and all privacy. Even after many years of debates and experiments, there is still no practical way to do anonymous micropayments. And I doubt there ever will be, because governments will always want to regulate payments. So direct payment for content will very likely end up being yet another stronghold of all-powerful g…

>there is still no practical way to do anonymous micropayments

Accumulate and pay in bulk.

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

#227

Post by DanBC »

ecmascript wrote: post #220
parzivalm wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> I always say whatever I believe, even if I am at work.

John Finnemore says it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAMHBlt_CQA

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

#228

Post by annadane »

newscracker wrote: post #45
stiray wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have developed another strategy. If the site doesnt work in firefox I will just leave. Most of the content is available elsewhere and it is internet way of "voting with my wallet".

That's what I do too. I believe that the more the people who don't tolerate this nonsense (and tell others to do likewise when possible), the quicker we can achieve positive change for everyone. And by "positive change" I mean challengers to Chrome and Google's attitude of bulldozing things (including invading privacy).

Unrelated but this is why Facebook sucks, you can't meaningfully vote with your wallet if your friends are on Facebook because then you have to stay on Facebook because that's where everything is

(Yes, cue the comments saying "just delete it" or "I deleted mine" but for a lot of people it's not practical and FB knows this and continues to act like complete fucking cunts)

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

#229

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

> By all means, you are definitely oppressed at work for making a sexual joke.

I think 'ecmascript was referencing a particularly well-known case of a person making a sexual joke to another in a causal private conversation outside of work, in which some busybody overheard the joke and made so big a ruckus that the joker got fired from his job.

> but that doesn't mean others can't exercise their freedoms to remove you from the equation.

I know you didn't mean it like that, but the way you phrased it kind of reinforces ecmascript's point about social justice being pushed by a group of extremely intolerant people, who are willing to break all the rules of civilized discourse in order to have things their way.

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

#230

Post by IanPBann »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #148
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While some advertisements may be dishonest, I don't feel that that can be said of advertising. Advertising is absolutely designed to part you of your money, but that isn't necessarily bad for you.

If I see an advertisement for a good or service which I purchase because of the ad and which subsequently benefits my life, yes the advertiser has profited, but so have I.

If I make a product which benefits humanity (say something that's a better quality, more environmentally friendly alternative to a popular product) is it not more selfish not not advertise and spread the word?

Post reply on HN