[dead]
Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
131–140 of 270 posts
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of entities out there that assume consent.
Isn't this the entire point of browsewrapped TOS "agreements"? There's a reason why specifically tracking via cookies had to be singled out by regulation to work at all (putting aside how well or not well this actually works).
> why specifically tracking via cookies had to be singled out by regulation
Well, it is not singled out by regulation. The GDPR doesn’t even mention cookies at all. They mention any way to track users. Fingerprinting is also banned, for example.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#133now only if firefox enabled real privacy things already available as addons for decades.
start with uBlockOrigin and i-don't-care-about-cookies and you have the world most privacy respecting browser with zero downside.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
the conversation / system is rigged. how it should have been done in a fair way: 1. assume the user by default does not want to be tracked and make do-not-track opt-out. 2. have it running for a few years and gradually increase the heat on the discussion that nobody respects it. If it would've been done this way it would've been newsworthy and maybe would've been considered as something to enforce via regulation (at…
How can we know you didnt want to be stabbed if we dont stab you first?
you joke, but firefox features did work.
proof is that musk first and only feature added to shitter post purchase fiasco was to detect firefox anti tracking feature and block the user! the fact the most shrewd person in the world acted on it is perfect proof it worked againt his goals (which now we know was to influence elections)
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
the conversation / system is rigged. how it should have been done in a fair way: 1. assume the user by default does not want to be tracked and make do-not-track opt-out. 2. have it running for a few years and gradually increase the heat on the discussion that nobody respects it. If it would've been done this way it would've been newsworthy and maybe would've been considered as something to enforce via regulation (at…
Oh no, gradually increasing heat in online privacy-focused tech discussions! An adtech companies worst nightmare! How will they survive :(
I’ll laugh with you, but once Google is gone, the first replacement will be ChatGPT and it already is $20pm (and apparently, ChatGPT is so good at organizing the world’s information that I’m paying for it)(Yes it was Google’s mission)(Yes they failed). 2030 will be fun.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#136I understand that many people here have a bad taste of Mozilla's recent actions in many aspects. But the reality here is that this is at worst removing something that almost nobody respected. It was based on honor system and even in Switzerland they do have random inspections for honor system. Browsers never had any enforcement of this feature. And ironically it was used as additional data point of tracking privacy a…
the conversation / system is rigged. how it should have been done in a fair way: 1. assume the user by default does not want to be tracked and make do-not-track opt-out. 2. have it running for a few years and gradually increase the heat on the discussion that nobody respects it. If it would've been done this way it would've been newsworthy and maybe would've been considered as something to enforce via regulation (at…
That's the biggest reason to keep it - the more user agents support this standard, the easier it would be to write and push legislation backing it.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#137I think they should leave it in and the EU should legally make it an abuse to ignore it. Then we would also not need these good damn cookie banners.
Ignoring it means you need to get explicit consent, which is what the websites are already doing.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Personally I would like to see ads improved Sure, sounds good. When you win that fight, let me know and I'll reconsider the ad blocker.
I doubt it. In my experience those that block ads feel entitled to the content without payment of any kind. They see ads as an intrusion rather than a fair exchange. No, I don't see you turning it back on regardless of how things go. The average user doesn't even recognize that running a website literally cost electricity that must be paid for. Who pays for it? Who will carry the boats?
Hi adblock user here, who uses adblockers for 2 reasons: 1) Security, because ad networks can't be bothered to properly vet the stuff they shove down everyone's throats and 2) On mobile at least, its impossible to read most websites due to the sheer number of overlaid videos and other such BS.
That's it. That's not entitlement. I just want to actually read the stuff on a website. If websites could do ads that weren't trying to monopolize attention and/or trick me in to downloading malware, I'd definitely think twice about my use of a blocker on that website.
Sure there are some that feel like because its on the internet that's its free and they are entitled to it. But I'd wager most ad block users fall in to a similar camp as me.
Plus most adblocking extensions these days are also tracker blockers as well, so there's some element of privacy protection in play there as well.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GPC is supported by more laws, like the CCPA, which requires businesses to honor these signals Because it's off by default? It's the exact same thing, a header with a preset value. > While DNT broadly addressed tracking, GPC focuses specifically on stopping data from being sold or shared, making it more relevant to today’s privacy needs. My needs are not being tracked. The tracking is what comes before the selling.…
> Companies that never respected DNT aren't going to respect GPC. It depends. While I agree that GPC is technically just a more complicated form of DNT, the major difference is that DNT is 100% optional for websites to honor, which is why they don't, but GPC becomes mandatory for nations that have reasonable laws around tracking. Companies operating in those nations will honor it because there are legal penalties if…
Does this mean that if I set GPC, companies are not allowed to show me cookie banners under GDPR but just assume I hit whatever their "decline all tracking" button says?
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#140I was at Mozilla when this was implemented. It was completely optional for websites to support this. A few did at first. A lot of people internally wanted it to be on-by-default, but the argument was that if it was, nobody would respect it – after all, what tracking platform would willingly only track the 0.1% of people who went into the settings to enable it? (Internet Explorer did eventually enable it by default, w…
> but ultimately killed the feature since everyone stopped respecting it I genuinely doubt that anything could have caused them to respect it. Tracking without consent is the source of their money; they're not going to give that up just because you give a positive signal that you do not consent, rather than simply never asking you in the first place.
How about a hefty fine and the risk of some jail time?