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

131–140 of 178 posts

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

#131

Post by dhx »

CrendKing wrote: post #72

This gives me impression like what happens to the nuclear weapon proliferation. At beginning, it is an arms race, between US and USSR, between users and advertisers. Either side thinks they can't survive without vanquishing the other. Eventually they realize it is stupid to continue, and reach a point to both step back. I think Mozilla is at the point where they realize it is no longer beneficial to continue the race…

Coupon codes have existed before the Internet as a privacy-preserving way for businesses to track conversions for advertising. If a buyer quotes "MAGAZINE5" when purchasing to obtain a 5% discount, the seller knows the magazine advert is working. In modern times, there is nothing technologically preventing a business placing online ads with frequently changing coupon codes "HAPPY15" vs "HAPPY22" to gauge effectiveness of particular ad formats in more granular ways.

Television and radio advertising exists and has existed long before the Internet without any need for detailed conversion tracking. Brief "To help us improve our business, could you please tell us how you heard about our brand?" questions in order forms has sufficed. A/B testing of billboard placements have sufficed.

Put simply, "Privacy Sandbox" is presented as a solution to a "problem" that doesn't exist.

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

#132

Post by ndriscoll »

doe_eyes wrote: post #100
openrisk wrote: post #69

Q: How many people are using a web browser on a daily basis worldwide as their main window to the collective infosphere? A: Billions. Q: What fraction of the corresponding GDP would it take to fund a serious browser-as-public-good initiative that would develop this technology to its full potential without the perverse constraints of adtech business models? A: 0.0001%? Too small to compute? The idea that critical comm…

The problem isn't building a publicly-funded browser, it's building a publicly-funded browser that's good and that can keep up with the demands of the platform - which means taking risks, also when it comes to security and privacy. A publicly-funded equivalent of MSIE 6, heroically made 100% secure and private, would be a disaster for the web. And that's a pretty likely outcome if it's designed by a government commit…

On the other hand, a publicly funded equivalent of Firefox 3.5 or maybe SeaMonkey with incremental improvements over time (e.g. adding things like form validation and pie charts and bar charts and line charts to html, and not adding USB or GPU or ad tracking or attestation support) would be amazing for the web.

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

#133

Post by ndriscoll »

exe34 wrote: post #66
anticensor wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or use an unbranded fork that has about:config enabled

amazing, the one app that has access to everything that matters in your digital life, and you'd be willing to use a non-standard source?

The standard source comes with malware, and the one big alternative comes with malware. Such is the state of the tech industry (even nonprofits) in 2024. Random individuals like Raymond Hill are far more trustworthy than large organizations.

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

#134

Post by npteljes »

dhx wrote: post #131
CrendKing wrote: post #72

This gives me impression like what happens to the nuclear weapon proliferation. At beginning, it is an arms race, between US and USSR, between users and advertisers. Either side thinks they can't survive without vanquishing the other. Eventually they realize it is stupid to continue, and reach a point to both step back. I think Mozilla is at the point where they realize it is no longer beneficial to continue the race…

Coupon codes have existed before the Internet as a privacy-preserving way for businesses to track conversions for advertising. If a buyer quotes "MAGAZINE5" when purchasing to obtain a 5% discount, the seller knows the magazine advert is working. In modern times, there is nothing technologically preventing a business placing online ads with frequently changing coupon codes "HAPPY15" vs "HAPPY22" to gauge effectivenes…

Coupons worked, but they can't really work now in the way they used to. People exchange codes in other information channels. Especially in the current, always-connected, high speed internet era.

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

#135

Post by heresie-dabord »

kstrauser wrote: post #128
heresie-dabord wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have supported Firefox for a long time. I enjoy using Firefox with plug-ins such as uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Multi-Account Containers, and FlagFox. I understand the need to work with Google and Meta. I don't like or trust the advertising business but I recognise that these companies are billion-dollar giants . However, activating a feature without asking users is a failure to uphold the mission statement. And…

> I understand the need to work with Google and Meta. I confess that I don't understand a need for them to work with Meta. What does anyone but Meta gain by adding this feature? A quick search doesn't show that Mozilla gets significant financial support from Meta (although maybe that's just bad searching on my part). If not money, what does Mozilla gain from this? Goodwill and a hearty thanks?

> I confess that I don't understand a need for them to work with Meta.

I have an intense dislike of Meta. But the company prints money and its tentacular toxicity touches almost everything on the Internet.

> what does Mozilla gain from this? Goodwill and a hearty thanks?

One supposes it's money because nothing else is a plausible reason for Mozilla behaving exactly like Meta.

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

#136

Post by CrimsonCape »

IshKebab wrote: post #119
woopsn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is up in a bunch of shit at this point. They have a half a BILLION dollar nut to raise annually, and money from Google covers the whole thing. It's ridiculous. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances

[flagged]

In Wikipedia Mozilla expenses are listed at 420 million total and 220 million of that is software development expenses.

The unspoken reality is that a large number of people have figured out a way to be paid by software companies to not deliver the core product.

Logically that must be due to a combination of public relations, legal bloat, or sociopathy.

In some sense, legal bloat in the current world is a necessity, so table that one temporarily.

Public relations are any sort of venture to improve the public image of the company. Why does a company need any sort of public relations that's not associated with performance or design of the core product? I would argue any dollar spent here is sociopathic; someone has created a perception that the core product would suffer due to factors other than the core product performance. "Mozilla will suffer because we don't have cute red and blue balloons on our homepage. Competitor X has cute balloons. We are f**ed!"

Direct sociopathy is "Mozilla needs good leadership, like me. I should be part of Mozilla because of my ideas."

So in reality, at least two of the three cases presented originate in sociopathy.

And the kinda point is, the company would do just fine without either.

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

#138

Post by 28304283409234 »

david_draco wrote: post #7

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…

I'd pay 100 dollars yearly for Firefox. At least. If it would deliver on the core product, and drop all advertisement crap in the build they ship me. It baffles me that this is still not an option.

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

#139

Post by kstrauser »

heresie-dabord wrote: post #135
kstrauser wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand the need to work with Google and Meta. I confess that I don't understand a need for them to work with Meta. What does anyone but Meta gain by adding this feature? A quick search doesn't show that Mozilla gets significant financial support from Meta (although maybe that's just bad searching on my part). If not money, what does Mozilla gain from this? Goodwill and a hearty thanks?

> I confess that I don't understand a need for them to work with Meta. I have an intense dislike of Meta. But the company prints money and its tentacular toxicity touches almost everything on the Internet. > what does Mozilla gain from this? Goodwill and a hearty thanks? One supposes it's money because nothing else is a plausible reason for Mozilla behaving exactly like Meta .

I do hope they’re getting fat stacks of cash out of it at least. I’d hate to think they’re burning their reputation for nothing.

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

#140

Post by ndriscoll »

david_draco wrote: post #7

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" (not really) ads are not a reasonable model. That just makes them a chrome knockoff, and there's no longer a purpose for their existence.

A reasonable way to survive would be to have invested part of the half billion dollars per year they've been taking in for the last 15 years and built up a trust to permanently pay for developers.

Post reply on HN