Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.co.uk

271–280 of 437 posts

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

#271

Those 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…

With 100s of millions in revenue every year for the last decade plus through their corporate entity aren't they already funded pretty much in perpetuity?

On Wikipedia it says they get 2% of their corporation's revenue, which they own in its entirety, they can increase their funding more just by increasing the 2% they assign themselves from their own revenue. Not even a third of their funding is donations according to a dated IRS audit so they look pretty much secured financially and will appreciate, but otherwise not notice your money hitting the pile.

I think a more important thing we can do to help is make our work exclusively dependent on open technologies instead of Chrome APIs, which might one day be open technologies but till they are they promote not using Firefox.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

YouTube Red (when it was Red) did exactly this with individual videos. And it worked. Red views were (are) worth around 100 (or more) traditional ad views.

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

#273
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Very funny actually.

I should've added that I do speak my mind when asked about it or if its a open discussion. I don't go around calling people overweight, but if they ask me if I think they are I will for sure tell them what I think they are ;)

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

#274

After couple of days with Brave/Chromium testing on my Linux machines, I definitely should say: Firefox is really SLOW , it feels without any benchmarks. So, Mozilla has two ways: 1. Build a really fast browser. 2. Die as Internet Explorer. It's realistic way to handle things. People don't care about privacy in general, browser is too complex to build for privacy/security activists only. Time to focus on business ins…

I spend 40 hours a week using web-based applications and I saw no performance difference after switching to Firefox.

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

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it just shows your privacy is not that important to you, which seems always to be the point with many posters here who, while complaining loudly about google, present rather minor reasons why they can't use firefox ever. That being said, while I vaguely remember there being huge icons at some point for a few versions, there aren't any now in my Firefox. Just a normal looking menu with small icons on the left…

This is like saying that somebody doesn't care about privacy if they don't PGP encrypt all their emails and messages. Convenience is always a factor.

I don't think it is. If we talk using the browser of one of the worlds foremost data collecting companies vs. mostly no tracking, if privacy is important it should outrank most small to medium convenience factors. Especially the ones that can easily be overcome by customization or familiarity.

While I think everyone should value their privacy, I did not mean that as an attack on you, but if a menu you never need to access once you learn some shortcuts is just as important a factor as being tracked on everything you do, you should reevaluate how important privacy really is to you.

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

#276
post #241
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a lack of diversity is a sign of a lack of meritocracy: clearly not all talent gets an equal chance to flourish. Trying to get more talent on board is valuable.

A lack of diversity isn't in and of itself a sign of a lack of meritocracy, and nor is simply increasing diversity a sign of meritocracy. It's misguided to think that by manually ensuring diversity (eg. By hiring someone for simply being a qualified minority rather than necessarily the best candidate) is pushing for meritocracy. If diversity programs were interested in maintaining meritocracy while increasing diversi…

> "A lack of diversity isn't in and of itself a sign of a lack of meritocracy"

I disagree. At least for the majority of cases. It's possible that there are skills or jobs where the talent to excel is extremely rare in certain demographic groups, but I think those cases are extremely rare. For the vast majority of cases, a lack of representation of certain demographic groups would be very strong indication that something is preventing those groups from participating on an equal basis.

> "nor is simply increasing diversity a sign of meritocracy."

That is absolutely true. There are definitely wrong ways to increase diversity that are contrary to meritocracy, but there are also correct ways to do it.

> "uplifting poor families through things like training or scholarship programs so their kids have a better shot at life."

An excellent example of what should be done more.

But even if merely increasing diversity for its own sake does not improve meritocracy, it can actually help meritocracy indirectly: research has shown that people hiring for a job are inclined to hire people who look like the people already in that job. So if a certain industry is dominated by white men, they are inclined to hire more white men for that job. Even if the person hiring for that job is not a white man, and even if they are aware of this issue. So simply increasing diversity can make it easier for talent from minority groups to get recognised for their merit and get hired.

But I think anyone who has any amount of work experience will be under no illusions about the meritocracy in the corporate world. There are plenty of incompetent people getting hired or promoted over more competent people, and that's certainly not a new development. Meritocracy is mostly a fantasy, and I think people who consider diversity a threat to meritocracy are confusing it with aristocracy: the old aristocracy would also claim that they were obviously inherently more suited to rule. They may have claimed to have merit, but the whole point of meritocracy is that it opposed that, and that anyone should be able to rise to the top. Meritocracy and diversity should be going hand in hand. If they're not, you're probably confusing something else for meritocracy.

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

#277
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the usual line, that assume no qualified minority candidates exist . Which is, at root, a biased assumption already. E.g. Stanford (used to) vigorously recruited qualified minority candidates to help improve diversity on campus.

Isn't explicitly choosing based on their race also making the same assumptions? That there aren't enough minority candidates, and thus they need to explicitly force more of them in? After all, why would there be any bias if selections were completely merit based (that is, blind to race and sex) unless the pools being drawn from were themselves biased? The best way to get around biases in the hiring process obviously…

> "why would there be any bias if selections were completely merit based (that is, blind to race and sex)"

But that's a really big "if". Selections are not completely merit based. They are not blind to race and sex. Minority candidates who use a male western sounding name are much more likely to get invited for interviews than if the have a female or foreign sounding name.

The bias is there. We need to undo it or compensate for it. Extra effort to hire from underrepresented groups makes a lot of sense. Bars should not get lowered for them, but they should be able to get a fair shot.

And maybe the problem is not so much that there are not enough minority candidates, but that there are too many unqualified majority candidates who are taking up space.

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

#278

Those 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've given up trying to convince people of taking privacy serious. It's usually just the "but I've got nothing to hide" debate that goes nowhere. Even half of my tech friends still use chrome, got Alexa at home and whatnot. So instead with my non-techsavvy friends I usually just set up Firefox with ublock and tell them to give it a try. You don't have to mention ublock is available on chrome too, right?

What is the privacy difference between having an Alexa device at home vs. having a smartphone or anything else with an embedded microphone?

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

#279

Those 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've given up trying to convince people of taking privacy serious. It's usually just the "but I've got nothing to hide" debate that goes nowhere. Even half of my tech friends still use chrome, got Alexa at home and whatnot. So instead with my non-techsavvy friends I usually just set up Firefox with ublock and tell them to give it a try. You don't have to mention ublock is available on chrome too, right?

My hunch is that maybe 0.1% to 1% of people truly care about privacy. People love to talk about it and sound shocked about lack of privacy. But when it comes to actually changing behavior based on privacy, very few people actually do.

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did that a year back though I do miss a few things. One major one is task manager. Being able to identify rogue tabs is useful. Also, in general Firefox uses a lot more resources compared to Chrome. Another is the ability to smoothly zoom in/out of pages. But overall, the privacy benefits are easily worth it.

One Tab is useful to collect all your tabs in a list instead of leaving them open. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/onetab/ Also, like someone else mentioned, you can visit this in the address bar: about:performance

Niether worked on Firefox for Android.

One Tab acted maliciously: If you open One Tab, it doesn't show any tabs, so as someone who never used it before, I clicked "bring all tabs to One Tab" think you had to click a button to activate it. Nope, it closed all the tabs instead with absolutely no warning or way to undo it.

That's an extremely bad design.

Post reply on HN