How convenient for 657 comments to disappear off the front page, marked as a dupe...
Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
691–700 of 721 posts
Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a dark pattern I call 'the consent ratchet'. As soon as you ever get irritated enough and misclick that button is gone for ever and good luck disabling the 'feature' (term used lightly) seven layers of menus down, assuming it can be done at all.
A ratchet is a good analogy. But let's not call it consent.
Fair enough.
Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the old, now-deleted (and much-refuted) reddit post [0], I assume? [0] https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=22270#p16867...
No, the things they post on their own forum! https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=17442#p12769... https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15168#p109681
Thanks, I didn't know that was an even older version version of the same claim. I imagine that's one of the reasons for the developers being tired of the same (incorrect in their view) claims.
The only remaining issue with Palemoon for me is webrtc (which is selectively disabled). For those that value stability (especially on Windows) that's no bad thing (personally, I'm not a fan of being forced to use a specific browser to access some sites). It's like the IE6 days.
Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#694Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no need to "do without". Firefox should adversarially interoperate with the web. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera... Today that means it should actively subvert the business interests of the web. Advertisers want to show ads? Block them and make no exceptions. Surveillance capitalists want data? Give them fake data or no data at all whenever possible. Sites start detecting Firefox…
We agree in that we wish Firefox prioritized each user's privacy and agency more. But what I'm saying is that users' demand for ubiquitous and frictionless media consumption is something that will always be abused, and to try to satisfy that need and also not become corrupt or destroyed by your competitors seems pretty impossible at the moment. I want there to be a space for a browser that doesn't need millions or bi…
Yeah. The only true fix for that is the end of copyright.
Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The amount the execs negotiated is reflected in their salary No it isn't - salary is salary, and these deals existed when the Mozilla CEO was not paid as much. By her own admission, at one point Baker just went "fuck it, other CEOs get paid multiples, why not me?", so now she brings home $3m per year, with the whole exec structure likely benefiting in similar fashion (because why only the CEO?). See: https://calpat…
>See: https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html but it's on wikipedia too. See how the last year on that graph is 2018? Baker became interim CEO when Chris Beard stepped down in December 2019, officially hired around April of 2020. It also never reaches $3m. Additionally, look at the ~2015-2018 revenue. That is when Mozilla was with Yahoo and making ~$500 million a year as opposes to the ~$300 million now. That is when th…
Somebody didn't read the actual text. "Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's top executive, was paid $2.4m in 2018, [...]" He goes on to mention how he scavenged the figures from reports. Wikipedia links an article that states she was paid over $3m in 2019. And before then, she's been on the various boards since forever, so she approved the salary rises for her, Beard, and friends.
So let's drill this home: Baker or Beard, the whole Foundation board is complicit in enabling skyrocketing compensation rates for executives, whose only merit seems to be that they can maintain long-running commercial agreements more or less intact - while dropping the ball everywhere else.
Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
A iff B doesn't mean that B is because of A. It simply means that if A is true then B must be as well. > - "If I'd be willing to entertain [..] then they will honestly spell what they're doing and why". This is true, because if they won't, then you wouldn't be willing to entertain [..]
You're right, I guess it depends on what you choose A and B to be. For: A = OP supports Mozilla making money from address bar ads B = Mozilla is honest about making money from address bar ads "B -> A" (OP supports Mozilla if Mozilla acts a certain way) makes sense. "A -> B" sounds confusing in a sentence, but its contrapositive, "!B -> !A", also makes sense. However, for: B = Mozilla decides to make money from addres…
(1) IFF is shorthand for "if and only if". Try to read the original sentence, it makes perfect sense and is used correctly.
(2) Logically, iff, equivalence and double implication are themselves equivalent, the expression in question is (necessarily) logically correct even in those forms, though it is irrelevant as of (1) and a confusing way to express the relationship, as the causality clearly flows in one direction.
(3) It was not meant nor interpreted as a bare logical proposition, hence it is improper to blindly apply logical transformations and reinterpret in a different system.
Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#698As someone who has used Firefox since v0.* I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately. > relevant suggestions from our trusted partners The suggestions are not relevant to, and the partners not trusted by, me.
Mozilla jumped the shark when they started bundling opt-out (aka on by default) spyware in their browsers.
Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
GNOME WebKit definitely isn't Safari. A lot of websites that work in Safari were broken in WebKit last time I tried it. It does replicate a lot of buggy behaviour in Safari so from what I can tell you can be reasonably sure that your website works in Safari if it works in WebKit, but that's the only use I've found for it so far. As for a good UI on Windows, I think you should be able to compile GNOME's WebKit browser…
> A lot of websites that work in Safari were broken in WebKit last time I tried it. If you used it in the past from the Debian repos, they didn't use to do security or feature update servicing for WebKit in their repositories. That's no longer a thing nowadays. You can use both the Technology Preview at https://webkit.org/downloads/ or check if the version is recent on your distribution however.
I've used the webkit browser on Manjaro, which seems to pull it from the AUR which in turn is quite close to upstream.
Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're looking for a privacy friendly fork of Chromium, the only option that's worth considering is Ungoogled Chromium on Desktop and Bromite on Android. https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/bromite/bromite Brave has crypto ads and a lot of other unnecessary stuff built in. They've also made questionable decisions in the past, like inserting referral codes in links. If anything, Brave i…
Unnecessary like a native adblocker that won't get fucked over by Manifest v3, tracker blocking, anti-fingerprinting tech and defaulting to privacy friendly search engines?
That sounds like Brave is worth a look. Thanks for mentioning these things.