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

Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 295 posts

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#231

Post by Causality1 »

gruez wrote: post #176
Causality1 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. DownThemAll is something I would describe as "mission-critical". I had trouble getting two different versions of Firefox to not interfere with one another in odd ways such as everything running fine until I open a file with Firefox as the associated program and one version would open but have all the settings from the other version and Portable Firefox refusing to save settings or extensions at all. Using Chro…

>I had trouble getting two different versions of Firefox to not interfere with one another This shouldn't be an issue if you run your secondary instance with -no-remote -profile="your separate profile". >Using Chrome for casual browsing was just less of a headache. That still doesn't answer the original question though. Why choose chrome over firefox, when it has no legacy firefox extensions? Does chrome have those l…

I run both Chrome and Legacy Firefox at the same time.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#232

Post by kissickas »

bilekas wrote: post #157
ailideex wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using Fedora Linux, last I tried a switch to FF (less than 6 months ago) it was way slower than chrome. I actually like FF functionality more and would prefer to use it but my laptop runs significantly hotter when I run FF on it.

Just given its Fedora I would be a bit nervous to instantly assume full blame on Firefox, given the nature of the OS, but definitely give a try again!

I've been running FF on Fedora for the last 14 months with no problems. I typically have 20-40 tabs open, but then again, I'm also using NoScript so maybe 10-20 of those tabs are not doing so much damage to my performance. (The ones that stick around, like 4 Gmail tabs, Slack, RSS reader, etc. are whitelisted)

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#233

Post by CivBase »

> Baker wrote on Mozilla's blog that in the last decade, the world had seen "the power of the internet used to magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality." Baker then added four new manifesto principles calling for equality, discourse and diversity online in an addendum called "Pledge for a Healthy Internet."

"Equality, discourse, and diversity" are the very principles that enable people to "magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality." Any attempt to promote freedom of expression while simultaneously silencing the worst of humanity is inherently at odds.

Hatred is a naturally occuring phenomina, not a learned behavior. You can't just quarantine it to make it go away. That only makes it worse.

The internet is not a breeding ground for hatred. It's just a reflection of how bad we can really be.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#234

Post by dathinab »

ilitirit wrote: post #10

> Mozilla lost the browser wars Honest question... who did they lose to? Google Chrome? For me personally, Firefox has been better than Chrome for several years now. The only reason I still load up Chrome is when I want to stream to my Chromecast.

Because Google had a big advantage:

- that started the race later slowing the to put certain "new" tech in it from the get to go instead of trying to retrofit it later

- Google had far more money for engineers and marketing.

- Google has a kinda unfair advantage through Android and Google Search.

Especially starting later after some technological shifts happend allowed them to get a technological advantage over Firefox for some time, combined with the much better image they had in the past and Android/Google search it was pretty hard for them not to become the dominant browser.

The question is why thinks didn't shift noticably in recent years?

This brings the problem that the futures doesn't look too good given the power Google now has to just push through theire stuff and given that there has been a bunch of cases where certain Google program _seem_ to have been intentionally "optimized" to be fast on chrome but _only_ on chrome and no other browser...

Edited for spelling fixes.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#235

Post by BurningCycles »

JohnFen wrote: post #221
BurningCycles wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not seen any indication that users wanted it, I've also read that Mozilla developers agree that it should be an extension. Yet Mozilla buys this and puts it inside Firefox, where it can at best be disabled by going through about:config and changing parameters. Why Mozilla is hellbent on pushing this upon their users is beyond me, it just hurts their image in my opinon.

> Why Mozilla is hellbent on pushing this upon their users is beyond me It's one of their many attempts at finding a revenue source that isn't Google. Their hope was that people would love it so much that they'd sign up for the pay version. I have a huge amount of sympathy for Mozilla on this issue. They get slammed for being funded by Google, but pretty much every time they do something that could generate revenue a…

>They get slammed for being funded by Google

I don't see that at all, I mean they've been funded by Google for practically their entire existence.

