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

31–40 of 295 posts

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#31

Post by realusername »

Ygg2 wrote: post #9
throwaway8291 wrote: post #3

I'm using Firefox for years, after Chrome started to ask me for a login (at around version 40). Never looked back. One day I woke up to a chart showing browser market share of FF at around 4%, which surprised me - as I thought many people would understand the implications and directions. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Update: Loved chrome, used it for years, I also love most Chrome engineering and all the innovation they…

> Maybe I'm too optimistic. Don't be optimistic, but don't be pesimistic either. Do what you can - donate time or money, or just recommend everyone to not use the piece of carp that is Chrome. Anything based on Chromium counts as well, their codebase is dictated by Google, one way or the other. My mom had so many issues with ads until I installed Firefox for her, and honestly, the ad blockers make the internet a much…

> Do what you can - donate time or money, or just recommend everyone to not use the piece of carp that is Chrome.

Or if you are building web products, please use Firefox as your dev browser, that's what I'm doing and it automatically insures that whatever I build will work on Firefox.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#32

Post by TuringTest »

DrScientist wrote: post #15

Ex-Mozillian Brendan Eich agrees that privacy is the battle for the future http://www.brave.com The question is - do you need to re-write the internet economy as Brave are trying to to achieve it, and not just block trackers? The third element is that governments are becoming addicted to the vast trove of information gathered - will they be willing to give that up if a technical/business model solution takes off. Int…

They will still have enough of it to get their dose - default setups, corporate apps, embedded devices everywhere. They just don't need to get ALL your online behavior as they do know by default.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#33

Post by generalk »

XCSme wrote: post #26
throwaway8291 wrote: post #3

I'm using Firefox for years, after Chrome started to ask me for a login (at around version 40). Never looked back. One day I woke up to a chart showing browser market share of FF at around 4%, which surprised me - as I thought many people would understand the implications and directions. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Update: Loved chrome, used it for years, I also love most Chrome engineering and all the innovation they…

I personally just like Chrome because the awesome syncing between all devices and always having the best Dev Tools ready to open at any second. I know my browser usage is used for marketing purposes, but as long as it doesn't harm me in anyway I can live with that.

I'm not sure if there's something outside my usage that Chrome does better, but for my needs Firefox's dev tools are great.

Firefox also not only sync's between all of my devices, including my cell phone. Each device has the ability to send a tab to another device, which I don't recall Chrome having.

Just some data points in case you're ever interested in trying something different.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#34

Post by ocdtrekkie »

The aforementioned Facebook Container was an excellent step, but if they really were serious about fixing Internet privacy regardless of their financial backers, they'd ship an official Google Container as well. (A third party developer ships one as a fork of Facebook Container, but it'd be far preferable for a Mozilla shipped one.) They capitalized on the Cambridge Analytica scandal with the launch of that extension, but won't follow up with the Google equivalent.

The code is already written, I just think they are still too scared to ship an extension that works against their primary sponsor.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#35

Post by avian »

throwaway8291 wrote: post #3

I'm using Firefox for years, after Chrome started to ask me for a login (at around version 40). Never looked back. One day I woke up to a chart showing browser market share of FF at around 4%, which surprised me - as I thought many people would understand the implications and directions. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Update: Loved chrome, used it for years, I also love most Chrome engineering and all the innovation they…

> I'm using Firefox for years, after Chrome started to ask me for a login

It's funny because Firefox has been pushing their login thing pretty hard (the yellow "oh no" exclamation mark icon if you're not logged in, the account icon that keeps placing itself back onto my toolbar, occasional full-page ad/nag screen, ...).

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#36

Post by heartbeats »

If they want to do something, there's a simple three-step plan.

1) block all ads, by default

2) do not unblock Google's ads,

3) receive Adblock Plus-style bribes from Yandex or whoever to whitelist them, provided they don't harm privacy

This would kill several birds in one stone. First, break Mozilla free of Google funding. Second, hurt Google. Third, increase Firefox' market share. Fourth, help users' privacy.

