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

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#241

Post by DrillShopper »

dathinab wrote: post #220
ASalazarMX wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNT is a failure since it relies on advertiser self-regulation. We shouldn't ask them not to track us, we should make it very hard for them to do it.

It's a failure because law makers haven't made it clear ignoring it is illegal. You probably can build a case around DNT clearly communicating that a user doesn't want to be tracked and as such it should be treated like an if the user manually opt out of all tracking. But as long as lawmakers or court don't pin it down legally to make it a clear cut case instead of some gray area thing with a lot of wiggle room. Ther…

> It's a failure because law makers haven't made it clear ignoring it is illegal.

How can I, as an end user, check if a site is ignoring it and therefore report it to the proper authorities?

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#242

Post by cozzyd »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #210
behringer wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I already do, but that only blocks ads in Firefox. If I open a link in an app, it often uses some browser widget that's effectively Chrome.

though I do 90% of my mobile browsing in firefox, sometimes I end up using the pop-up browswer widget. Looking at my data use... the uBO-less widget has used more data than firefox, despite being used much less often. non-firefox mobile users must blow through their data plans...

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#244

Post by [deleted] »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #176
nemomarx wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem with ads targeted to what I might like is they lead to more purchasing and spending, which is not without cost. something you won't buy without seeing an ad for it is probably an impulse purchase, and those are somewhat predatory. it seems more reasonable to me to only advertise like that when a user signals they're interested in a particular type of product, not passively all the time.

Yeah people think of advertising as a "free" way to fund things, but companies wouldn't pay the advertisers if they weren't making a profit off of it, so in theory the customers are still paying for the website, but it's only some of them paying for the vast majority that don't pay a dime, and everyone else is just getting irritated by the ads for no benefit to the website.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#245

Post by HWR_14 »

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?

Some people will contribute money. Wikipedia doesn't have ads (except occasional banners to donate).

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#246

Post by HWR_14 »

mmooss wrote: post #201
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 thought DNT was a creative solution: The only way to stop tracking is via laws or regulations. Technical solutions are, arguably, a never-ending arms race - probably a losing one for end users. DNT was a way to demonstrate consumer interest in not being tracked, and it put businesses in the position of ignoring explicit requests from consumers for privacy. Unfortunately, nobody effectively capitalized on that.

Technical solutions seem to work very well. Ad-blockers remain effective.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#247

Post by rascul »

miki123211 wrote: post #150
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 think a new browser could genuinely gain massive popularity if it was really good at this, and advertised the feature heavily, particularly in the EU. Google will never touch it with a hundred-foot pole due to antitrust concerns, they're effectively banned from making any significant, user-experience-affecting changes to Chrome at this point. Many people would immediately switch to a browser with 1) reliable Youtub…

> Many people would immediately switch to a browser with 1) reliable Youtube ad blocking, 2) no cookie modals, and possibly 3) no other "distractors", like subscription pop-ups or "related articles" widgets.

Based on Chromium

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#248

Post by maccard »

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?

I run an adblocker. It’s not because I don’t want to pay, it’s because there are more ads than content.

I don’t want to dedicate 4.5 inches of screen space to ads including videos, banners, and often time inappropriate ads. If you want to do 3rd party banner ads, be my guest, but the minute there’s more of them then content I’m going to turn them off.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#249

Post by maccard »

boolemancer wrote: post #204
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?

> 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? Running a retail store also has costs associated with it, including, yes, electricity. Yet if I walk into a store and leave without buying anything, do I feel like I owe the store owner anything? No. That's not how that works, nor is that how it should work.

There’s a difference between browsing in a shop and reading content online. It’s much more like going in and sitting in a book shop, reading a book and leaving.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#250

Post by maccard »

DrillShopper wrote: post #238
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?

> Who pays for it? Who will carry the boats? Not my problem. The web existed as a medium before advertising and it will continue just fine without it. Get a better business model and stop crying like a spoiled child.

The web has been plagued with ads for decades. Pop up blockers were the old thing, and everyone knows the screenshot of the internet explorer loaded with toolbars.
Post reply on HN