Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make Firefox Private Again

make-firefox-private-again.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 348 posts

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#31

Post by kilburn »

cma wrote: post #22
kelnos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, about:config works there as well. Interestingly, it was already disabled on my phone, but enabled on desktop.

Google likely pays them to disable about:config on Android or implies they won't pay them as much for default search and they read the tea leaves. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/firefox-for-android-abo... It only works on the more insecure nightly version of firefox.

This is equivalent to about:config and works on the regular firefox mobile version too:

chrome://geckoview/content/config.xhtml

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#32

Post by fragmede »

kelnos wrote: post #13
Buttons840 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without advertisements, the internet would only have content worth paying for and content people want to share for reasons other than financial gain. How awful (/s).

That's the thing... people would still make free content, and since there wouldn't be as many shady ways to monetize, it would cut down on low-effort (and AI-generated) garbage. The internet would be such a better place. We would probably lose some good stuff, or see it moved behind paywalls. That would be a shame, but I think it would be worth it.

I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage. The high effort non-garbage stuff is produced by professionals who have the luxury of spending a full work week's amount of time improving their craft. writers writing free content with no business model can't do that unless they have a trust fund. which, I suppose they're out there, but I doubt the number of those that are writers.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#34

Post by PhasmaFelis »

mrinfinitiesx wrote: post #4

wasn't aware that 'anonym' existed. I don't care if PII is stripped or not. the answer to 'helping advertisers' or anything with advertisement metrics in any fashion is always 'No.' - training things so that there's better data on how to best manipulate our psyche / give people data to psychologically manipulate us in to buying/doing things is a hard 'No.' > Asked whether Mozilla has any concerns that its user base,…

> They can find other business models other than advertisement.

The awful thing is, I'm not sure they can.

Lots of sites turned to shitty ads and clickbait because it makes lots of money, but I've followed some passionate writers and journalists who decided to stick to their guns and focus on quality content with a reasonable subscription price.

I don't follow any of them anymore, because they all either want out of business or gave up and switched to advertising hell.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#35

Post by idle_zealot »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #27
mrinfinitiesx wrote: post #4

wasn't aware that 'anonym' existed. I don't care if PII is stripped or not. the answer to 'helping advertisers' or anything with advertisement metrics in any fashion is always 'No.' - training things so that there's better data on how to best manipulate our psyche / give people data to psychologically manipulate us in to buying/doing things is a hard 'No.' > Asked whether Mozilla has any concerns that its user base,…

I don't wholly disagree, but it's always a tad ironic to read "money is ruining the free/open internet" discussion on a free forum powered by VC money.

If HN didn't exist people would gather on another link aggregator.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#36

Post by josefx »

fragmede wrote: post #32
kelnos wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing... people would still make free content, and since there wouldn't be as many shady ways to monetize, it would cut down on low-effort (and AI-generated) garbage. The internet would be such a better place. We would probably lose some good stuff, or see it moved behind paywalls. That would be a shame, but I think it would be worth it.

I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage. The high effort non-garbage stuff is produced by professionals who have the luxury of spending a full work week's amount of time improving their craft. writers writing free content with no business model can't do that unless they have a trust fund. which, I suppose they're out there, but I doubt the number of those that are writers.

> I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage.

Right now the main search engine everyone uses is run by an ad company. Just getting rid of that conflict of interest would probably help to significantly weed out garbage.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#37

Post by trustno2 »

SCdF wrote: post #30

I just want to use a robust, secure and decently fast browser that uses a different backend than Chrome to support the open web not ossifying into a single browser spec. I'll pay monthly! Please just let me pay for this in money and not my privacy :-(

There is Safari. Or whatever is based on WebKit on Linux (there must be some...)

GNOME Web/Epiphany (same thing) seems to use WebKit and is officially supported

https://webkit.org/downloads/

https://apps.gnome.org/Epiphany/

It seems there is no WebKit browser for Windows.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#38

Post by willywanker »

Or use Pale Moon, forked long ago and developed independently, that respects your privacy out of the box without needing 50 different 'hardening' Arkenfox type changes or having to keep watch every time Mozilla tries to screw over end users like this. Zero telemetry, zero advertising and no mental gymnastics over how we're financially dependent on Google but still value your privacy. And bonus, it retains XUL extension support and the full customizability that went with it (including full support for full themes that can make it resemble Chrome or modern Firefox if you want to).

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#39

Post by black_puppydog »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #34
mrinfinitiesx wrote: post #4

wasn't aware that 'anonym' existed. I don't care if PII is stripped or not. the answer to 'helping advertisers' or anything with advertisement metrics in any fashion is always 'No.' - training things so that there's better data on how to best manipulate our psyche / give people data to psychologically manipulate us in to buying/doing things is a hard 'No.' > Asked whether Mozilla has any concerns that its user base,…

> They can find other business models other than advertisement. The awful thing is, I'm not sure they can. Lots of sites turned to shitty ads and clickbait because it makes lots of money, but I've followed some passionate writers and journalists who decided to stick to their guns and focus on quality content with a reasonable subscription price. I don't follow any of them anymore, because they all either want out of…

Article in German about this from August 1: https://netzpolitik.org/2024/klage-gegen-datenschutzbehoerde...

They're calculating with EUR 0.1 per user per month for targeted advertising. The "Pur Abo" (EUR 4-5 per month per site) are thus 40 times more profitable. The advertising has become mostly a mechanism to pressure readers into paying.

The question is, can you convince roughly 1/40 of your readers to pay 5 bucks a month if you don't use targeted advertising as the "threat"? Maybe, just maybe, non-targeted advertising would already be enough? Many people pay to get rid of ads, not of surveillance, after all...

Post reply on HN