Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default(mstdn.social)
mstdn.social
Firefox 128 enables "privacy-preserving" ad measurements by default
https://mstdn.social/@Lokjo/112772496939724214
220 comments
> The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving.
It is strictly less privacy-preserving than not implementing this "feature" that has zero benefit to the user running the browser. At the very least it pings yet another third party, most likely it effectively leaks much more.
> The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.
That is a very very generous assumption of the browser makers' goals. Particularily when one of them IS an online advertising company and another one is almost exclusively funded by said advertising company. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
It is strictly less privacy-preserving than not implementing this "feature" that has zero benefit to the user running the browser. At the very least it pings yet another third party, most likely it effectively leaks much more.
> The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.
That is a very very generous assumption of the browser makers' goals. Particularily when one of them IS an online advertising company and another one is almost exclusively funded by said advertising company. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
The worst part isn't mentioned here. I'm fine with making any tools available to the users. But enabling by default is a very different discussion.
This is not the kind of tool/setting that justifies having it auto-enabled, it's not "we auto-enabled MFA to protect your most critical data". Enabling it was not done for my benefit and it wasn't even made obvious in any way, I had to find out from internet discussions. It's my daily driver on all platforms and have nightly, beta, and stable channel installations. None gave me a hint of this extra enabled setting.
If I'm going to use a browser where shady settings are pushed on me it might as well be one which 99.999% of the internet is built for rather than the one where (too many times) I have to fiddle to get things working. I'll take the fiddling or the lack of control but certainly not both. Mozilla is walking on really thin ice.
This is not the kind of tool/setting that justifies having it auto-enabled, it's not "we auto-enabled MFA to protect your most critical data". Enabling it was not done for my benefit and it wasn't even made obvious in any way, I had to find out from internet discussions. It's my daily driver on all platforms and have nightly, beta, and stable channel installations. None gave me a hint of this extra enabled setting.
If I'm going to use a browser where shady settings are pushed on me it might as well be one which 99.999% of the internet is built for rather than the one where (too many times) I have to fiddle to get things working. I'll take the fiddling or the lack of control but certainly not both. Mozilla is walking on really thin ice.
The update page that opens in a new tab mentioned this change, once updated to Firefox 128. Perhaps you have that turned off, many power users do, making them oblivious to updates and the changes they bring.
Also I believe this is to the benefit of the general populace, who would never enable it otherwise. It allows ads to work in a more privacy-preserving manner.
Also I believe this is to the benefit of the general populace, who would never enable it otherwise. It allows ads to work in a more privacy-preserving manner.
The argument they're making (which I think is actually a fairly good one) is that this is to users benefit; the economic incentives for advertisers to circumvent anti-tracking tech are quite large. They claim that entirely preventing tracking is brittle; it's likely to be continual game of whack-a-mole that de facto will allow users to be tracked. Instead, giving advertisers a little more of what they actually want (better targeting) without the intermediate step of doing that by tracking users directly removes the incentive to pierce privacy.
Personally, I'm not a fan of advertising for reasons beyond privacy; it's also simply attention-sapping mental noise. Yet I'm not sure that's relevant here; removing some harm might be better than nothing even if I'm not happy with the end result.
The informed-consent angle seems fairly superficial. Yes, that matters - but the essential case is only if the tech is _not_ privacy preserving. Additionally, the ability to experiment is essential; to the extent this doesn't harm users and truly is small-scale I we should embrace experiments even if we don't personally at first glance embrace this specific one. It may seem polite to ask users for consent even here (and clearly that would have been the better PR choice), but I'm also not a fan of largely irrelevant consent forms, especially when asked prematurely - that's pretty close to spam. Sure, on Hacker News that may seem like an important question, but that's hardly a normal or representative slice of the population, and I'm just not sure I share the outrage here.
What exactly is the shadiness you're referring to here? Is it a lack of trust concerning their intentions? Is it a lack of trust that this is privacy preserving? Is it that you don't believe this experiment is small scale (enough or at all)? Or is that you don't trust they'll actually evaluate the experiment fairly, instead opting to push things through?
Another thing coloring my perspective here is that the open web sure seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Chromium is pretty dominant and none of the chromium derived browers appear to have resources (or willingness to spend them) to significantly depart from Chrome while still providing prompt security updates. Webkit is languishing and poorly updated in practice by users. De facto google seems to be pushing users towards at least pervasive tracking and leverage by google; Apple seems to support mostly those web features that don't risk competing with their app store. This isn't great; I'd love to see some competition.
Perhaps Firefox could somehow provide opt-in but noisy questions for users that want that, without harassing the likely large majority that doesn't see the point. It's a shame to chase away users over something like this, that's for sure.
Personally, I'm not a fan of advertising for reasons beyond privacy; it's also simply attention-sapping mental noise. Yet I'm not sure that's relevant here; removing some harm might be better than nothing even if I'm not happy with the end result.
The informed-consent angle seems fairly superficial. Yes, that matters - but the essential case is only if the tech is _not_ privacy preserving. Additionally, the ability to experiment is essential; to the extent this doesn't harm users and truly is small-scale I we should embrace experiments even if we don't personally at first glance embrace this specific one. It may seem polite to ask users for consent even here (and clearly that would have been the better PR choice), but I'm also not a fan of largely irrelevant consent forms, especially when asked prematurely - that's pretty close to spam. Sure, on Hacker News that may seem like an important question, but that's hardly a normal or representative slice of the population, and I'm just not sure I share the outrage here.
What exactly is the shadiness you're referring to here? Is it a lack of trust concerning their intentions? Is it a lack of trust that this is privacy preserving? Is it that you don't believe this experiment is small scale (enough or at all)? Or is that you don't trust they'll actually evaluate the experiment fairly, instead opting to push things through?
Another thing coloring my perspective here is that the open web sure seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Chromium is pretty dominant and none of the chromium derived browers appear to have resources (or willingness to spend them) to significantly depart from Chrome while still providing prompt security updates. Webkit is languishing and poorly updated in practice by users. De facto google seems to be pushing users towards at least pervasive tracking and leverage by google; Apple seems to support mostly those web features that don't risk competing with their app store. This isn't great; I'd love to see some competition.
Perhaps Firefox could somehow provide opt-in but noisy questions for users that want that, without harassing the likely large majority that doesn't see the point. It's a shame to chase away users over something like this, that's for sure.
> Particularily when one of them IS an online advertising company and another one is almost exclusively funded by said advertising company.
The second one also recently purchased an online advertising company, Anonym [0], placing them directly in the advertising game. They might have done so initially because they felt they needed this feature, but now their finances are tied up with the success of this platform in addition to Google's continued payouts.
[0] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
The second one also recently purchased an online advertising company, Anonym [0], placing them directly in the advertising game. They might have done so initially because they felt they needed this feature, but now their finances are tied up with the success of this platform in addition to Google's continued payouts.
[0] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
Web needs to make money. Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no?
I myself do not like ads or tracking, but we need to be realistic and there needs a way to make web sustainable.
How to do that and making sure that monopolies like Google are in check is a valid concern though, but in these conversations is the only point I hear. Ironically Google does not even need these apis because it already has so much data on users, it is primarily for smaller companies.
I myself do not like ads or tracking, but we need to be realistic and there needs a way to make web sustainable.
How to do that and making sure that monopolies like Google are in check is a valid concern though, but in these conversations is the only point I hear. Ironically Google does not even need these apis because it already has so much data on users, it is primarily for smaller companies.
>Web needs to make money.
No, it doesn't. I have no issue with it making money, but that was neither the original purpose of the web nor is it an end goal for everyone using it.
> Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no?
This statement is unconnected to the first. The way people just link "web", "money" and "advertising" without even stopping to think that there might be alternatives is exactly why everything online is in such a sad state of affairs.
No, it doesn't. I have no issue with it making money, but that was neither the original purpose of the web nor is it an end goal for everyone using it.
> Giving tools to advertisers while making sure user privacy is preserved is better than free reign of tracking we have before, no?
This statement is unconnected to the first. The way people just link "web", "money" and "advertising" without even stopping to think that there might be alternatives is exactly why everything online is in such a sad state of affairs.
> make web sustainable.
