231–240 of 699 posts
As a long time Firefox user, my main issue with Firefox is Mozilla itself and their focus shifting to VPNs, pocket and things non browser related. But still love Firefox.
You'll have to pry Firefox from my cold, dead hands! At the outset, yes, chromium based browsers feel snappier.. But, stuff that Chrome will not have and are absolutely essential 1. Containers... I use another unverified extension to match urls and automatically assign containers... 2. Ublock origin 3. Tree style tabs 4. Developer console... Edit and resend any request That said, i still end up using chromium for tea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An author doesn't get to choose what the website of the publisher does. It's not like this is the author's personal website that they have decided to put all of these trackers on it. This is a voice crying from within the system about how bad the system is. Is there a lot of cognitive dissonance in understanding how web publishing works?
An author does get to choose which platform they publish on. I'm really surprised by all the apologists here, the article is clearly click bait trying to cram ads down your throat. The real irony is that while the post is bearable to look at in chrome it's near enough unreadable in Firefox.
Also, the author in this case is a staff writer for the publication. The entire point of her being on staff is to write content for that site.
I don’t intend to diminish the article itself, since yes ditching chrome and Google is a win for personal privacy. But I can’t ignore the irony of this article loading dozens of trackers. Like, is the cognitive dissonance that bad in web publishing? Do the teams writing the content not know about the way the publisher presents the data? Is this just pure hypocrisy? I’m at a loss.
I don’t intend to diminish the article itself, since yes ditching chrome and Google is a win for personal privacy. But I can’t ignore the irony of this article loading dozens of trackers. Like, is the cognitive dissonance that bad in web publishing? Do the teams writing the content not know about the way the publisher presents the data? Is this just pure hypocrisy? I’m at a loss.
I feel this sort of black-and-white thinking about morality is responsible for a lot of problems. Short of moving into the desert and becoming some sort of Hesychastic hermit, it's difficult, near impossible to lead a life where you do no evil. The conclusion many draw from that is not to even bother trying. I think the better conclusion is to be forgiving of the failings of others, because they too struggle with thi…
Maybe it also involves greed for viewership, "wanting to make it big" with some article, who knows. There is not much preventing people from setting up a blog by themselves or ask someone else to help them publish in an ethical way, at least in many countries.
I guess at least some positive outcome can be concluded: People, who read on those websites might learn a thing or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty simple. The journalist/editors want to write an article about privacy and web tracking. The business people want ads on the website to keep the lights on. And to be fair to the business people, it's not like they have much choice. There are no major privacy-focused ad networks and they need a source of revenue. What do you expect them to do?
Sometimes the only moral act is to die. "Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil." At some point a company may have to make a decision that results in their death if they want to continue to act moral…
Aim them at the ad technology firms that set the ground rules for the industry decades ago. The publishers are generally not the ones who let it degrade like this—the ad industry, which set the expectations for advertisers and marketers, did.
For those who are more privacy focused LibreWolf is a good fork.
I'm making browser games and there are some still some performance issues that make my game unplayable in Firefox, e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=925025 I really don't want to have a "works best in Chrome" banner but until Firefox catches up I don't have much choice (don't get me started on Safari, I've already given up).
I assure you, if you had developed against firefox first, you would have found "performance bugs" on chrome. Source: I developed a web game.
Testing in Firefox is a pretty good way to approximate standards compliance, and then you have to deal with bugs when running on Chrome, if you do it that way around.