171–180 of 240 posts
It's possible that you have an extension installed that blocks e.g. Twitter's CDN. We've seen issues like that with the Disconnect Firefox extension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not just speed. The media don't show you everything and almost all of them are highly selective.
Twitter also doesn't show me everything, and content is algorithmically curated. And nothing is vetted. So why's that any better? Also, everything? Everything what? "The media" doesn't show me everything for obvious reasons. You can't digest everything. Because this is how "everything" looks like: https://firesky.tv
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter also doesn't show me everything, and content is algorithmically curated. And nothing is vetted. So why's that any better? Also, everything? Everything what? "The media" doesn't show me everything for obvious reasons. You can't digest everything. Because this is how "everything" looks like: https://firesky.tv
I didn't mean everything literally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe they're actually knowledgeable. You just don't know. You also don't know this about random newspaper reporters. Even the "most respected" outlets have let print some real whoppers.
Agree but if I have to bet on one or the other I'm not putting my money on the Twitter user. And you can apply the same reasoning to literally everything. You know nothing about this random doctor who's going to perform surgery. Should you perhaps let some other random guy on twitter that claims to be a surgeon do it? After all even doctors from "most respected" universities made some stupid mistakes. It's good to be…
Twitter has millions of users. Some of them are actually trustworthy sources, moreso than conflicted profit-seeking media outlets. In particular, a lot of them are subject matter experts in a particular field, instead of generalists trying to summarize something they don't really understand or put a partisan spin on it.
There are also more than enough less trustworthy sources. But you shouldn't feel inclined to follow the nincompoops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is, what's going on here? Is this Firefox blocking some path/subdomain/cookie on x.com because it's used by their tracking widget, but the same is also used by some important part of the site itself, so it's essentially a false positive and Mozilla need to adjust the filter to be more specific? Or is the site detecting the ad blocker and purposely refusing to load?
I don't know specifically for X/Twitter, but typically it isn't actively malicious but instead just bad programming. The JS is written in a way that breaks when the fails to load.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter loads some javascript file from edgecastcdn.net and twimg.com. The browser blocks these loads because they are from third–party domains which is a big risk. Loading a script from a third party exposes anything secret or private on the page to the third party. Of course twimg.com is _probably_ owned and operated by Twitter, but it could be anyone. They’re not even registered through the same registrar, they ha…
Of course twimg.com is _probably_ owned and operated by Twitter. https://www.whois.com/whois/twimg.com Looking at the registrant email confirms that it is. I've seen the twimg domain a lot as it's used for their images (pbs.twimg.com) too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that, in respecting people’s right to have opinions GP doesn’t like, GP must make an account and, in their view, endorse those opinions? Or are you suggesting that in merely not liking or endorsing those opinions, GP is somehow denying their right ? Does this just apply to Twitter, or should GP also join every forum allowing public signup, to give fair and balanced attention to each of their respec…
Using a service that doesn't suppress some opinions you don't like is not an endorsement of those opinions. Or else you'd better figure out whether it's easier to cancel your home internet after you no longer have a phone number or the other way around so you know which one to cancel first.
It probably works for liberal causes too. A few years ago criticising Jeremy Corbyn could get you shadow banned.
I think any subject where you get a whole community sharing your heresy with each other and mass reporting you will suffer...except somehow the far right seem to be able to stay in my timeline despite my best efforts....because Twitter wants to trigger me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is the sites. no, the problem is that sites can _afford_ to block firefox, because their share is low enough that they can take the hit. What we need to do, as tech evangalists, is to push the marketshare of firefox higher, so that they cannot be ignored by sites, due to significant traffic. This is how the open internet can preserve both privacy and control of the computing environment. if your friends…
No, the problem is Mozilla. Management has been so bad that Firefox is hard to recommend now. Servo is a great engine but the company behind it isn't earning support and I think it's not going to last. I'll keep using Firefox forks until they don't work, but I won't support Mozilla by using their product directly anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness, Strict Tracking Protection is not a Firefox problem; it is very clearly a Firefox feature. The problem is the sites. X is not really an important site anyway.
Yes, but now I can’t convince my family to use Firefox because it makes part of the internet unusable which is a deal breaker to them. Doesn’t matter if it’s the sites that are the problem, Firefox has lost momentum to such a degree that sites don’t care anymore. So they should tread carefully with features like this.