I'm old enough to remember a day when the "social media" that I used was a set of phpBB forums paid for by one or more of the members because they wanted to host the community. Nothing on the modern ad-supported web comes close to the dynamic of friendship and camaraderie of those community-supported forums—if anything the new platforms are a great place to ruin real-life friendships rather than create new ones.
So, no, I don't think the web needs to be made "sustainable" in the sense you seem to mean. Things were better when people sacrificed a bit to keep their communities alive.
I'm old enough to remember a day when the "social media" that I used was a set of phpBB forums paid for by one or more of the members because they wanted to host the community. Nothing on the modern ad-supported web comes close to the dynamic of friendship and camaraderie of those community-supported forums—if anything the new platforms are a great place to ruin real-life friendships rather than create new ones.
So, no, I don't think the web needs to be made "sustainable" in the sense you seem to mean. Things were better when people sacrificed a bit to keep their communities alive.
> Web needs to make money
I don’t think this is true. No one “needs” to make money. Museums don’t need to make money. OSS doesn’t need to make money.
The web has value without making money.
But even if it does make money, it doesn’t need to maximize profits at the expense of user privacy and joy.
I don’t think this is true. No one “needs” to make money. Museums don’t need to make money. OSS doesn’t need to make money.
The web has value without making money.
But even if it does make money, it doesn’t need to maximize profits at the expense of user privacy and joy.
I'm certainly in favor of free software projects making enough money to be sustainable.
It could be zero in some conditions, but in the other cases, I'm also against ads. Fortunately, there are other ways of making money, without compromising the "open source" / "free software" part:
- consulting (including prioritizing new features and fixes)
- support
- providing an actual paid service
- selling free software extensions (and yes, that means someone can recompile the extension and distribute it gratis - that's what happening with OSMAnd+ on F-Droid, but they are still doing fine)
It could be zero in some conditions, but in the other cases, I'm also against ads. Fortunately, there are other ways of making money, without compromising the "open source" / "free software" part:
- consulting (including prioritizing new features and fixes)
- support
- providing an actual paid service
- selling free software extensions (and yes, that means someone can recompile the extension and distribute it gratis - that's what happening with OSMAnd+ on F-Droid, but they are still doing fine)
How do OSS devs support themselves without money?
I have an employer who pays me to do thing X. And they don’t care that I also work on thing Y a little bit.
I think there’s lots of software written by people who have jobs and code because it’s fun.
For example, Linus Torvalds made Subsurface [0] as open source. He had a job while he made this. He didn’t get paid for it directly, but it’s not like paying him extra would make it better.
[0] https://subsurface-divelog.org/
I think there’s lots of software written by people who have jobs and code because it’s fun.
For example, Linus Torvalds made Subsurface [0] as open source. He had a job while he made this. He didn’t get paid for it directly, but it’s not like paying him extra would make it better.
[0] https://subsurface-divelog.org/
The same way you can make model trains and not make money.
Usually they are supported by donations, therefore they don't need to sell their user's data or their software.
The Stardew Valley gambit - quit programming and take up subsistence farming.
[deleted]
Good luck. Farming is a hard business if you want to make money. And you'll need money for electricity, fuel, medicine, etc.
Maximising profits and being sustainable are 2 different things. Museums do not need to make money because they are funded externally.
It is like saying artists do not need to make money. You seem to go to the very extremes.
Museums do get money from somewhere.
Where do you get them for web?
Where do you get them for web?
Same place as museums. Benefactors.
Check out Wikipedia for an example of a huge site that doesn’t make money and just runs on donations.
I run my crappy blog and a bunch of other sites for “free” because I just pay the fees.
Check out Wikipedia for an example of a huge site that doesn’t make money and just runs on donations.
I run my crappy blog and a bunch of other sites for “free” because I just pay the fees.
> Web needs to make money
Absolutely, but as long as adverting is allowed to finance the whole bloody thing we're not going to improve anything. Advertising should be limited as to not influence content and that's currently not what's happing. As it stand, outside of "the small web" ads are the main attraction and any content that may be provided to us is done so to enable advertising, or at least not upset advertisers.
I want privacy pushed so far that the majority of the web is going to have to find financing outside of advertising, be it micro-payments, donation, subscriptions or benefactors. People should pay directly for software, service, like social media, news, email and possibly even search. If we as a side-effect uses these things less I see that as an absolute benefit.
Absolutely, but as long as adverting is allowed to finance the whole bloody thing we're not going to improve anything. Advertising should be limited as to not influence content and that's currently not what's happing. As it stand, outside of "the small web" ads are the main attraction and any content that may be provided to us is done so to enable advertising, or at least not upset advertisers.
I want privacy pushed so far that the majority of the web is going to have to find financing outside of advertising, be it micro-payments, donation, subscriptions or benefactors. People should pay directly for software, service, like social media, news, email and possibly even search. If we as a side-effect uses these things less I see that as an absolute benefit.
I agree somewhat, but what about poorer regions of the world like parts of Africa or Asia, what is the solution for them? Most of the people there would not or could not pay for every website to use. It would be unfortunate if the web is inaccessible for most people.
> what is the solution for them
Locally produced, given the cheaper labour cost they should also be able to compete in the EU or US by offering a cheaper product, due to cheaper production cost. At least in some areas.
I don't think the current state of the web is doing poor regions any favours by granting the free access to western products, compared to encouraging or even forcing them to build their own infrastructure or products.
Donating Europe's discarded clothing to Africa killed pretty much all of Africa's textile industry. Free access to the online services from the west (or China) is just as much of an obstacle to growing their own technology and media companies.
Edit: Free access to general knowledge, open source software and learning material is clearly a bonus, but it also takes little away from local industry and can help kick start companies.
Locally produced, given the cheaper labour cost they should also be able to compete in the EU or US by offering a cheaper product, due to cheaper production cost. At least in some areas.
I don't think the current state of the web is doing poor regions any favours by granting the free access to western products, compared to encouraging or even forcing them to build their own infrastructure or products.
Donating Europe's discarded clothing to Africa killed pretty much all of Africa's textile industry. Free access to the online services from the west (or China) is just as much of an obstacle to growing their own technology and media companies.
Edit: Free access to general knowledge, open source software and learning material is clearly a bonus, but it also takes little away from local industry and can help kick start companies.
General knowledge, FOSS, and learning material are also generally freely given without expectation of or often even asking for compensation. The most valuable "content" on the web is generally not monetized[0].
They wouldn't be losing a lot if they lost out on TikTok and Instagram. It would be no great loss if affiliate link blog spam went away.
[0] e.g. https://axler.net/ has multiple free books on advanced mathematics written by a well-regarded author. This kind of thing (and/or lecture notes, syllabi, and homework) is not at all abnormal to find on professors' home pages if you want a free education.
They wouldn't be losing a lot if they lost out on TikTok and Instagram. It would be no great loss if affiliate link blog spam went away.
[0] e.g. https://axler.net/ has multiple free books on advanced mathematics written by a well-regarded author. This kind of thing (and/or lecture notes, syllabi, and homework) is not at all abnormal to find on professors' home pages if you want a free education.
> Web needs to make money.
Commercial use of the internet was banned until 1991, it worked perfectly fine until then.
Commercial use of the internet was banned until 1991, it worked perfectly fine until then.
When I think back before big monetization, the web was better.
An example, look at TikTok or YouTube. 99.999% garbage, essentially clickbait farms, with zero valuable content.
Influencers? A plague. Political click bait videos? Harmful to democracy. Nutty flat earth, perpetual motion, conspiracy videos? Same.
The rest of the web is the same. Affiliate links are vile, evil things. And endless pages copy pasted to steal hits.
Monetization has destroyed the internet.
I'd much prefer people setting up their own small webpages, their hobbies, etc, with no monetization incentives.
An example, look at TikTok or YouTube. 99.999% garbage, essentially clickbait farms, with zero valuable content.
Influencers? A plague. Political click bait videos? Harmful to democracy. Nutty flat earth, perpetual motion, conspiracy videos? Same.
The rest of the web is the same. Affiliate links are vile, evil things. And endless pages copy pasted to steal hits.
Monetization has destroyed the internet.