As things stand today, Mozilla just exist so that Google can pretend they don't have a monopoly. Follow the money - who pays?

(A: Google pays nearly all of their budget, and they have next to no rainy day fund)

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#37

Post by ComodoHacker »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #23
RabbiPires wrote: post #7

All this talk about openness and freedom, and Mozilla's builds still ship with the proprietary Pocket extension by default. I really hope they don't have to rely on the revenue from Pocket at some point. Not only that, but it also connects to Google's SafeBrowsing servers. Is that required by their search engine contract with Google? Shouldn't be turned on by default.

You know they own Pocket right? Pocket is basically their version of Read Later, etc...And it’s completely optional whether you want to use it or not. So I’m not sure I understand this complaint. Mozilla’s first integration of Pocket was poorly done, and rightfully raised complaints. But since they have purchased it, a lot of those complaints have been resolved.

>Mozilla’s first integration of Pocket was poorly done, and rightfully raised complaints. But since they have purchased it, a lot of those complaints have been resolved.

Off-topic, but I find current integration equally poor. Why do I have to spend extra clicks to login every time I want to add something to Pocket? Why it doesn't use stored credentials just like Sync does?

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#38

Post by groovybits »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #23
RabbiPires wrote: post #7

All this talk about openness and freedom, and Mozilla's builds still ship with the proprietary Pocket extension by default. I really hope they don't have to rely on the revenue from Pocket at some point. Not only that, but it also connects to Google's SafeBrowsing servers. Is that required by their search engine contract with Google? Shouldn't be turned on by default.

You know they own Pocket right? Pocket is basically their version of Read Later, etc...And it’s completely optional whether you want to use it or not. So I’m not sure I understand this complaint. Mozilla’s first integration of Pocket was poorly done, and rightfully raised complaints. But since they have purchased it, a lot of those complaints have been resolved.

>

As a privacy enthusiast, what's wrong with Google's SafeBrowsing service? It provides protection from low-hanging fruit with anonymized data (hashes of URLs).

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#39

Post by Cladode »

dangus wrote: post #6
codingmess wrote: post #4

Freedom and privacy, good. Wokeness, not good. I wish they would have stuck to freedom and privacy. Now I can not wholeheartedly support them any longer. (Referring, for example, to their recent manifesto telling students they should only work for SJW approved companies).

I think being “woke” is only “not good” if you subscribe to the Fox News Cult. Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue. Sure, you may not get your chance to own the libs, but that stuff is a bit childish, isn’t it? What does the phrase SJW actually mean…

   woke/Fox News Cult.
I recommend a little less parochialism, and more historical scholarship.

All populist politics needs to appeal to its clientele with simplistic, easy to grasp utopias that are claimed to be in easy grasp after "we" win power, whether it's the classless society of Marxism, notions of paradise in various religions (e.g. 72 seventy-two houri in Sunni-Islam), libertarianism's coercion-free optimal resource allocation, anarchism's absence of social hierarchy, Robespierre's "liberté, égalité, fraternité", and many others. "Woke" culture is clearly a contemporary evolution (rebranding) of the socialist tradition emerging out of the French revolution, and made politically potent by Lenin, Stalin & comrades, channeled into the modern western world via Gramsci's cultural hegemony, and nowadays spread by powerful branding organisations like Avaaz [1] and Purpose [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaaz

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Madden_(entrepreneur)

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#40

Post by [deleted] »

dextralt wrote: post #22
dangus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think being “woke” is only “not good” if you subscribe to the Fox News Cult. Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue. Sure, you may not get your chance to own the libs, but that stuff is a bit childish, isn’t it? What does the phrase SJW actually mean…

If you think very carefully about Mozilla, you'll realize that they're controlled opposition on a short leash, with almost the entirety of their revenue coming from Google. Guess nobody should be working there either, huh? >If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good I don't believe your definition of "justice" is good, and I don't believe that the people who had attempted to implement your ideology in practic…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN