I'm running noscript, ghostery, addblock, and a few others.
pages might load faster, but not every page loads. Ironically, the linked article is one of them.
Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
231–240 of 304 posts
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of ads is to convince people to buy things that they may otherwise not. That seems like the opposite of helping poor people. Also, if you are struggling financially, ad supported "content" is probably not a major concern in your life, and certainly not a solution to your problems.
"If I were starting life over again, I am inclined to think that I would go into the advertising business in preference to almost any other. The general raising of standards of modern civilization among all groups of people during the past half-century would have been impossible without that spreading of the knowledge of higher standards by means of advertising." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
You know people once thought tobacco was good for their health too.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're trying too hard. Before Google the Internet was more useful. Smaller and more content focused. I'd gladly go back to hotbot or whatever to get away from Google and their ilk. A combination of disconnect, Adblock pro, and self destructing cookies gets me there.
"Before Google the Internet was more useful" Wow, could not disagree more. It's order of magnitudes easier for me to find a good answer for virtually any question. Not to mention how much better gmail is than mail clients of old. Or google maps, my lord how it has simplified my life. Google isn't solely responsible for this, but them and other ad-financed companies played a crucial part in building the web as we know…
"It's order of magnitudes easier for me to find a good answer for virtually any question"
And as a result your ability to retain the knowledge fades. You outsource your memory and ability to think at your own peril, my friend.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're trying too hard. Before Google the Internet was more useful. Smaller and more content focused. I'd gladly go back to hotbot or whatever to get away from Google and their ilk. A combination of disconnect, Adblock pro, and self destructing cookies gets me there.
"Before Google the Internet was more useful" Wow, could not disagree more. It's order of magnitudes easier for me to find a good answer for virtually any question. Not to mention how much better gmail is than mail clients of old. Or google maps, my lord how it has simplified my life. Google isn't solely responsible for this, but them and other ad-financed companies played a crucial part in building the web as we know…
"It's order of magnitudes easier for me to find a good answer for virtually any question"
And as a result your ability to retain the knowledge fades. You outsource your memory and ability to think at your own peril, my friend.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#235This is no news to anybody that ever tried an ad blocker, a proxy/content filter or even a generic hosts file. The difference is very noticeable. In fact, it's the main reason I run such filters. The difference is not only in traffic saved/lower latency, but also much lower cpu usage. However, this it would be a bit hypocritical for Mozilla (and probably the reason why the filter is off by default). Firefox is not mu…
Can you elaborate further on the various ways Firefox phones home? I'd like to take steps on my machine to disable if possible. Thanks.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Before Google the Internet was more useful" Wow, could not disagree more. It's order of magnitudes easier for me to find a good answer for virtually any question. Not to mention how much better gmail is than mail clients of old. Or google maps, my lord how it has simplified my life. Google isn't solely responsible for this, but them and other ad-financed companies played a crucial part in building the web as we know…
"It's order of magnitudes easier for me to find a good answer for virtually any question" And as a result your ability to retain the knowledge fades. You outsource your memory and ability to think at your own peril, my friend.
I'm not sure how you can have this opinion unless you've only ever used google search as a basic calculator or spell-checker.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting... how would you enforce such a 'law' and how would you define the 'content' of a page when the appearance of a page in a Web browser depends on large numbers of history dependent transactions with several servers, possibly in different countries?
Imagine cable operator or TV manifacture to do the same as Mozilla. They disable ads on all programs they stream. Do you think this is legal?
But the television program is broadcast from one transmitter and is chosen by the TV company. Defining the 'content' to be legally protected is easy then - it is what the broadcast transmitter sent. In the UK we have a system for monitoring the actual broadcast output of TV stations to ensure that they comply with certain rules, so there is an evidence base. TV broadcasting is (usually) organised on national territories so there is no doubt as to the laws that the broadcaster and viewer are operating under.
My understanding is that the content of a typical Web news site is assembled from a number of different servers and the advertising content depends on the browsing history from one particular client as detected by scripts that are served from an advert server - the 'tracking' mentioned in the OA.
My point is that deciding what the 'content' was that was protected might be difficult under those circumstances. Also which legal entity is going to do the 'protecting'? Suppose I'm reading The Verge: I'm sitting in the UK, and a lot of our internet traffic goes through a large interchange in Amsterdam. The Verge is based in US. See my point?
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#238Man, ads are great. They allow content to be targeted towards people that could potentially not afford the content and towards people that might not necessarily use the product normally. The world is already significantly divided by wealth. Assuming someone poor even has access to a service like Google, imagine if it was behind a paywall. Could they afford it? If not imagine how much of a life advantage someone wealt…
Ads allow for a form of market segmentation that no one has been able to do so far. Offering a free version with ads and a premium version without ads is just about as far as we have gone so far.
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your link. > Requests for CSS assets are cached for 1 day Tracking font request "only" once per day is still spying. Also, regarding your jump from Google's attack on our privacy to a larger to that "New World Order" reference is highly offensive. You're building a straw-man that was not stated, and perpetuating the belief that someone who complains about their privacy being attack must be some sort of "conspira…
There are no cookies. Claiming that Google is "tracking" users for some nefarious "attack on privacy" with these properties is "highly offensive" to my bullshit detector.
It is very well known that cookies are not the only way to track activity. You insistence that Google somehow doesn't do the trivial step of JOINing a few tables together with any of the many possible candidate keys that browsers leak is laughable. Even plain apache logs have the IP address, which is all the "cookie" they need for those of us that have static IP addresses. Even with DHCP, Google only needs to do an INNER JOIN style query to associate that IP with any of the other requests made in the same time period to their servers such as google-analytics.
And all that doesn't even begin to touch "panopticlick" style entropy gathering.
In case you are interested in learning what how Google works, instead only looking at the facade they show you, I suggest watching the presentation[1] Aral Balkan gave at the same event that hosted djb's recent talk (which is also recommended). You won't like it - possibly violently - but maybe you can learn a bit about how the world actually works..
[1] https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...
Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do I install any API from apple without providing Apple (and whoever else) with my credit card? The OsX machine at my office is mystifying, am I supposed to provide my personal credit card to apple to get security updates? That is more secure and insures more of my privacy than not entering my credit card into a system I don't trust? I view Apple as insulting my intelligence with promises of "convenience" that am…
Apple accounts are free. You can't use iTunes with a free account or get the premium developer offerings (i.e. iOS developer certs) but you don't need to pay to use the OS or get updates.
I'm not looking for free as in beer, I am looking to not share data that conveniently uniquely identifies the private me to random foreign 3rd parties like Apple just to do my job. Buying media via cash+reimburse or through company ordering is not my money and is often the solution for using commercial OSes with personal privacy outside my employer remaining similar to the unbanked. (But I can't tell if that is a waste of time with Apple, since I obviously need follow whatever procedures for security updates until the next purchasable media.)
From other comments, it sounds like I can dance around to make it possible on OsX, but every other OS (except ebooks?) that I have ever installed either makes opt out a transparent (though smaller button/font) process or has no registration process at all.
I don't like that the machine will be in a very small group of opt-out OsX systems compared to reasonable percentages of other Oses. By not sharing my personal details, I might be risking my coworkers having lower than normal privacy when using OsX machines.