I'd much prefer people setting up their own small webpages, their hobbies, etc, with no monetization incentives.
Agreed but it shouldn't be the problem that a browser should solve. The browser is a user client. It really doesn't make sense for browsers to try and enforce or help a certain business model. It's great if the web and web browsers help businesses make money, but it should be a side effect, not a goal for user clients.
Only IF it is correctly implemented. And only if you trust all relevant parties involved in this feature.
And honestly, whenever I see that something has been anonymized I assume it isn't. Mostly because the industry has a terrible track record, secondly because the incentives are almost always misaligned to begin with.
I'd trust mozilla more than most, but not enough to give them free rein and opt in things for me. I don't (yet) know enough specifics on this matter to make an informed decision, but if it weren't for hn I'd have missed this.
I doubt firefox would ask the user after install (again, incentives).
I should go through all options for every update (not just for firefox). But I can't, I don't have enough time. I need to be able to put some trust into the software I use, and things like this erode that trust.
And honestly, whenever I see that something has been anonymized I assume it isn't. Mostly because the industry has a terrible track record, secondly because the incentives are almost always misaligned to begin with.
I'd trust mozilla more than most, but not enough to give them free rein and opt in things for me. I don't (yet) know enough specifics on this matter to make an informed decision, but if it weren't for hn I'd have missed this.
I doubt firefox would ask the user after install (again, incentives).
I should go through all options for every update (not just for firefox). But I can't, I don't have enough time. I need to be able to put some trust into the software I use, and things like this erode that trust.
> I'd trust mozilla more than most
More than Google or Microsoft does not say much. And - judging by how hard it is to fully disable telemetry and call-home on, say, Mozilla Thunderbird:
https://superuser.com/q/1672309/122798
I wouldn't trust them very much.
(Yes, I know it's a different project and not the same team but Mozilla is still the parent entity etc. etc.)
More than Google or Microsoft does not say much. And - judging by how hard it is to fully disable telemetry and call-home on, say, Mozilla Thunderbird:
https://superuser.com/q/1672309/122798
I wouldn't trust them very much.
(Yes, I know it's a different project and not the same team but Mozilla is still the parent entity etc. etc.)
Gahh! I'm planning a move from macOS to some Linux-based OS once this laptop dies. I've had 20+ years of using Mail.app and thought that Thunderbird would be the appropriate replacement.
But that link, and the comments at https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/thunderbird-should-by-d... ('Given that significant parts of Thunderbirds user interface (addons manager details, welcome page, whats new on updates etc) are essentially served as web pages into Thunderbird, perhaps your expectations are becoming unreasonable.') tell me that Thunderbird does not respect my desire to minimize my info leakage to the outside world.
But that link, and the comments at https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/thunderbird-should-by-d... ('Given that significant parts of Thunderbirds user interface (addons manager details, welcome page, whats new on updates etc) are essentially served as web pages into Thunderbird, perhaps your expectations are becoming unreasonable.') tell me that Thunderbird does not respect my desire to minimize my info leakage to the outside world.
The "served as web pages" is a bit misleading. It just means that the UI layout engine takes HTML or XML, not that information is passed through a web server.
Sure, but the link concerned all telemetry, of which accessing a web page, even just to show what's news, is one.
The overall attitude included comments like 'I would like to see significantly more anonymous telemetry not less', while I want no network connections in my mail reader except that which I specifically initiate.
These are people so acculturated to data collection that they don't understand that some others don't want it.
The overall attitude included comments like 'I would like to see significantly more anonymous telemetry not less', while I want no network connections in my mail reader except that which I specifically initiate.
These are people so acculturated to data collection that they don't understand that some others don't want it.
There are organizational incentives to this approach - at Mozilla / Thunderbird, with which I have a bone to pick; but also elsewhere.
A couple of years back I was involved in an argument about doing something a bit similar in LibreOffice:
https://design.blog.documentfoundation.org/2022/11/01/commun...
Note the back-and-forth in the comments.
A couple of years back I was involved in an argument about doing something a bit similar in LibreOffice:
https://design.blog.documentfoundation.org/2022/11/01/commun...
Note the back-and-forth in the comments.
I understand why developers want feedback. I have paying customers for my software library and I can't get useful feedback from then about what features they use.
OTOH, why can't get get UI feedback from logging institutional users for different domains, where they can get real legal and ethical consent from the institution side?
I mean, yes, it's easier to force it on everyone and have them swallow the pill for lack of alternatives than it is to deal with organizations. But then the issue isn't one of lack of data, it's that they don't want to deal with organizations as equals, since that takes more work.
OTOH, why can't get get UI feedback from logging institutional users for different domains, where they can get real legal and ethical consent from the institution side?
I mean, yes, it's easier to force it on everyone and have them swallow the pill for lack of alternatives than it is to deal with organizations. But then the issue isn't one of lack of data, it's that they don't want to deal with organizations as equals, since that takes more work.
My problem with this is that ideally, software I deign to run on my computer acts with only my interests in mind. The overarching goal of these changes is not to preserve my privacy, but rather to help advertising companies to learn something about how I interact with their ads. I don't care that Mozilla's particular implementation is not as bad for my privacy as it could be, I only care that their motivation has switched from acting in my interests to acting in the interests of advertising agencies.
Fine. Then pay for the tools you use rather than force them to get money from another source.
The toolmakers work to earn a living.
The toolmakers work to earn a living.
Point me to the Firefox donation box or subscription (not the Mozilla donations, which don't fund Firefox, or a subscription to an unrelated service that has overhead of its own) and I'll start a monthly payment today.
(Before you spend too long looking: there isn't one. Mozilla doesn't want me to pay for Firefox, they want to get their funding other ways.)
(Before you spend too long looking: there isn't one. Mozilla doesn't want me to pay for Firefox, they want to get their funding other ways.)
Firefox is open source. I do pay for it as a tool.
Toolmakers also work out of desire to practice their craft. Many projects are written, not to “earn a living.”
Toolmakers also work out of desire to practice their craft. Many projects are written, not to “earn a living.”
True but Firefox is mainly written by people who want to earn a living.
Much FOSS is actually written by people who are being paid to do it,
How do you fund the producers of Firefox and the infrastructure needed to get it built and released. Currently the only way is that the sellers of the adverts you read give money to fund Firefox.
Now if you paid for Firefox then they don't need to get money from advertisers.
Similarly to get ad free webpages you need to pay the authors.
Much FOSS is actually written by people who are being paid to do it,
How do you fund the producers of Firefox and the infrastructure needed to get it built and released. Currently the only way is that the sellers of the adverts you read give money to fund Firefox.
Now if you paid for Firefox then they don't need to get money from advertisers.
Similarly to get ad free webpages you need to pay the authors.
> Currently the only way is that the sellers of the adverts you read give money to fund Firefox.
According to Wikipedia[1], most of Mozilla is funded by Google, for setting them as the default search engine, rather than by more conventional advertisers.
On a more personal note, I'd prefer if that money went towards improving their FOSS offering instead of giving the now-former CEO a $7M bonus[2], acquiring advertising businesses [3][4], and littering Firefox with these anti-features.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Google
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker
[3]: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
[4]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/
According to Wikipedia[1], most of Mozilla is funded by Google, for setting them as the default search engine, rather than by more conventional advertisers.
On a more personal note, I'd prefer if that money went towards improving their FOSS offering instead of giving the now-former CEO a $7M bonus[2], acquiring advertising businesses [3][4], and littering Firefox with these anti-features.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Google
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker
[3]: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
[4]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/
Yeah I think the biggest problem is that Mozilla was made a corporation, and as such has corporative aspirations and mindset. It would have been much better if it had remained just a foundation.
As I understand it, it is impossible for me to fund specifically Firefox development. I can donate to the Mozilla Foundation, which means a portion will go to, for example, "$30M to build Mozilla.ai", which I emphatically do not want to fund.
Given the firehose of money from Google, how much contributor money from people like me would be needed before Mozilla changes their mind? From my viewpoint, they've built their foundation to expect that firehose, and they don't think user funding is enough - they really want that juicy advertising money instead.
