Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

mastodon.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 178 posts

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#41

Post by jacknews »

tatersolid wrote: post #16
mouse_ wrote: post #11

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.

'unsafe language' sounds like something out of '1984' or 'Animal Farm'; a totalitarian political euphemism, attempting to demonize all 'others'.

The reality is that no language is actually 'safe', and 'safety' itself is a complex trade-off between enforced restrictions, flexibility, and other factors, just like in life.

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#42

Post by intelVISA »

lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #40
thangalin wrote: post #22

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. ;-)

> 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.

To be fair, I don't think that has been an active Mozilla mission for close to a decade now.

They mostly exist as a Google owned shell now...

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#43

Post by lkdfjlkdfjlg »

intelVISA wrote: post #42
lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To be fair, I don't think that has been an active Mozilla mission for close to a decade now. They mostly exist as a Google owned shell now...

Maybe it hasn't been an active Mozilla mission for a decade in practice, but they did paid it lip service many times in the past decade, so still counts as breach of trust.

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#44

Post by Topgamer7 »

thangalin wrote: post #22

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. ;-)

Unfortunately about config no longer exists for mobile devices

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#45

Post by intelVISA »

pjmlp wrote: post #25
tatersolid wrote: post #16

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.

While I enjoy the sentiment, it isn't as if Rust is doing any favours regarding Firefox adoption.

We've added tracking but at least it's safe(tm).

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#46

Post by tredre3 »

intelVISA wrote: post #42
lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To be fair, I don't think that has been an active Mozilla mission for close to a decade now. They mostly exist as a Google owned shell now...

> To be fair, I don't think that has been an active Mozilla mission for close to a decade now.

Ok, maybe they should update firefox's home page, then?

Very first lines:

> Get the browser that protects what's important

> No shady privacy policies or back doors for advertisers. Just a lightning fast browser that doesn’t sell you out.

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#47

Post by BenjiWiebe »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #44
thangalin wrote: post #22

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. ;-)

Unfortunately about config no longer exists for mobile devices

about:config works on Android Firefox nightly. Just checked.

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#48

Post by nottorp »

jacknews wrote: post #41
tatersolid wrote: post #16

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.

'unsafe language' sounds like something out of '1984' or 'Animal Farm'; a totalitarian political euphemism, attempting to demonize all 'others'. The reality is that no language is actually 'safe', and 'safety' itself is a complex trade-off between enforced restrictions, flexibility, and other factors, just like in life.

Developers gotta have religion. It's not about fear of death like mainstream churches, it's about fear of buffer overflows.

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#49

Post by wizee »

kredd wrote: post #37
dtech wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

After all these "I would pay for Firefox if I could" comments, it would be fun for Mozilla to start a Gofundme like page, where if it hits $300M (or whatever amount they're getting from Google per year) they'll make it an option, otherwise they'll go back to trying to find another revenue source. It's very hard to believe that an average user would ever pay for a browser, when alternatives like Chrome and Safari exis…

Mozilla is like Wikipedia, where the vast majority of the funds they receive go to causes unrelated to development or maintenance of their core product (web browser or encyclopedia).

Re: "Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"

#50

Post by TacticalCoder »

tatersolid wrote: post #16
mouse_ wrote: post #11

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.

Yup I don't understand the downvotes. I don't code in Rust but I also don't feel insecure about it: I wish more projects were written in Rust (or something similar).

There are several research, already published here many times, which show that something insane like 75%+ of all the security exploits would be rendered cold dead in their tracks had Rust been used.

I don't know how anyone, even a C/C++/VisualBasic/PHP coder, could not like that.

Post reply on HN