This is what the EU should have enforced instead of cookie popups.
EU didn't enforce cookie popups; companies choose to implement them as a form of malicious compliance.
Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
261–270 of 270 posts
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#262I gave up on Firefox as I fought media autoplay some years ago, and have been using Brave.
Any other Brave users? Brave definitely causes issues on sites and shields have to be turned off. And, it's painful if not impossible to whitelist a whole domain, it's by host, which is completely annoying. But Brave does its job well.
Any other Brave users?
How do you compare Firefox+ ublock origin on mobile?
I'm an android user FWIW
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter: It does, because some organizations and webmasters did respect it. The other option, Mozilla should have done, is shame companies that did not respect it. A continually updated list, a notification when browsing a site that did not, etc, but the problem comes from this being a vendor issue and that it would not be 100% accurate. Shaming is the only way this would have worked out, but they didn't, but for the…
Where is this information about respecting come from? What tools or metrics do we have out there to observe it was being respected or not? Is it your feeling or do you have anything to back up what you're saying? ~ genuinely curious about statics on the subject.
No idea, which is why I mentioned it's a vendor related issue.
They could have stood up a regulatory-ish body, or group, that organizations could sign onto, and/or an accreditation organization that does audits to ensure they are following DNT.
Could have also done the simplest thing, the most error-prone, but still something tangible, and said "If you support DNT, add it a DNT-HEADER tag, and if it comes out that an org as using it and didn't follow it, then we will name and shame you". Just like we did with forcing HTTPS, the red icon did the heavy lifting there.
The decision to /not/ do so, seems to be a choice they willingly made, because all three of those options are potentially obvious security and methods of 'protecting the \'net' or 're-wilding the \'net' while also adding another revenue stream to ensure they have the financial bandwidth and personel to make This A Thing, as it should be.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't GPC have at least the force of Californian law behind it?
Does it? All I've found is that it theoretically complies with California's decisions. I have yet to see that assumption make it through court. Meanwhile, DNT has the force of the GDPR behind it ( https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=LG_Berlin_-_16_O_420/19 ).
Huh. So does that mean that LinkedIn respects DNT in the EU nowadays?
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#265Earlier 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.
I was there in the era when hitting a website on the wrong day spawned so many pop-overs and pop-unders that it ground your browser to a halt. And that by trying to close any one of them, another 10 windows were launched with more ads. Eventually bogging down the computer so severely (single core FTW!) that your only option was to conduct a hard restart, your unsaved data be damned.
I feel for those businesses who try to build a revenue stream off of advertising, but that well has been permanently poisoned for me. If I cannot sanitize a website of its maliciously user-hostile behaviour, I will simply refuse to make use of it.
And I encourage everyone to join me. The sooner advertising of all kinds die, the better.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#266"Do not track" can ironically be used for fingerprinting.
everything can
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can we know you didnt want to be stabbed if we dont stab you first?
you joke, but firefox features did work. proof is that musk first and only feature added to shitter post purchase fiasco was to detect firefox anti tracking feature and block the user! the fact the most shrewd person in the world acted on it is perfect proof it worked againt his goals (which now we know was to influence elections)
lol my keyboard autocorrected xitter.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#268Earlier 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'm not responsible for making a web site owners business model work for them. I'm just filtering data that I downloaded from a publicly-available because I don't want advertisers tracking me around the web and profiling me. Advertisers are welcome to treat me like a magazine from days gone by with lots of static images of their products and no code involved. If they don't like that, then I'm okay with going back to…
Plus side, hosting has never been cheaper.
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always though something like ublock origin should be built in with a standard format for the block list rules so people could just use different rules lists if they wanted to. It would be nice to have a feature for enable/disable javascript per site also.
Believe it does. Also noscript exists.
NoScript is a relic of the past and redundant with uBlock Origin - https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...
Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe it does. Also noscript exists.
NoScript is a relic of the past and redundant with uBlock Origin - https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...
Not at all. I find noscript much easier to understand. I only use UBO for "set and forget" installations, as configuring it is a nightmare.