Of the $220M spent in software development in 2023, how much specifically went to Firefox development, vs. the other projects they have?
How much did they pay for Anonym, and how much to integrate Anonym into their systems?
If 5% of my funding goes to 'the producers of Firefox and the infrastructure needed to get it built and released' and 95% goes to crap that make things worse for me, then I'm better off funding something like the Tor browser or variants like the Mullvad browser, where my funding is more directed toward improving my personal privacy.
I'll let them figure out what things to disable so I don't have to watch the release notes with a keen eye every time I update.
Given the firehose of money from Google, how much contributor money from people like me would be needed before Mozilla changes their mind? From my viewpoint, they've built their foundation to expect that firehose, and they don't think user funding is enough - they really want that juicy advertising money instead.
Of the $220M spent in software development in 2023, how much specifically went to Firefox development, vs. the other projects they have?
How much did they pay for Anonym, and how much to integrate Anonym into their systems?
If 5% of my funding goes to 'the producers of Firefox and the infrastructure needed to get it built and released' and 95% goes to crap that make things worse for me, then I'm better off funding something like the Tor browser or variants like the Mullvad browser, where my funding is more directed toward improving my personal privacy.
I'll let them figure out what things to disable so I don't have to watch the release notes with a keen eye every time I update.
It's not just impossible for you to specifically fund Firefox. From what I understand, Mozilla Foundation money does not go to Mozilla Corporation/Firefox at all. You cannot donate to it at all, and your donations only go to those things you don't want to fund.
Your understanding is accurate. Donations to Mozilla cannot legally be used for Firefox development because your donations are tax-deductible due to Mozilla being a charity and Firefox development is done by a for-profit corporation.
Of course Mozilla employees deserve to be paid. Are you really saying the only way to ensure this happens is for them to sell the software or sell ads? (I write GPL-licensed software for a living and manage somehow to get paid. I also write some for free because I find it fun.) Further, Mozilla positions itself as a member of the free software community and as acting in the interests of its users.
Perhaps they should consider accepting money from their users then?
Wikipedia doesn't fund itself by spying on you and selling the data. They ask for money.
Wikipedia doesn't fund itself by spying on you and selling the data. They ask for money.
Yes although given current user behaviour and expectations I doubt they would make enough money to continue.
If even a Microsoft Executive is saying that anything on the web can be freely copied then what does a normal user think.
If even a Microsoft Executive is saying that anything on the web can be freely copied then what does a normal user think.
They're a charitable nonprofit, and the Mozilla license is one of the more permissive ones; they're fine with you freely sharing their work.
They currently already get 7M/year in donations for no purpose. I imagine they'd get a lot more if that money would fund Firefox, and how many core/paid developers do they really need if they have people that know that they're doing?
They currently already get 7M/year in donations for no purpose. I imagine they'd get a lot more if that money would fund Firefox, and how many core/paid developers do they really need if they have people that know that they're doing?
Mozilla also doesn't have to operate out of one of the most expensive cities in the world. And no, they don't have to be there to attract competent developers either.
[deleted]
> True but Firefox is mainly written by people who want to earn a living.
Not, originally. Wasn’t Brandon Eich like 17 or something when he rewrote Firefox?
And lots of people put out ad-free web content for free. It’s not that it doesn’t exist, just check out all the blogs and whatnot from HN profiles. Very few people with ads or even making money off their pages.
Ads are one way to get content. Not the only way.
Not, originally. Wasn’t Brandon Eich like 17 or something when he rewrote Firefox?
And lots of people put out ad-free web content for free. It’s not that it doesn’t exist, just check out all the blogs and whatnot from HN profiles. Very few people with ads or even making money off their pages.
Ads are one way to get content. Not the only way.
> Then pay for the tools you use rather than force them to get money from another source.
Nobody is forcing them to do anything, they literally will not take my money.
Nobody is forcing them to do anything, they literally will not take my money.
> it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers
This is it. We're polluting the web browser with even more bullshit so that companies can squeeze a few pennies out when someone visits a page.
It was bad enough when pages are loaded with tracking cookies and JavaScript but at least you can block those. Now we get browser functionality on by default cooperating with advertising networks. Insane.
This is it. We're polluting the web browser with even more bullshit so that companies can squeeze a few pennies out when someone visits a page.
It was bad enough when pages are loaded with tracking cookies and JavaScript but at least you can block those. Now we get browser functionality on by default cooperating with advertising networks. Insane.
> I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad.
You mean online tracking, not advertising.
Advertising without tracking has existed for as long as commerce has existed. The elimination of tracking is not a threat to advertising. Historically, tracking is a very recent "innovation", an unwelcome one IMO.
You mean online tracking, not advertising.
Advertising without tracking has existed for as long as commerce has existed. The elimination of tracking is not a threat to advertising. Historically, tracking is a very recent "innovation", an unwelcome one IMO.
> I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad.
We've been giving advertisers new tools for 20 years. Over that time advertisements have only gotten worse. The less bad state is a myth. There's no economic incentive to be less bad.
We've been giving advertisers new tools for 20 years. Over that time advertisements have only gotten worse. The less bad state is a myth. There's no economic incentive to be less bad.
> The scare quotes here are uncalled for: it is privacy-preserving
It is net negative though.
It is more privacy-preserving to just not implement this in the first place.
It is baffling why Firefox ships with this on by default. Even Chrome prompted users with a (misleading) dialog box to turn it on or off.
It is net negative though.
It is more privacy-preserving to just not implement this in the first place.
It is baffling why Firefox ships with this on by default. Even Chrome prompted users with a (misleading) dialog box to turn it on or off.
> It is baffling why Firefox ships with this on by default.
Not really. The reason is that Mozilla wants to make money by selling your data/preferences. Probably so that the incompetent CEO can get even more obscene "compensation". They just bought a spyware adtech company.
Not really. The reason is that Mozilla wants to make money by selling your data/preferences. Probably so that the incompetent CEO can get even more obscene "compensation". They just bought a spyware adtech company.
Do they get money from selling this?
> The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers.
90% of Mozilla’s revenue, ca. $500,000,000 comes advertising partnerships (almost exclusively Google)
https://untested.sonnet.io/Defaults+Matter%2C+Don't+Assume+C...
My point is: it’s not just lifting a finger for advertisers. It’s deception. Defaults matter.
90% of Mozilla’s revenue, ca. $500,000,000 comes advertising partnerships (almost exclusively Google)
https://untested.sonnet.io/Defaults+Matter%2C+Don't+Assume+C...
My point is: it’s not just lifting a finger for advertisers. It’s deception. Defaults matter.
And only a fraction of that money is used for Firefox development. Remember that you can't donate to Firefox (like you can for Thunderbird).
> it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers
It's that an ads vendor is lifting a finger for ads. Mozilla is an ads vendor now - https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
It's that an ads vendor is lifting a finger for ads. Mozilla is an ads vendor now - https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
The scare quotes are useful, because the real story is that Firefox is enabling ad measurement by default. It’s an opt-out system being forced on users. They also claim it’s “privacy preserving,” but that’s a qualifier that deserves scrutiny, especially in an opt-out system. If it was really privacy preserving, why isn’t it opt-in?
Those are normal quotes, not "scare quotes".
I remember when Browsers were User-Agents and worked for the sole benefit of the user. These days they are Advertisement-Agents. And especially for Firefox to survive Mozilla should go down the road of being a user agent and a user agent only. What other use is there for firefox? It's not faster, it's soon not going to be more private and it is less secure than chromium based browsers.
Incredible that this is the #1 post on HN. The slightest amount of basic research what this functionality does is absent, combined with the obviously ignored knowledge WHY firefox still has any users at all.
Glad the whole thread was apparently flagged to death though. I'd guess 90% of firefox users already turned that off and are actively looking for the next best alternative.
Glad the whole thread was apparently flagged to death though. I'd guess 90% of firefox users already turned that off and are actively looking for the next best alternative.
> if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad.
Internet advertising worked fine before user tracking, it was just based on the contents of the webpage.
Before that it existed in newspapers and magazines for over a decade, without advertisers insisting the publisher spy on each of their readers.
Internet advertising worked fine before user tracking, it was just based on the contents of the webpage.
