Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44% • Hacker News Board

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#241

Post by core2 » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

keithpeter wrote: post #237

core2 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine cable operator or TV manifacture to do the same as Mozilla. They disable ads on all programs they stream. Do you think this is legal?

But the television program is broadcast from one transmitter and is chosen by the TV company. Defining the 'content' to be legally protected is easy then - it is what the broadcast transmitter sent. In the UK we have a system for monitoring the actual broadcast output of TV stations to ensure that they comply with certain rules, so there is an evidence base. TV broadcasting is (usually) organised on national territor…

I see your point, but here the problem is not only tracking, but ads serve.

As a content provider, my content is "what the broadcast transmitter sent", this is a code sent from my server to the browser of the client. Now Mozilla and AdBlock extensions are modifying my code. It's very clear what I wish to send - my code, but this program is modifying my code. Superfish and other injection malware replace parts of my code with theirs, while ad blockers and Mozilla, just remove some of my code.

As a content provider, ads or subscription (ad free) are my only ways to monetize.

It's very hypocritical to disable ads and in the same time to make 97% of your money from Ad company.

Almost all of Mozilla's revenue for 2013, the last year for which it has reported financials, came from search deals that make various providers, notably Google, the default in Firefox. Of the $314 million in revenue for 2013, $306 million, or 97%, came from the search deals. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2862717/mozilla-were-no...

They are abusing their dominate positions and basically stealing from websites. The product "Mozilla" will be very popular because of the feature "Disable Ads and Track". They could make tons of donations because of that. And websites, that actually create content will serve content for free.

I'm aware with ambitions of ISPs in Europe to disable ads for mobile, in the same way as Mozilla. They hope to milk Google, just like Mozilla and AdBlock. http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/2/7963577/google-ads-get-thro... http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboo... http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8610741/mobile-carriers-eu...

I don't like tracking, bad ads and so on, but I don't believe some guys from Mozilla can decide what is good and what is not.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#242

Post by mike_hearn » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #180

mike_hearn wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor people aren't robots. They can and do see adverts for things that they don't then buy. Additionally ad targeting means they might see adverts for things they could afford and that's t be relevant to their life instead of things meant for rich westerners. The whole mental confusion between advertising and privacy in the technical and media community is really irritating. What's the alternative to advertising? Dir…

> Poor people aren't robots. They can and do see adverts for things that they don't then buy. Ah, the grand delusion of advertisers put out again. Sure, people aren't robots, but if ads couldn't influence their behaviour no one would pay for them and there wouldn't be any.

You're arguing with a straw man. I never said ads don't influence behaviour. Obviously they do. My point is they don't exert the kind of scary mind control power that some people like to pretend they do - adverts increase sales, but so does having a shop window with your goods on display, so does putting your products in specialised parts catalogues, whatever. There are lots of things you can do to increase sales and which can count as marketing of some kind.

My point is to claim poor people are exploited by advertising is nuts. It's the other way around. Advertising is why poor people can have exactly the same gmail account with all the same features as a rich guy can. Nuke advertising and you evict poor people into a ghetto web. These people at Mozilla don't seem to be thinking these things through at all and that's a problem ..... there was a time that I had a lot of technical respect for Mozilla and Firefox, but it seems every time I read about the projects these days they're doing something that I find to be kind of dumb.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#243

Post by mikro2nd » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:22 PM UTC

devsquid wrote: post #214

mikro2nd wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, as I drummed into my kids heads, "If they have to advertise it, it is almost certainly not good for you."

Why not? The world is not wholly evil. I know plenty of ads which accurately demonstrate what is good about a product. It seems like you should teach them, "Learn to think for yourself, even if someone says something or believes in something it is not inherently true." But that is a scary thing to teach a child, as an effective teaching of such would invariably lead to them thinking differently than you.

Oh, we certainly tried to teach our kids to think for themselves, too. I believe we were moderately successful. They frequently disagree with me on a whole range of stuff, and nobody finds it scary or threatening.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that any good whatsoever comes from advertising. It is all, without exception, an attempt to propagandize. If nothing else, the underlying agenda is, "Consume, comsume, consume! You don't live up to . You're inadequate and hopeless until you buy ." Not a healthy message.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#244

Post by mike_hearn » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:23 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #216

devsquid wrote: post #133

Man, ads are great. They allow content to be targeted towards people that could potentially not afford the content and towards people that might not necessarily use the product normally. The world is already significantly divided by wealth. Assuming someone poor even has access to a service like Google, imagine if it was behind a paywall. Could they afford it? If not imagine how much of a life advantage someone wealt…

They demand attention I don't want to give. They track my browsing and take information about me without my consent. They try to run code on my computer without even asking permission. No thankyou.

