31–40 of 178 posts
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.
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.
The poster of the tweet also says later: > 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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't reasonably claim "they would not pay for the browser, or pay a subscription [fee]" when it is not even possible for a user to donate to the Firefox project specifically.
Its rather annoying that theres no way to support firefox without sending money to a Mozilla ceo who could use it for some silly side project
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
OS updates are not comparable. Apple charging for updates is idiotic because as a user I don’t have a choice to go use a different OS.
Adding security updates and new features costs time and money.
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.
The poster of the tweet also says later: > 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.
"Now to be clear, the disclosure Chrome provides to users is not adequate. Their wording of the "Ad Privacy" feature popup is highly disingenuous and the process to disable once notification is given is too complex and must be performed on a per-profile basis. But at least they do it"
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
It's very hard to believe that an average user would ever pay for a browser, when alternatives like Chrome and Safari exist. It's the same as paid email services, in my opinion. Like sure, there will be some segment of users who'll do it, and they'll probably get $10-20M/year if it offers some features free email services don't. But hitting that $100M through donations on a yearly basis would be hard when there are free equivalent alternatives.
I agree it's not good that this is on by default. But saying that Chrome is better because it at least asks is disingenuous. Chrome simply presents you with the "Enhanced Ad Privacy" window and a button "Got it" or "Settings". That's clearly a dark pattern and technically not "asking" at all. The Topics API which you enable by clicking "Got it" is, at least from what I read, clearly worse than what Mozilla has implemented. Calling "differential privacy" a fake is simply untrue. It is not easy to implement, but if done properly, it's absolutely not fake.
I agree though that Mozilla has, as usual, dropped the ball here in how they have introduced this technology. They are obviously desperate, and they know if they would ask, probably the vast majority of people would not agree. Also as usual, they will probably roll back this setting once the outcry is large enough, and they have once again lost trust and gained absolutely nothing. It's also clear that with the tiny market share Firefox has nowadays, thinking they could introduce a new ad technology is simply hubris.
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…
> Privacy-friendly ads are a reasonable way for Mozilla to survive long-term -- if they are indeed privacy-friendly. At some level, trusting that privacy-friendly advertising through Firefox actually respects privacy is going to have to involve trusting Mozilla. Mozilla seems to have gone out of its way over the years to erode user trust, and this is just one more step down that road. As the author says, if Firefox i…
1. Visit about:config 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. ;-)
You don't seem to understand why this is problematic though, so I'll explain it to you: enabling tracking when you know that one of your selling points to your users is respect for privacy is a huge breach of trust.