Before that it existed in newspapers and magazines for over a decade, without advertisers insisting the publisher spy on each of their readers.
> The best objection to these proposals
The best objection is that I want my software to work for me, not for someone else. Simple.
The best objection is that I want my software to work for me, not for someone else. Simple.
> if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising
This would be my preferred outcome no doubt. And after widespread adoption of content blockers like uBlock Origin, the next step should be mass adoption of webpage mirrors (like archive.is and Wayback Machine do now, but more comprehensive), and stop giving impressions to read-only websites.
In this sense, paywalls are a blessing in disguise: I don't ever visit wsj for example and thus any articles from it must be read from archive.is. But reading from mirrors should be more widespread, even for websites not behind a paywall.
If browsers want to improve the situation regarding ads, besides bundling and automatically enabling content blockers, they should also provide integrations to mirrors like archive.is to go further than that and not even risk a page access to ad-infested sites.
> or give it the tools it needs to be less bad.
However there are more than two options. If society reach a compromise to ban targeted ads, this doesn't shut down advertising completely but sets it back to TV-era levels of analytics. This discussion should have happened after Cambridge Analytica.
> Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.
I thought Chrome were in the business of making sure ads stay bad.
This would be my preferred outcome no doubt. And after widespread adoption of content blockers like uBlock Origin, the next step should be mass adoption of webpage mirrors (like archive.is and Wayback Machine do now, but more comprehensive), and stop giving impressions to read-only websites.
In this sense, paywalls are a blessing in disguise: I don't ever visit wsj for example and thus any articles from it must be read from archive.is. But reading from mirrors should be more widespread, even for websites not behind a paywall.
If browsers want to improve the situation regarding ads, besides bundling and automatically enabling content blockers, they should also provide integrations to mirrors like archive.is to go further than that and not even risk a page access to ad-infested sites.
> or give it the tools it needs to be less bad.
However there are more than two options. If society reach a compromise to ban targeted ads, this doesn't shut down advertising completely but sets it back to TV-era levels of analytics. This discussion should have happened after Cambridge Analytica.
> Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.
I thought Chrome were in the business of making sure ads stay bad.
> if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising
Yes, please. Both online and offline. Advertising is probably the most useless, annoying and wasteful industry out there.
We could have pull-only databases of businesses, products and services instead. Ideally, with independently verified, fact-checked information and authentic reviews. Realistically though, this kind of objectivity would probably be infeasible to enforce and maintain. But even if we allow for misinformation, paid rankings and whatnot, the point stands: any such database should follow a pull-only model, users access it voluntarily to search for products and services and it's not an unsolicited broadcast to everyone everywhere all the time.
Yes, please. Both online and offline. Advertising is probably the most useless, annoying and wasteful industry out there.
We could have pull-only databases of businesses, products and services instead. Ideally, with independently verified, fact-checked information and authentic reviews. Realistically though, this kind of objectivity would probably be infeasible to enforce and maintain. But even if we allow for misinformation, paid rankings and whatnot, the point stands: any such database should follow a pull-only model, users access it voluntarily to search for products and services and it's not an unsolicited broadcast to everyone everywhere all the time.
Ideally governments would provide an index of registered businesses with some basic filtering (e.g. location or category of services provided) with a name, address, phone number, and url. Present in random order to be fair.
My state seems to have a search tool, but no list. It also only has name/address (so presumably it's more for serving legal papers or whatever).
If I want to find a plumber, I should be able to ask my government for a list of the licensed plumbers in my area.
My state seems to have a search tool, but no list. It also only has name/address (so presumably it's more for serving legal papers or whatever).
If I want to find a plumber, I should be able to ask my government for a list of the licensed plumbers in my area.
> if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad
It's not like we've just invented this new advertising thing and are now struggling to make it fit the internet. We've been living with it for decades now, and over all this time that industry haven't expressed even a slightest desire to be "less bad" in any meaningful way. I think we can safely set aside the idea that they don't do it because they just didn't have any tools. No, they don't do it because they are doing just fine without it, and they have zero motivation to do it. And a lot of motivation - billions upon billions of dollars of motivation - to keep doing exactly what they are doing, or worse.
It's not like we've just invented this new advertising thing and are now struggling to make it fit the internet. We've been living with it for decades now, and over all this time that industry haven't expressed even a slightest desire to be "less bad" in any meaningful way. I think we can safely set aside the idea that they don't do it because they just didn't have any tools. No, they don't do it because they are doing just fine without it, and they have zero motivation to do it. And a lot of motivation - billions upon billions of dollars of motivation - to keep doing exactly what they are doing, or worse.
[deleted]
"Privacy-enhancing/preserving", mhh, it's rather "Mozilla launches new tools to help advertisers stay compliant with latest regulations".
It's not to protect privacy, because to protect privacy there is already a solution: it's to block the ad hosts and not talk to them at all (anti-fingerprinting techniques don't work).
It's not to protect privacy, because to protect privacy there is already a solution: it's to block the ad hosts and not talk to them at all (anti-fingerprinting techniques don't work).
>The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad.
Doesn't this break most modern methodologies. Can I do next best action without knowing who did what?
Doesn't this break most modern methodologies. Can I do next best action without knowing who did what?
Isn't it the same old tools used by other ad companies, like differential privacy?
A major difference is that the data is stored in your browser, and aggregated anonymously by Mozilla (also using differential privacy). Using the techniques you refer to, the ad platforms both store the data and then aggregate it, possibly promising to add differential privacy. The advantages I see are: (1) you can verify which data is collected by the browser and when/how it is sent to Mozilla, because this code is open source and running on your machine; (2) you maybe trust Mozilla more than an ad company.
I was under the impression that click data is stored in your browser under Webkit's Private Click Measurement. Am I misunderstanding?
For example, here's a 2021 blog post describing the protocol
https://webkit.org/blog/11529/introducing-private-click-meas...
For example, here's a 2021 blog post describing the protocol
https://webkit.org/blog/11529/introducing-private-click-meas...
According to their blog post, Let's Encrypt will run the aggregator service - which is even better.
Better for whom? Even more of normal internet operations flowing through ISRG is concerning itself. Let's Encrypt alone already gives them more power than any private organization should have.
That’s bad because it could make it difficult to block.
the big deal is it should have been opt in.
"The approach allows measurement without disclosing who, specifically, did what with the ad."
If this is "privacy", then it appears so-called "(ad) tech" companies are attempting to redefine the term.
Question for readers: Is knowing the identity of a person a prerequisite for that person to lose (some) privacy.
Consider the dictionary definition:
Webster's: "The state of being in retirement from the company or observation of others; seclusion."
Wordnet, from the Cognitive Science Laboratory at Princeton: "the quality of being secluded from the presence or view of others [syn: {privacy}, {privateness}, {seclusion}]"
Example:
A person in a building in a large city on a busy pedestrian street draws the curtains or blinds in a window facing the street to prevent passers by from seeing in. The passers by do not know the identity of the person(s) inside.
The scare quotes around "privacy-preserving" are justified. The act of allowing measurement destroys some privacy. It is less private to let people on the street see into the building.
Allowing measurement destroys privacy. How can marketers make it easier to swallow. Using a term like "privacy-preserving" is obviously deceptive, it is sleight of hand to conceal the frog boiling. This is not Mary Poppins. You are not being given a spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down in a delightful way. It's poison in small doses. Eventually, the frog will die.
The "frog" is the concept of your privacy. The notion of "privacy" for so-called "tech" companies is not being targeted. Even when courts ask them to share what they are doing, they evade such discovery claiming it would put them at a competitive disadvantage: they might ultimately lose money. Whereas if opening yourself up to 24/7 observation causes you to lose some advantage and ultimately to lose money, then your loss is their gain.
There are certain risky activities in life that some folks choose not to engage in. These activities can be made "safer" and even "safe enough" that many will choose to do them despite the risk. But it does not remove all the risk. There are endless examples. Skydiving, bungy jumping and so on all the way down to relatively mundane stuff. But in almost every case, there is an incentive to participate. There is a "reward" for taking the risk.
