461–470 of 523 posts
If you want to disable this, instructions are given here[1] but 1) Hamburger menu -> Settings -> Privacy & Security 2) scroll down to the new section entitled "Web Site Advertising Preferences". 3) Make sure the box marked "Allow web sites to perform privacy-preserving ad measurement" is not checked. [1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr...
sudo rm $(which firefox)Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s clear in retrospect that we should have communicated more on this one What isn’t clear, in retrospect or otherwise, is why companies/apps/services need to keep learning this lesson. The user outcry was utterly predictable from even before the first web article was out. The fact that no one with decision power at Mozilla saw it coming is worrying: either they have zero understanding of people’s concerns for pri…
> The fact that no one with decision power at Mozilla saw it coming is worrying: either they have zero understanding of people’s concerns for privacy or they don’t care. Or the third option: they feel the tradeoff of HN & co's criticism style is not a big deal in the end. Criticism of Mozilla in general is very warranted right now, but the way(s) in which everyone is doing so just feels very out of touch with the act…
Do people really expect that? I'm glad they're part of whatwg etc., but I'd much prefer they just made a good browser instead of tooting their own horns about how much good they're doing for society. In the end I think society would have been better off if they'd just focus on good tech like Gecko/Servo and Rust and not bothered with all their side stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OP specifically said “make the setting do nothing while still collecting the data”. I don’t know about you, but a setting that acts like that would be akin to lying. Well, that is what Firefox did here. They created a new feature, defaulted it to on, in direct contradiction to user choices. We know this because this Web Site Advertising feature defaults to on even where the user has the strictest level of tracking…
> Well, that is what Firefox did here. No, let's be very clear here: what Mozilla/Firefox did here was default users in to a setting without good notice on how to opt out . This is different from what was said in this thread, which is making the setting do nothing while still collecting the data . If you disable the setting/opt out, then the data isn't being collected.
That's a framing so charitable to Mozilla that it is untrue. Again, do you have an interest you should be declaring in this conversation?
> This is different from what was said in this thread, which is making the setting do nothing while still collecting the data.
No, it's not. It ignores the Strict Tracking Protection and DNT settings and opts in users to tracking. It's absolutely identical to possibility posited by the other commenter.
For all your pontificating above about other people's comments, it seems the only person commenting in bad faith is you.
https://librewolf.net/ And fallback to Firefox when things don't work. Which is usually on sketchy websites, websites that have heavy bot protection and fingerprinting or ones that use gpu APIs.
A few criticisms of LibreWolf: * There is no legal entity behind the project. Should anything ever happen with the project (it can happen, even if unlikely), there are no legal ramifications. * The binaries aren't signed. Yes, code signing is a bit of a racket, but there is some merit in it. * There is no auto-update mechanism. Might not seem like a big deal, but IMO it is, especially on Windows where you're recommen…
A UK Ltd. is less transparent than Librewolf, an open-source project run by many volunteers without the incentive to make any money.
Point 3 is no longer true, the installer comes with the option to enable auto-update and on Linux, it also auto-updates, depending on distro, etc.
The risks you are talking about are not inherent to Librewolf, but to Linux and open-source, and thus are not legitimate criticisms of Librewolf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And Mozilla leadership is associated with radical left politics, just as an extra. Do you have proof for this? I'd be curious. I also fail to see how is that related to the collecting data by default thing. Is that a leftist thing now?
Whether you agree or disagree with what the Mozilla foundation does, it seems fairly matter of fact to say that they are pursuing liberal policies and that posts from the leadership, like the couple below, employ a good bit of leftist rhetoric. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/first-steps-toward-lasti... https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/leadership/mozilla-racia...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree and these people still exist. However not all content can be produced this way, news or sports coverage would be an example.
You get faster and better news coverage from random people on social media than news corporations these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few criticisms of LibreWolf: * There is no legal entity behind the project. Should anything ever happen with the project (it can happen, even if unlikely), there are no legal ramifications. * The binaries aren't signed. Yes, code signing is a bit of a racket, but there is some merit in it. * There is no auto-update mechanism. Might not seem like a big deal, but IMO it is, especially on Windows where you're recommen…
You know perfectly well that point 1 is completely irrelevant in the world of open-source. A UK Ltd. is less transparent than Librewolf, an open-source project run by many volunteers without the incentive to make any money. Point 3 is no longer true, the installer comes with the option to enable auto-update and on Linux, it also auto-updates, depending on distro, etc. The risks you are talking about are not inherent…
Genuinely, why not? Open source projects go through ownership changes (as unlikely as they may be), social engineering, etc. In the unlikely chance something were to happen and anything malicious were to occur, what recourse is a user to have? And we are talking about a web browser here, which will be accessing peoples most sensitive data. I don't think this is an unreasonable stance.
> A UK Ltd. is less transparent than Librewolf, an open-source project run by many volunteers without the incentive to make any money.
Well this UK Ltd is still beholden to English law and UK GDPR. You could argue the merits and teeth that GDPR has, but I don't see why it's not a valid comparison? I can't just start processing personal data without complying with GDPR, for example.
> The risks you are talking about are not inherent to Librewolf, but to Linux and open-source, and thus are not legitimate criticisms of Librewolf.
Linux has the Linux foundation, which AFAIK is going to be beholden to California law? I don't see how that can't also be a criticism of Librewolf (and any OSS in a similar spot?).
> Point 3 is no longer true, the installer comes with the option to enable auto-update and on Linux, it also auto-updates, depending on distro, etc.
It seems to me to still true, because the installer is installing WinUpdater. Which, as it seems, is maintained by an individual developer?
> If you want LibreWolf to be automatically updated (recommended), you can choose to install the LibreWolf WinUpdater[1], which is included in the installer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this line is very important: > First, in the absence of alternatives, there are enormous economic incentives for advertisers to try to bypass these countermeasures, leading to a perpetual arms race that we may not win. It's very likely that this arms race will lead to DRM in web publications and video feeds (which Google is already experimenting with).
I will begrudgingly admit he has a point here. In a few years I imagine almost all sites will refuse to serve anything without WEI, and the "open" web will be the preserve of a few hobbyists. Annoyingly you'll still need to use a compromised browser (or worse, app) to do anything with your bank, etc.
Realistically, the best outcome at this point is that enough users are willing to send enough data to advertisers so they allow the open web to continue.
The alternative is that sites will eventually only work in Chrome or Safari on limited, locked down platforms (read: no Linux support at all).