51–60 of 296 posts
The Guardian website is horrible when it comes to tracking. They don't tend to mention that in their privacy-focused articles. Here's a tweet that sums it up: 'The irony is real... @Guardian headline, "The Guardian view on privacy online: a human right", while allowing trackers to spy on their readers.' https://twitter.com/Ghostery/status/989543132349034499
The Guardian website is horrible when it comes to tracking. They don't tend to mention that in their privacy-focused articles. Here's a tweet that sums it up: 'The irony is real... @Guardian headline, "The Guardian view on privacy online: a human right", while allowing trackers to spy on their readers.' https://twitter.com/Ghostery/status/989543132349034499
Isn't Ghostery the tracker-blocker that sold its users' data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it technically enforced though, I am curious. I mean, if I wrote an application that downloaded text files and rendered the text to the screen, I am sure that would be possible. If I wanted to add images to draw next to the text I am sure it is feasible. So how can one technically prohibit doing that? Implementation-wise, how is a web browser really that different from e.g. a video game? Or is it only policy-e…
My guess would be that it's policy-enforced and what Apple really has problems with is not browsers as a concept (dynamically loading and rendering data) but rather the execution engine that websites usually use (JavaScript) and seeing that as a too-large-to-review area where they want to avoid having vulnerabilities in applications published on App Store. Or it's a anti-competitive move disguised as a "avoid vulnera…
The article once more reiterates the fact that Apple doesn't allow other browser engines. You cannot even fight, there is no future ;-) on iOS.
Anti-trust? Or have the lawyers for Apple (and Google) found the legalese to prevent this possibility?
Google allows sideloading, and allows competitors on the play store
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Ghostery the tracker-blocker that sold its users' data?
It is. I don't use them and recommend uBlock Origin to anyone who asks. But they are correct on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more likely explanation is that people got tired of Assange's story and so the articles didn't get the clicks to justify covering them any more. The Guardian can get more clicks with a steady drip of vegan opinion pieces, stories laughing at Tories and the dreadfulness of brexit so that's what they'll do. Same as the Telegraph will feed its readers "the glory of Boris", "forwards unto brexit" and "Good lord look…
That's not a likely explanation when it comes to Assange. The Guardian has been terrible, and even its previous star reporter Glenn Greenwald (who won them a Pulitzer on the Snowden reporting) has been extremely critical. See for example https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Brought up again earlier this month: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296 That piece of fake news…
No-one really knows for sure whether or not that meeting took place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you suggest Mozilla do instead? Mozilla don't just fund the development of their own products they also fund research [1] and other projects [2]. [1] https://research.mozilla.org/research-grants/ [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/grants/ In a perfect world Mozilla would be funded by donations. I donate to Mozilla but it's a pittance compared to what they get from Google.
I wouldn't suggest an alternative funding model as much as guess what will it be maybe a year or two from now. Key quote from the article: > Mozilla has launched Monitor, a data-breach reporting service; Lockwise, a password manager; and Send, a privacy-focused alternative to services such as WeSendit. It’s also beta-testing a VPN (virtual private network) service, which it hopes to market to privacy-conscious users.…
Mozilla really has a big challenge. It is hard to compete with such powerful companies, creating a sustainable business with their mission without succumbing to ads or stopping to protect user privacy. It looks like an unfair game. I like the Brave business model. I wish to have the same with Firefox.
Too bad they built Brave on Chromium instead of Firefox. Which of course given that the company is run by Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich is a bit of a shame. Firefox is showing that they are more than technically competent to keep up with Chromium and deliver great performance and functionality. With the work they are doing rewriting Firefox component by component in Rust, Google will have their work cut out keeping…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now my parent is getting downvoted but I think that there's a great truth in this comment: A lack of focus generally hurts an organizations legitimacy in the eyes of it's donors. Increasing the quality of a countries national elections isn't a goal I'd immediately assume to be part of Mozillas mission, so I'd be disappointed about such a project. They could go the more transparent route and create a second orga…
That's exactly my point. The Mozilla Corporation executives want money for their left-wing causes, so they are basically stealing it from Firefox's pockets.
I didn't want to imply anything political and the given example of improving elections isn't really a left- or right wing thing.
It's just hard for donors to understand how such a project might relate to the Mozilla brand.
Just to give a (hopefully) completely nonpolitical example:
If they would start to collect art with donor money it would arguably delute their brand in a comparable manner.