The incentives for Mozilla, "ad tech" and all those who support this nonsense "business model" based on surveillance is easily discernable. Finding an incentive for anyone using a web browser to want to participate in this "measurement" requires mental gymnastics.
And so it must be opt-out. No one would knowingly subject themselves to such needless observation.
If this is "privacy", then it appears so-called "(ad) tech" companies are attempting to redefine the term.
Question for readers: Is knowing the identity of a person a prerequisite for that person to lose (some) privacy.
Consider the dictionary definition:
Webster's: "The state of being in retirement from the company or observation of others; seclusion."
Wordnet, from the Cognitive Science Laboratory at Princeton: "the quality of being secluded from the presence or view of others [syn: {privacy}, {privateness}, {seclusion}]"
Example:
A person in a building in a large city on a busy pedestrian street draws the curtains or blinds in a window facing the street to prevent passers by from seeing in. The passers by do not know the identity of the person(s) inside.
The scare quotes around "privacy-preserving" are justified. The act of allowing measurement destroys some privacy. It is less private to let people on the street see into the building.
Allowing measurement destroys privacy. How can marketers make it easier to swallow. Using a term like "privacy-preserving" is obviously deceptive, it is sleight of hand to conceal the frog boiling. This is not Mary Poppins. You are not being given a spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down in a delightful way. It's poison in small doses. Eventually, the frog will die.
The "frog" is the concept of your privacy. The notion of "privacy" for so-called "tech" companies is not being targeted. Even when courts ask them to share what they are doing, they evade such discovery claiming it would put them at a competitive disadvantage: they might ultimately lose money. Whereas if opening yourself up to 24/7 observation causes you to lose some advantage and ultimately to lose money, then your loss is their gain.
There are certain risky activities in life that some folks choose not to engage in. These activities can be made "safer" and even "safe enough" that many will choose to do them despite the risk. But it does not remove all the risk. There are endless examples. Skydiving, bungy jumping and so on all the way down to relatively mundane stuff. But in almost every case, there is an incentive to participate. There is a "reward" for taking the risk.
The incentives for Mozilla, "ad tech" and all those who support this nonsense "business model" based on surveillance is easily discernable. Finding an incentive for anyone using a web browser to want to participate in this "measurement" requires mental gymnastics.
And so it must be opt-out. No one would knowingly subject themselves to such needless observation.
The boiling frog is a silly metaphor,^1 but the Silicon Valley tactic of gradually encroaching on peoples' liberties is real. Sometimes the so-called "tech" company will even retreat if there is a strong reaction from internet commentators, but this is only temporary. Encroachment is resumed at a later date when it likely to be overlooked.
https://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/peace_...
https://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/peace_...
I was looking at this when I upgraded and that setting does not need to be there. If it was off by default, no one would feel the need to locate that check box and enable it. So just turn it off, remove it from settings and yank the code.
The language is even rather vague and Mozilla seems to good a long way to avoid explaining that this is the alternative Google has designed for Chrome to replace tracking via third party cookies (Protected Audience API I believe). Now it is better than third party cookie, but having neither is best.
This does not need to be in Firefox.
The language is even rather vague and Mozilla seems to good a long way to avoid explaining that this is the alternative Google has designed for Chrome to replace tracking via third party cookies (Protected Audience API I believe). Now it is better than third party cookie, but having neither is best.
This does not need to be in Firefox.
This is not the same as Protected Audience API which Mozilla have been very critical about [0], this is something they have worked on with Meta over the past couple of years. If you press the read more button there you go to this page [1] that explains it more.
0: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/googles-protect...
1: https://support.mozilla.org/da/kb/privacy-preserving-attribu...
0: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/googles-protect...
1: https://support.mozilla.org/da/kb/privacy-preserving-attribu...
> this is something they have worked on with Meta over the past couple of years
The farmers working with the wolf on a feature to "help" the sheep.
The farmers working with the wolf on a feature to "help" the sheep.
I didn't even know that setting was there until I saw this post. Seems pretty sneaky to have a thing like that enabled by default.
In comparison, when Chrome pushed out ad privacy setting update[1], there was a popup that asked users to make a choice before moving on, so there was no surprise as to what changed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37401909 - Google Chrome pushes browser history-based ad targeting (2023-09-06)
In comparison, when Chrome pushed out ad privacy setting update[1], there was a popup that asked users to make a choice before moving on, so there was no surprise as to what changed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37401909 - Google Chrome pushes browser history-based ad targeting (2023-09-06)
It's better for a browser feature the user has some control over to be the implementation point for this than incentivizing site owners to come up with novel tracking strategies.
Except this is not how things work. All you are doing is giving the advertisers another tool to track you, it won't magically make them stop using all the other ones.
I was thinking that they'd be forced to adopt this, as 3rd. party cookies goes away, but somehow I sense it's more likely that advertisers would adopt something like device fingerprinting instead.
The online shopping businesses really isn't interested in privacy, I don't even really blame the adtech industry for this one. The companies running the ads and retargetting campaigns want to know who clicked on what and when. Anything less will trigger a frantic search for ways to evade privacy improvements.
The online shopping businesses really isn't interested in privacy, I don't even really blame the adtech industry for this one. The companies running the ads and retargetting campaigns want to know who clicked on what and when. Anything less will trigger a frantic search for ways to evade privacy improvements.
Device fingerprinting is a hack and unreliable in the long run. Third party cookies are being replaced with first party cookies and PII-based tracking methods like UID2, which enables a decentralized network of vendors to generate the same hash for the same email address across nodes, giving advertisers a global understanding of identity. Once third party cookies are gone, expect to see login prompts everywhere
To be fair, Firefox has added a fair amount of tools to try to block all the other ones. Along with supporting Ublock et al.
FYI Safari has been doing this (also enabled by default) for years on all Apple platforms.
To disable it on macOS: Safari > Preferences/Settings > Advanced > Uncheck "Allow privacy-preserving measurement of ad effectiveness"
To disable it on iOS: Settings > Safari > Advanced (scroll all the way down) > Turn off "Privacy Preserving Ad Measurement"
To disable it on macOS: Safari > Preferences/Settings > Advanced > Uncheck "Allow privacy-preserving measurement of ad effectiveness"
To disable it on iOS: Settings > Safari > Advanced (scroll all the way down) > Turn off "Privacy Preserving Ad Measurement"
In French it is deceptively named too. The explanation on official website is no better.
I always knew that safari is no better than other browsers, but the overt deception is a new low.
I always knew that safari is no better than other browsers, but the overt deception is a new low.
Thank you for sharing this information
More infos about it:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-preserving-attribution-for-advertising/
https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppm-dap/
Our DAP deployment is jointly run by
Mozilla and ISRG. Privacy is lost if
the two organizations collude
You forgot to add one more link for context - Mozilla acquired ads company Anonym https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
> The gist of it is that Mozilla and ISRG now proxy the tracking data and give aggregated reports to advertisers.
So Mozilla becomes the treasure-guard? What prevents them from abusing or leaking the data in the future?
So Mozilla becomes the treasure-guard? What prevents them from abusing or leaking the data in the future?
The way I read it is that:
1) The data is encrypted in a way that Mozilla can't encrypt it without the help of ISRG.
2) There is a way for ISRG to help Mozilla create aggregated data from the raw data without either of them being able to see the raw data in this process.
Maybe I'm wrong. Would be interesting to hear how 2 can be accomplished. Would have to be some crypto magic I have not yet heard about.
1) The data is encrypted in a way that Mozilla can't encrypt it without the help of ISRG.
2) There is a way for ISRG to help Mozilla create aggregated data from the raw data without either of them being able to see the raw data in this process.
Maybe I'm wrong. Would be interesting to hear how 2 can be accomplished. Would have to be some crypto magic I have not yet heard about.
There's some good context in the Mozilla kb article on this feature: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr...
Overall that seems decent as far as privacy is concerned, though there are 2 things I don't like about it.
1. It relies on an 'aggregation service', which you'd better hope is trustworthy because they seemingly get all info about what 'impressions' you had and what 'conversions' you caused.
2. This is the browser acting on behalf of advertisers. It's nice there's a way for people to help companies benchmark their ads, but this really shouldn't be something a user agent does without being explicitly told to.
