Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

windowsreport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 270 posts

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#181

Post by behringer »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #102
coldpie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love if the cookie modals on each site became browser-level They are, in a roundabout way. Hop into your uBlock Origin settings and enable the Cookie Banners and Annoyances filters. The modal gets silently nuked in the background and you can carry on with your browsing. Since you never consented, this ought to be functionally the same as Declining the banner. The Kill Sticky bookmark works similarly, for cr…

As long as someone who does this is prepared to pay for every site they do it on (or forgo the site in the future), since targeted advertising often pays for the site they're visiting. Personally I would like to see ads improved, not removed, as I am unwilling to have 40 different subscriptions to 40 different websites all because every user disabled targeting.

Nearly all ads on the web are scams. It's ok to block scams.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#182

Post by ajsnigrutin »

timbit42 wrote: post #53
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #17

Browsers need a "keep my cookies" button next to the url bar, separate cookie jar per domain, and then by default, delete all the cookies when you close the window. No EU cookie prompts would be needed, no "this feature does not work without third party cookies, no DNT, no nothing... silently accept all the cookies, and then delete them. (and other persistent storage too). Want to stay logged in? Press the "keep the…

So make the Cookie Autodelete add-on into a browser feature.

I already have my cookies sorted out... i'm talking about defaults and the EU cookie law, the DNT, etc. Instead of accepting cookies (eu cookie law prompts) on every goddamn site, this should be handled by the browser directly.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#183

Post by behringer »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #162
coldpie wrote: post #104

Earlier 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.

Commercial sites brought ad blocks upon themselves with malvertising an insanely obtrusive ads. It blows my mind how people are so accepting of the status quo, especially on mobile, where many news sites will put a sticky ad banner on the top, throw a video ad on the corner (with a close button that's only 1/8" across, of course), and then every paragraph (which is only like 2-3 sentences) is separated by an ad. At a…

Get yourself firefox mobile and have ublock origin on your phone :)

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#184

Post by behringer »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #107
coldpie wrote: post #104

Earlier 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?

dont put your product on public display if you don't want it to be seen for free.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#185

Post by kuschku »

dewey wrote: post #86
Sephr wrote: post #61

Removing this feature harms user agency. This will result in Firefox users having to deal with more annoying consent prompts. Transcend Consent Management's default configuration opts users out of every unessential tracking purpose (and suppresses automatic consent prompts) whenever DNT is enabled, but only opts users out of "Sale/sharing of info" when only GPC is enabled. Removing this centralized privacy signal mea…

That it should exist because one (and there's probably not many) consent managers actually understands and uses this flag is not a strong point in support of that feature. There's better ways to protect your privacy that don't rely on a best effort voluntary flag that you send to advertisers and hope they accept it.

Many consent managers and analytics tools support and use it.

Major sites like Geizhals.de actively use it.

It's been ruled to legally be considered rejection of tracking by German courts (Az.: 16 O 420/19)

Does every feature need 100% market share to be viable?

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#186

Post by behringer »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #112
darkhorse222 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm glad you are willing to pay hundreds for that, at least you're consistent. But I think you are out of touch with how most people who use ad blockers think. People want free stuff. They are entitled. And when they have successfully suppressed the much less painful ad experience (no sign up, no credit card, works across all sites) they will be upset when they encounter sign up blocks and ask "why does every website…

If your business can't survive without ads you don't have a viable business worth gifting to humanity.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#187

Post by kuschku »

dmattia wrote: post #179
lukeschlather wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In California under CCPA, it actually goes beyond just frontend regulation and cookie banners, and into the realm of backend tracking management: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont... The California Attorney General ruled that if a user presents a GPC signal, the company should update all of their backend systems to opt out of tracking in the same way as if the user clicked a "Do Not Sell My…

And similarly, German courts recently ruled the DNT header to be legally considered rejection of tracking (Az.: 16 O 420/19)

Legal backing obviously isn't reason enough for Mozilla to support a feature.

And GPC isn't even compatible with GDPR.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#188

Post by bayarearefugee »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #102
coldpie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love if the cookie modals on each site became browser-level They are, in a roundabout way. Hop into your uBlock Origin settings and enable the Cookie Banners and Annoyances filters. The modal gets silently nuked in the background and you can carry on with your browsing. Since you never consented, this ought to be functionally the same as Declining the banner. The Kill Sticky bookmark works similarly, for cr…

As long as someone who does this is prepared to pay for every site they do it on (or forgo the site in the future), since targeted advertising often pays for the site they're visiting. Personally I would like to see ads improved, not removed, as I am unwilling to have 40 different subscriptions to 40 different websites all because every user disabled targeting.

I'm going to keep blocking ads because its legal and it improves my life. If sites can't work around that with their business model that is not my problem and I don't feel the least bit guilty about it.

And the idea that the alternative to ads is 40 different subscriptions is laughable to me because there are not even 4 sites on the entire internet that I'd pay (even a small) subscription fee to use regularly, let alone 40.

The vast majority of sites I use on the internet are basically distractions of one form or another and I only ever use them because I can do so for free with a limited amount of annoyance. Any cost at all to them whether that's a subscription fee or obtrusive ads means I just stop using that site.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#189

Post by cogman10 »

gkoberger wrote: post #67

I 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…

I have a friend that works in advertisement programming. Quiet ironically, "do not track" had the opposite of the intended effect. They didn't store any information about a user, except in the case of the do not track signifier in which case they had special tracking logic to make sure they didn't include that user in their datasets and future user models.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#190

Post by kuschku »

john61 wrote: post #79

DNT is legally effective. A German court ruled: "According to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the right to object to the processing of personal data can also be exercised using automated procedures. A DNT signal represents an effective contradiction." https://cybernews.com/tech/germany-court-bans-linkedin-from-...

Typical "only america counts" attitude from Mozilla here tbh.

They support GPC because it has legal backing by the california attorney general, but remove DNT because it's only supported by German courts?

Post reply on HN