Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#351

Post by gcblkjaidfj » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

ogre_codes wrote: post #148

gcblkjaidfj wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chrome can't really be sold. Right. Now try to use that top right "user" icon on your chrome window to log in as a user that is not from a google account.

No idea what icon you are speaking of. I don't use Chrome much and don't log into it when I do. I certainly don't think anyone is going to pay for the privilege.

OMG the lack of understanding of basic ad tracking in this forum baffles me.

Nobody is going to pay. But if google serve an ad for a logged out (or firefox) user, they get paid 0.05c if they serve the same ad to someone logged in (via that button or otherwise) they get paid 1.7usd.

the button is just to make you be always logged in.

You are paying all the time and don't even realize.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#352

Post by gcblkjaidfj » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

esperent wrote: post #208

dralley wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have 20 extensions that were "approved" by mozilla more than a year ago! All the others are banned forever. This is a ridiculous lie, Mozilla has said repeatedly that more extensions are being enabled as support for more extension APIs are added, and it has been true. Several of my extensions which were previously disabled have come back online after updates.

I checked this three days ago after reading the Mozilla blig post, and literally none of the extensions I wanted (except the ones already available on stable) were available. The list of available extensions, even on nightly, is very small. Perhaps it will grow but I'll wait to see that before I believe it.

Take my word for it.

I'm still waiting very basic and popular extensions (uMatrix anyone?) for SEVERAL MONTHS.

And try to offer community help. Ha!

mozilla have to die for firefox to live.

uMatrix and uBlock share the same base code, and we have uBlock but no uMatrix... it is all so rotten. Almost like mozilla is actively breaking firefox.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#353

Post by gcblkjaidfj » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

dralley wrote: post #140

gcblkjaidfj wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine the kind of Stupids that are steering mozilla, but they definitely want people to move to chrome. They disabled many loved extensions by power users for absolutely no reason at all! after those power users spend years bending to all their capricious changes. moving to webextension? done. moving to a new mobile UI? done. But, they still want you to move to chrome no matter what. We should take firefox…

>They disabled many loved extensions by power users for absolutely no reason at all! The reasons were stated repeatedly. They rewrote the mobile browser engine, which broke extension API support since all of the internal APIs changed, and they didn't have the resources to support both browsers simultaneously for a long period of time, so they prioritized the most-used extensions first and will enable more extensions…

> The reasons were stated repeatedly. They rewrote the mobile browser engine

*this have nothing to do with my comment*

I am talking two or three iterations AFTER that. please, stop commenting long posts where you have no idea.

yes, mozilla moved to a new engine. Before that they moved to a new extension format. etc etc etc.

All the extension developers worked on the ports already, *THEN* mozilla, only for mobile, enabled "recommended extensions" which was fine. Until they DISABLED the non-recommended (not non-updated to the new tech).

It have nothing to do with technology. In fact I have many of those extensions working on my phone by fiddling with their whitelist urls. No problem running them AT ALL.

This is political.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#354

Post by gcblkjaidfj » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 11:04 PM UTC

ArchOversight wrote: post #133

gcblkjaidfj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the promise they sold it on. But, point me to a single ISP that gives a cable subscriber more than one IPv6 address. or a /48 as initially everyone was hopping. ISP profit from NAT. They will never get rid of it. Even if you get a /54 /64 the ad networks will just learn to assign /54 as they do today. But, another point, ipv4 today is barred from being used to form your advertising profile under current legis…

Comcast gives you a /60 block that you can assign multiple /64's out of. My computer rotates out IPv6 addresses every 30 minutes using SLAAC with privacy addresses. While you can identify the /64, there is no guarantee that it is a single user, just like in IPv4 because of NAT there is no guarantee it is a single user. It'll identity a household, but that's it.

> just like in IPv4

is the key concept I am talking about here and everyone keep saying it is not.

Just like ipv4 is what matter and why ISP will never kill NAT. They profit from it, somehow. and it is not just saving money on ipv4 address space.