Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

Post by wkat4242 » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 12:47 AM UTC

necubi wrote: post #141

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 worked at one of the big adtech companies at the time. DNT was a carefully negotiated compromise between the ad industry (and by proxy, the sites that depended on it for their income), the browser vendors, and privacy advocates. We implemented DNT it in our edge infrastructure and were ready to deploy it. But then Microsoft broke the agreement by enabling it by default, as part of their war with Google (and after t…

Post by jessyco » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 12:49 AM UTC

Post by singleshot_ » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:06 AM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #115

darkhorse222 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agree that 40 different subscriptions is unreasonable. I use adblockers because I think user-hostile advertising is also unreasonable. I would happily pay a subscription that gets divided among whatever sites I visit. In the absence of that option, I pay for a subset of sites and freeload the rest. My solution seems ethical to me since if everybody picked a random subset, most sites would get their revenue.

Post by DrillShopper » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 2:33 AM UTC

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.

Post by DrillShopper » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 2:36 AM UTC

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…