1. It relies on an 'aggregation service', which you'd better hope is trustworthy because they seemingly get all info about what 'impressions' you had and what 'conversions' you caused.
2. This is the browser acting on behalf of advertisers. It's nice there's a way for people to help companies benchmark their ads, but this really shouldn't be something a user agent does without being explicitly told to.
It uses multiple aggregation services, each of which get only partial data for each event, such that no individual service can track you, even if they wanted to. Initially the two aggregators are run by Mozilla and ISRG - your privacy is at risk only if you think both are malicious and actively sharing all the data between each other to track you.
As the number of aggregators increases this gets better - as long as you trust at least one aggregators involved then your individual data remains untrackable.
Also, in general if you think Mozilla is likely to _actively_ lie to you to steal your data and track you, you're probably using the wrong browser in the first place and the aggregation service makes little difference.
As the number of aggregators increases this gets better - as long as you trust at least one aggregators involved then your individual data remains untrackable.
Also, in general if you think Mozilla is likely to _actively_ lie to you to steal your data and track you, you're probably using the wrong browser in the first place and the aggregation service makes little difference.
Given how our data circulates around the web’s data brokers, it doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see that the risk of aggregators colluding the de-anonymize people is actually quite high.
Some more technical details: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experime...
That is a wild explainer.
They deny any direct benefit for the user, and then go on to list some actual downsides (CPU, network, and battery cost & privacy loss) for the user running their software.
> Any benefit people derive from this feature is indirect. [By] Making advertising better
Mozilla never fails to surprise by the choice of their alliances.
> Our view is that the costs that people incur as a result of supporting attribution is small. [...] In comparison [...] The value that an advertiser gains from attribution is enormous.
What would we all do without Mozilla saving dystopian corporate propaganda from the dreadful death through user choice?
They deny any direct benefit for the user, and then go on to list some actual downsides (CPU, network, and battery cost & privacy loss) for the user running their software.
> Any benefit people derive from this feature is indirect. [By] Making advertising better
Mozilla never fails to surprise by the choice of their alliances.
> Our view is that the costs that people incur as a result of supporting attribution is small. [...] In comparison [...] The value that an advertiser gains from attribution is enormous.
What would we all do without Mozilla saving dystopian corporate propaganda from the dreadful death through user choice?
I actually think this is a great initiative. Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere, and Mozilla is trying to come up with a version of that which isn't terrible. And this sounds reasonable.
Well since theft is also not going anywhere would you be OK with the police helping thieves as long as they make sure the thieves don't damage your house while taking your stuff?
Why do you think the advertising industry is pushing for this kind of crap? Because they ARE scared that the world is finally waking up to them and making their business effectively illegal.
Why do you think the advertising industry is pushing for this kind of crap? Because they ARE scared that the world is finally waking up to them and making their business effectively illegal.
I mean you're basically describing how people will leave their cars unlocked so that thieves won't break their windows.
Or TSA keys so they won't cut your locks when inspecting your luggage.
Or TSA keys so they won't cut your locks when inspecting your luggage.
I mean, this is the idea behind legalising weed and injections sites
Who's the victim when someone steals something from your house? Who's the victim when someone does drugs? You cannot compare the two.
> Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere
Sure they are - just install ublock origin.
Even if you're OK with the snooping and the attention hijacking and the slow pageloads and the pictures of rotting teeth, plenty of malware has been delivered by inept ad networks. Frankly, I find it strange when someone doesn't block ads.
Sure they are - just install ublock origin.
Even if you're OK with the snooping and the attention hijacking and the slow pageloads and the pictures of rotting teeth, plenty of malware has been delivered by inept ad networks. Frankly, I find it strange when someone doesn't block ads.
Ads as a revenue model is not going anywhere even if you personally block them.
I'm also a ublock origin user. But it only works because most people in the world are not ublock origin users. I view no ads and am subsidized by the users who do.
I'm also a ublock origin user. But it only works because most people in the world are not ublock origin users. I view no ads and am subsidized by the users who do.
When you close your blinds, the sun doesn't go away.
To play the devil's advocate: if everyone did that, there would be almost no more free websites. So much of the internet is paid for through ads.
> if everyone did that, there would be almost no more free websites
Wrong.
Let's ignore for the moment that ad-funded websites are not free but only pretend to be free (the average user pays eventually, otherwise ads would not make sense for the advertiser), non-commercial websites have existed longer than ad-funded ones. If anything, making "free" profitable invites profiteers that produce mediocre content but know how to out-SEO genuine free websites.
> So much of the internet is paid for through ads.
And the best thing for the Internet is if that part came crashing down. But even for the ad-supported part of the web, almost all of the actual content is generated by unpaid users.
Wrong.
Let's ignore for the moment that ad-funded websites are not free but only pretend to be free (the average user pays eventually, otherwise ads would not make sense for the advertiser), non-commercial websites have existed longer than ad-funded ones. If anything, making "free" profitable invites profiteers that produce mediocre content but know how to out-SEO genuine free websites.
> So much of the internet is paid for through ads.
And the best thing for the Internet is if that part came crashing down. But even for the ad-supported part of the web, almost all of the actual content is generated by unpaid users.
You have no idea how I LONG for a return to that. I DEEPLY wish every single person would install an ad blocker. If ad supported slop went under that would leave us with just paid and passion projects, and we would be far better off for it.
> So much of the internet is paid for through ads.
And look where it's gotten us.
And look where it's gotten us.
The devil doensn't need an advocate. If this is your opinion, stand behind it. If you don't believe it, then why say it?
[deleted]
ublock is a tiny fraction of users.
If it became ubiquitous, online advertising would respond with something more embedded in the content and harder to block out.
If it became ubiquitous, online advertising would respond with something more embedded in the content and harder to block out.
> online advertising would respond with something more embedded in the content and harder to block out
And less profitable, otherwise they would already be doing that now. In other words: a step in the right direction.
And less profitable, otherwise they would already be doing that now. In other words: a step in the right direction.
Is it a step in the right direction? What are the consequences of pulling money out of the advertising industry?
> Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere
True, they're not going anywhere on my systems since they get stopped at the gates; not one but many gates, defence in depth is the norm when dealing with vermin. We will fight them at the router, we will fight them in the name services, we will fight them at the firewall and in the applications. Wherever they come, we shall be. We will never surrender.
The ad industry can blame itself for this, they have shown themselves to be reliably unreliable and are no longer welcome.
True, they're not going anywhere on my systems since they get stopped at the gates; not one but many gates, defence in depth is the norm when dealing with vermin. We will fight them at the router, we will fight them in the name services, we will fight them at the firewall and in the applications. Wherever they come, we shall be. We will never surrender.
The ad industry can blame itself for this, they have shown themselves to be reliably unreliable and are no longer welcome.
> Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Search in settings in firefox seems to have a bug. Searching for "adver" gives no hits related to this, despite this setting being under a header labeled "Website Advertising Preferences"
Yeah, I spotted that the other day and commented on the previous story about this.
It definitely works for other titles, but not for this new opt-out privacy related setting. How very convenient...
It definitely works for other titles, but not for this new opt-out privacy related setting. How very convenient...
I've been using Firefox for more than 20 years since the Phoenix days, even when it was cleary slower than Chrome (it still is but the diferences are minimal )
I'm not acting surprised, but I think it's more than time to start looking into a viable alternative.
It's "Chromium" (?) still a thing? Do you guys know if there is a browser based on Firefox that doesn't have any of the BS Mozilla is putting into their browser?
I'm really praying for Ladybird but of course it's still not ready for prime time.
I'm not acting surprised, but I think it's more than time to start looking into a viable alternative.
It's "Chromium" (?) still a thing? Do you guys know if there is a browser based on Firefox that doesn't have any of the BS Mozilla is putting into their browser?
I'm really praying for Ladybird but of course it's still not ready for prime time.
I use Librefox [1] on desktop and Mull [2] on Android. They're both basically patch sets applied to Firefox that remove tracking, proprietary blobs, and come with better defaults for privacy.
[1] https://github.com/intika/Librefox
[2] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/us.spotco.fennec_dos/
[1] https://github.com/intika/Librefox
[2] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/us.spotco.fennec_dos/
Librefox was last updated 5 years ago!?!?! You probably don't want to use that.