On the contrary it seems to me that Firefox users find that funding the project through selling the default search engine is a good compromise as it is both easy to switch to a different search engine, and also that the vast majority use Google either way.

Also it's not as if Pocket will ever come anywhere remotely near making Mozilla self-sustainable, it's all so weird to me as this really hurts their image as a 'users-first' organisation.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#236

Post by hvis »

luckylion wrote: post #134
hvis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What could one find disgreeable in a company being a non-profit?

In a "we depend on the biggest enemy of privacy for funding" kind of way?

Being a non-profit doesn't imply any of that.

And nobody has ever demonstrated that this ostensible "dependence" has any adverse effects on Mozilla's policy.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#237

Post by beardedman »

jeltz wrote: post #89
beardedman wrote: post #57

I've been using Brave these days. Really like it. IMO: Firefox doesn't seem to know what sort of company they are anymore. Their product arsenal is expanding, yet core features of their flagship product is still stuck in the 2000's.

How is Firefox stuck in the 2000s? They recently switched to an entirely new modern renderer, switched to a modern fast layout engine and implement new web strandards very quickly, sometimes faster than Chrome.

I said core features, not the entire browser. Their bookmark manager hasn't changed for many many years.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#238

Post by ninkendo »

Vinnl wrote: post #117
h91wka wrote: post #105

It's funny how Mozilla preaches privacy, but if you open `about:config' and count 1) parameters that include word "telemetry" 2) everything that looks like a unique token 3) "mozilla.org" URLs you'll see that the sum is steadily going up with every release. It leaves me under impression that Mozilla is trying to follow Facebook and Google. Lately they removed setting to use a custom page for the new tabs, leaving onl…

And none of that is used to influence elections or make you buy stuff you don't want.

Are we sure about this?

I mean I mostly agree that telemetry is different, but how can we be sure Mozilla isn't sharing their telemetry information with ad networks to help fingerprint you?

It seems the only way to be truly sure is if we could verify the browser sent no information at all, right? Or else it's just about trust, same as any other browser.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#239

Post by JohnFen »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #228
JohnFen wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I woke up to a chart showing browser market share of FF at around 4% I've used and loved Firefox from before it was called Firefox. I really, really, really want to like the modern Firefox, but I just can't. I find it limiting and irritating. So, sadly, I don't. I don't use Chrome either, though.

What do you find limiting about Firefox? How does your browser of choice free you from these limitations?

My browser of choice is Waterfox -- so, essentially, pre-Quantum Firefox.

There are two things that I find limiting. First, the configurability has been seriously reduced. I really dislike Firefox's UI, and it's no longer possible to make the browser look and feel as I prefer. I can get most of the way there -- but to even do that much is a rather serious pain in the butt. Second, the neutering of the extensions hurt badly, and the only way I can retain the functionality that I want is to use something pre-Quantum.

Waterfox has neither of these problems (well, the extension problem is starting to impact Waterfox, which is why I'm no longer updating it. I need to find another browser, but I haven't found a different one that works for me yet. Until I do, Waterfox it is.)

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#240

Post by ComodoHacker »

heartbeats wrote: post #195
ComodoHacker wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>from Yandex or whoever to whitelist them, provided they don't harm privacy I doubt you can find one that doesn't harm privacy. And particulary Yandex will raise other concerns.

You make a deal - they stop it so that they may be granted a Firefox monopoly on advertising. Then, site operators are left with a choice: 1) abandon tracking, earn ad revenue from Firefox and Chrome 2) keep tracking, earn no ad revenue from Firefox Yandex ads will be more pleasant due to not having the large amounts of tracking, meaning they'll reduce page views less. As a result of blocking ads, Firefox will become…

>they may be granted a Firefox monopoly on advertising

What are you talking about?

Anyway, it's up to webmaster to decide which ads to show, and it's up to user to decide which ads to block. Browser vendor shouldn't be involved here.

Post reply on HN