They obtained your permission to run code when you directed your web browser to load the page.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#245

Post by mike_hearn » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

IBM wrote: post #149

lern_too_spel wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's comparing Apple to Google. In that respect, Apple comes out looking pretty bad. Google's devices are also encrypted by default and have much more robust protections against rogue applications in place (both static and dynamic automated analysis of apps for malware, vs. just a human eyeballing it).

Android devices aren't encrypted by default, Google backtracked on that. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/03/google-quietly-backs-...

New ones are, I think. The Nexus 6 is. Older devices don't necessarily get upgraded. It's a hardware/software issue, not a philosophical issue.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#246

Post by marcosdumay » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #127

marcosdumay wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objective harm, I don't know of any. But there's a long list of people out there with a relation of everything I brought on the last few years... Still, they mean me no harm... today... and the data is useless for attacking me... today. Anyway, now I can think about some harm. Since they got their data, ads have become less relevant (yes, those people are extremely incompetent). But that isn't much of a trouble.

Social networks like Facebook keep far more information than any ad network. Most networks usually purge data beyond 30-60 days because it is no longer relevant for targeting. And Facebook doesn't have to scrape any info since people supply it willing. My point: Privacy issues are somewhat pointed at the wrong institutions who really aren't a threat.

Having something worse around does not make ad networks better.

Yes, Facebook is a bigger problem. State level universal surveillance is even bigger. Fighting any one of the three is worthwhile.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#247

Post by digi_owl » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

tenfingers wrote: post #229

This is no news to anybody that ever tried an ad blocker, a proxy/content filter or even a generic hosts file. The difference is very noticeable. In fact, it's the main reason I run such filters. The difference is not only in traffic saved/lower latency, but also much lower cpu usage. However, this it would be a bit hypocritical for Mozilla (and probably the reason why the filter is off by default). Firefox is not mu…

Been using Noscript in Firefox for years now.

Sometimes the number of domains that gets loaded in the background on certain sites is mind numbing.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#248

Post by manigandham » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:46 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #246

manigandham wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social networks like Facebook keep far more information than any ad network. Most networks usually purge data beyond 30-60 days because it is no longer relevant for targeting. And Facebook doesn't have to scrape any info since people supply it willing. My point: Privacy issues are somewhat pointed at the wrong institutions who really aren't a threat.

Having something worse around does not make ad networks better. Yes, Facebook is a bigger problem. State level universal surveillance is even bigger. Fighting any one of the three is worthwhile.

I think you skipped the part that ad networks only keep about 30-60 days of data. Keeping things forever doesn't help when targeting ads to user intent, which changes pretty frequently. It's also anonymized and we don't have personal information like names or addresses. You're also discounting the value it brings to lots of consumers, marketers and website publishers alike to have relevant messages.

I really dont understand this argument of privacy as if everyone was living off the grid somewhere. What is the impetus here? And in context of web publishers, if you dont want ads then you'd have to pay for content directly, which is no more private and in fact reveals even more info.

The reason you use a credit card and not cash during real transactions is because you care more about value and convenience than privacy, so why are ads online such a target of all this?

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#249

Post by mousetraps » Sun, May 24, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

bobajeff wrote: post #209

ams6110 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a privacy respecting search engine, DuckDuckGo

What does that have to do with my post? (Other than the phrase "search engine") Unless, DuckDuckGo plans on punishing websites that heavily use tracking cookies and/or they're a nonprofit that aims to advance the web they aren't actually relevant to what I was saying.

I believe ams6110 meant that there is no need for Mozilla to build their own search engine from the ground up when they could simply partner with DuckDuckGo.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#250

Post by white-flame » Sun, May 24, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

ploxiln wrote: post #132

hrjet wrote: post #113

As a user of NoScript + Firefox and as a developer of a browser with an express goal of "privacy by default"[1], I am thrilled to see this getting more attention. The more people use privacy features, the more will website developers ensure that their products degrade gracefully when, for example, third-party scripts are disabled. Which will enable even more users to migrate towards a "privacy by default" configurati…

I use ublock with firefox. I worry the opposite will happen: When a website doesn't work, you can look at the specific blocked domains and types of content and selectively unblock for the current domain, or you can be lazy and just turn off ublock for the current domain. I worry that if tracking/ad blockers become very popular, then websites that don't work will be rewarded with all the tracking/ad blocking being tur…

A better option, and easier for users, would be for them to subscribe to a privacy setting upstream which configures popular sites for them. This would have to be non-canonical, such that popular upstream options that get influenced by advertisers can fall out of favor.