21–30 of 178 posts
The thread does not explain whether the behaviour of Firefox was actually changed when they added the check box, or if it is a new option to opt-out of something that could not be opted-out before.
> I recommend turning it off, or switching to a more privacy-conscious browser such as Google Chrome.
Which seems an interesting comment from someone so extremely anti-advertising.
2. Set dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled to false
I've added the configuration value to the following page:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Privacy/Privacy_Task_Force/firefox_...
I'm not affiliated with Mozilla, but I do understand how wikis work. ;-)
Meanwhile, Ladybird, the first new browser engine since the 90's to 100% the Acid3 JavaScript test, just secured $1 million in funding from the founder of GitHub. We, as responsible web users, need to do whatever it takes to break up Google's web oligopoly. The open web is at stake.
It is obvious why Firefox does this though; they have no income otherwise like Google does. Firefox users somehow think that using is "supporting" Mozilla/Firefox, but it is not, and they would not pay for the browser, or pay a subscription free. Privacy-friendly ads are a reasonable way for Mozilla to survive long-term -- if they are indeed privacy-friendly. Ultimately you probably either need a clean-room NGO that…
I would pay for a browser that was 100% ad- and tracking-free. I pay for an email account. I pay for YouTube. I pay for several streaming media services. I get that people are used to browsers being free, but no reason that can't change.
Apple tried this with iOS 2 and 3. Minor versions cost users roughly 5-10 USD per update.
Therefore many users did not install the latest OS on their devices. The cost, although small, was a barrier for many people.
Apple quickly pivoted and now all software updates are free of charge to all supported devices.
If Mozilla starts charging for Firefox, I predict either people stick with the oldest version that is free, or stop using Firefox and use a fork that maintains its free (in cost) license. Or maybe only 2% of users convert to a paid version of Firefox.
Meanwhile, Ladybird, the first new browser engine since the 90's to 100% the Acid3 JavaScript test, just secured $1 million in funding from the founder of GitHub. We, as responsible web users, need to do whatever it takes to break up Google's web oligopoly. The open web is at stake.
I read the Ladybird FAQ for their rationale, but building a new browser in 2024 using an unsafe language is such a facepalm it’s hard to take the entire project seriously.
Meanwhile, Ladybird, the first new browser engine since the 90's to 100% the Acid3 JavaScript test, just secured $1 million in funding from the founder of GitHub. We, as responsible web users, need to do whatever it takes to break up Google's web oligopoly. The open web is at stake.
I read the Ladybird FAQ for their rationale, but building a new browser in 2024 using an unsafe language is such a facepalm it’s hard to take the entire project seriously.
"However, now that Ladybird has forked and become its own independent project, all constraints previously imposed by SerenityOS are no longer in effect. We are actively evaluating a number of alternatives and will be adding a mature successor language to the project in the near future. This process is already quite far along, and prototypes exist in multiple languages."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would pay for a browser that was 100% ad- and tracking-free. I pay for an email account. I pay for YouTube. I pay for several streaming media services. I get that people are used to browsers being free, but no reason that can't change.
You are very rare. Most people are not like you. Apple tried this with iOS 2 and 3. Minor versions cost users roughly 5-10 USD per update. Therefore many users did not install the latest OS on their devices. The cost, although small, was a barrier for many people. Apple quickly pivoted and now all software updates are free of charge to all supported devices. If Mozilla starts charging for Firefox, I predict either pe…
Apple charging for updates is idiotic because as a user I don’t have a choice to go use a different OS.
It is obvious why Firefox does this though; they have no income otherwise like Google does. Firefox users somehow think that using is "supporting" Mozilla/Firefox, but it is not, and they would not pay for the browser, or pay a subscription free. Privacy-friendly ads are a reasonable way for Mozilla to survive long-term -- if they are indeed privacy-friendly. Ultimately you probably either need a clean-room NGO that…
The thing is, you cannot pay for Firefox even if you wanted to*, so the assertion that people wouldn't pay is unproven (but has good circumstancial evidence). I'd still prefer they make a paid version without this crap. * Donations to Mozilla go to a non profit which is separated from Firefox development and has questionable effectiveness in general
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the Ladybird FAQ for their rationale, but building a new browser in 2024 using an unsafe language is such a facepalm it’s hard to take the entire project seriously.
'the rationale that they are actively evaluating other develoment platforms? "However, now that Ladybird has forked and become its own independent project, all constraints previously imposed by SerenityOS are no longer in effect. We are actively evaluating a number of alternatives and will be adding a mature successor language to the project in the near future. This process is already quite far along, and prototypes…
If not, then yes it can’t be taken seriously.