211–220 of 523 posts
Enough of this waiting for virtuous entities to address legitimate concerns of the public. The "ad industry" is a cancer and we need legal protection against this "industry". The solution is political not technical and definitely can not be left to "the market". Haven't you had enough?
Does this new "privacy preserving attribution" feature respect multi-account containers? Or is it somehow not considered necessary, because it's meant to be less invasive than the tracking cookies it's supposed to replace? Call me skeptical for now.
I'm a happy user of multi-account containers, which lets me separate my cookie identities in Firefox. Before, I had to use different browsers for work and private, and yes, it solves this problem, but the best part is that I don't have to worry about tracking cookies, because they aren't tied to my personal accounts: In my experience, I can to a great extent escape the echo chamber I'm in, and the ads I see in it, by just deleting the cookies of my sacrificial default container.
Other than that, considering the status quo – that the web is already an unfriendly GDPR nightmare, I'm positive to the initiative. And because of the power of the default, I can understand that the feature wouldn't likely take off if it was opt-in, so I won't criticize Mozilla for that move either.
https://librewolf.net/ And fallback to Firefox when things don't work. Which is usually on sketchy websites, websites that have heavy bot protection and fingerprinting or ones that use gpu APIs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This move does not stop the arms race. Non-anonymous data is still better for the ad industry. Why give that up?
Because browsers can clamp down on The non-anon data streams when there’s a working alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah on desktop. On mobile it's a lot harder. It's still turned on and you have to use a workaround to enable about: config because they don't bother to make this option visible in settings.
Do we know why they blocked about:config on mobile? It doesn't make any sense at all...
What's dumb is that Firefox is not the freedom browser people think it is. Mozilla is a crappy organization. Firefox has extension signing, it's as restrictive as installing apps on iOS where only approved apps can be installed, without a setting to easily disable it. Mozilla can also remotely install extensions by default (opt out) called "experiments" or something. Their anti-tracking is purposefully weak because o…
Enough of this waiting for virtuous entities to address legitimate concerns of the public. The "ad industry" is a cancer and we need legal protection against this "industry". The solution is political not technical and definitely can not be left to "the market". Haven't you had enough?
Enough of this waiting for virtuous entities to address legitimate concerns of the public. The "ad industry" is a cancer and we need legal protection against this "industry". The solution is political not technical and definitely can not be left to "the market". Haven't you had enough?
How would that legal "protection" work in practice? What would it protect against? Who would it protect? What you say sounds reasonable. And I'm not trying to say "well, it's impossible because of some current status quo", because we could change that. What I'm trying to say is that we need this "industry" to work out the practicalities. Otherwise we are "protected" in a same way the GDPR protects us against 3rd part…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't hold your breath. It takes ages to develop a browser that's as fast as Firefox. CSS and JS are no joke.
Maybe it's time to move away from whole html/css/js, http and browsers? Let's build something that is Ad resistant from the start. Something that uses native technologies. Edit: We need something that does not need backing of large corporations or huge funding to access the web. Internet was always simple. We have become over dependent on browsers and http stack.