Try https://librewolf.net/
Oops thanks for pointing that out. I am indeed using librewolf.
Chromium is still a thing, I use it at work, considering all the corporate-ware that gets installed into Chrome by default now.
Waterfox and Librewolf seem to exist, and I imagine there's more Firefox forks out there. No idea on the state of things though
Waterfox and Librewolf seem to exist, and I imagine there's more Firefox forks out there. No idea on the state of things though
doesn't chromium still phone home to google though? Don't you have to use something like brave or ungoogled chromium to stop that from happening?
Hmm, I'm not sure in what capacity Chromium phones home.
I definitely have no ability to setup Google account sync nor did it play nicely out of the box with the Chrome web store, so I assumed not? But I haven't done my own tests
I definitely have no ability to setup Google account sync nor did it play nicely out of the box with the Chrome web store, so I assumed not? But I haven't done my own tests
One Firefox based alternative
https://floorp.app/en
https://floorp.app/en
what does floorp bring to the table other than a more configurable UI, split tabs, etc. Does it have privacy enhancements over regular firefox like librewolf, et.al. ?
I use Brave on all platforms (fedora, osx, android). It's essentially chromium + built in ublock style blocking, with privacy defaults turned on throughout.
Orion, if you're on Mac: https://kagi.com/orion/
That's webkit
Sure, but with all the privacy invasion stuff ripped out. It's actively developed and maintained, and lets you install firefox and chrome extensions. It's a great browser and I use it every day.
I like it, too, and I absolutely love kagi. Just clarifying because the original question asked for browsers based on firefox.
Have you considered Brave? It's fresh and a litte different in varous ways.
This is why whenever I install firefox, I first turn off wifi. Then I go through the settings and disable the ‘studies’ and other telemetry, etc, before switching the wifi back on. That will prevent the having to wait 30 days for the data to be deleted from Mozilla servers with it’s ‘on by default’.
I use ESR with pre-baked policy[0] stored in /usr/lib/firefox/distribution/policies.json before the installation/1st run. Configures cookies, studies, disables logins, credit cards saving, asking for location, promptimg for notifications, studies, pocket, telemetry etc. During 1st run, it installs all pre-defined extensions.
For some reason, changing search engine via policy no longer works, but that can be bypassed by auto-installed extension that changes search engine.
[0] https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/
For some reason, changing search engine via policy no longer works, but that can be bypassed by auto-installed extension that changes search engine.
[0] https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/
Did you check and see if this feature i.e. the "Website Advertising Preferences" is turned for you right now?
I have all telemetry turned off but when I went and checked this "feature" was enabled by default with no notification it had been added.
I have all telemetry turned off but when I went and checked this "feature" was enabled by default with no notification it had been added.
Tools > Settings > Privacy and Security > Website Advertising Preferences > Allow websites to perform privacy-preserving ad measurement
I suppose I should finally switch to Librewolf.
I really don't like Firefox forks, for the slow updates and because I do genuinely use some bleeding edge features, but I'm tired of Mozilla.
I really don't like Firefox forks, for the slow updates and because I do genuinely use some bleeding edge features, but I'm tired of Mozilla.
I believe librewolf updates very quickly, to be fair, it's really stock firefox with just some privacy/performance tweaks that are probably automatically enabled and then run through CI and then released.
Are the updates really slow?
No, the updates are not slow. I've been running Librewolf for years now, no major complaints. FYI I'm on a rolling release (linux) distribution, but I doubt that changes much. If you are comparing it to stock Firefox, there is no competition (Librewolf is imho just more enjoyable experience); if you are comparing it to Chromium (and other Chromium-based browsers), in my experience the biggest 'problem' is the lack of support for pwa's. Anyways, give it a try.
Oh, I don't know, I don't mean to slander Librewolf. I'm just saying that intermediaries are sure to cause some kind of inefficiency.
The truely scary part of this isn't even the default "feature", It's the utter failure of Mozilla to read the room. Knowing their users would feel betrayed and doing it anyway is what freaks me out. To me it spells trouble for them monitarily that they are willing to anger their core userbase for cash on hand.
Related discussion from 2 days ago:
"Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40954535 (170 comments)
--
Also, there are two options to disable the ad tracking behavior:
1. Use LibreWolf instead — Advantage: This is also a long-term solution :)
2. Follow @thangalin's instructions to disable it in Firefox:
> Step 1. Visit about:config
> Step 2. Set dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled to false
Credit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40955221
"Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40954535 (170 comments)
--
Also, there are two options to disable the ad tracking behavior:
1. Use LibreWolf instead — Advantage: This is also a long-term solution :)
2. Follow @thangalin's instructions to disable it in Firefox:
> Step 1. Visit about:config
> Step 2. Set dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled to false
Credit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40955221
duplicate of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40965161
There was an even earlier discussion with more comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40952330 (192 points | 2 days ago | 180 comments)
Google: ...
Mozilla: How high?
Mozilla: How high?
Mozilla also needs this for their own ad business: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t...
Oh goodie the latest Mozilla C-level "playing VC" expedition! Anything to not focus on the actual core business.
Makes you wonder how much it would cost to "just" do Firefox. I'm sure it's not free and there is some overhead in terms of management, politics, work on standards, fundraising, legal, and perhaps a little marketing.
Still, what we need to raise collectively to have a modern browser, built on "not chrome" and with none of the services or other programs Mozilla is running?
Still, what we need to raise collectively to have a modern browser, built on "not chrome" and with none of the services or other programs Mozilla is running?
> Mozilla also needs this for their own ad business
Mozilla wants it. I suspect that it's Google that _needs_ Mozilla to also run ads.
Mozilla wants it. I suspect that it's Google that _needs_ Mozilla to also run ads.
This has nothing to do with Google. Mozilla is now an advertising company.
Mozilla: What is my purpose?
Google: You keep the antitrust division's fingers away from Chrome.
Mozilla: Ohmygod.
Google: You keep the antitrust division's fingers away from Chrome.
Mozilla: Ohmygod.
As a loyal user, I didn't quite see this coming.
Under `Browser Privacy`, I have `Enhanced Tracking Protection` set to `Strict`.
I had studies turned off, when I go to `about:studies` it explicitly says: "No new studies will run.".
I have `Tell web sites not to sell or share my data` checked.
I have `Send web sites a “Do Not Track” request` checked.
It seems like Mozilla still thought it was okay to automatically add a "Allow web sites to perform privacy-preserving ad measurement" checkbox.
Yet with that all set, they seem okay to let it be checked by default, so they can send off my data!
They say:
"A small number of sites are going to test this and provide feedback to inform our standardization plans, and help us understand if this is likely to gain traction." - that sounds a lot like a study, and I've opted out of studies!
I did not consent, and as best I can tell, Mozilla has breached GDPR.
As best I can tell, Mozilla disregarded my preferences. It seems they have violated these GDPR principles: a lack of consent, purpose limitation (unintended data use), `Data protection by design and default` AKA `privacy by design` (by ignoring settings), and right to object (disregarding preferences).
It is absolutely unfair to argue that it is not personal information about me. It seems to me that they are lying, or at the very least twisting words so thin. My trust in them is vanishing.
There is no way to reliably verify their differential privacy, and even if there was, they still had no informed consent to collect the data and send it off.
To give controls to a user, and then totally ignore them, is what got Facebook in big trouble.
It really looks like Mozilla is not only not listening to explicitly stated user preferences, preferences that have been set intentionally, but it's outright ignoring them and doing the very opposite of what the users intention is!
If they thought that they had a good reason to do so, and that the ends justifies the means, they are so very wrong.
I have used Firefox for as long as it's existed. For Mozilla, this is an almost sadistic own goal. How did they think that this was going to be okay? Did they think people would not find out? There will have to be changes after this at Mozilla if they were to regain trust and I'm really sceptical they can do it.
I really want / wanted them to succeed but I don't see how.
I did not consent, and as best I can tell, Mozilla has breached GDPR.
As best I can tell, Mozilla disregarded my preferences. It seems they have violated these GDPR principles: a lack of consent, purpose limitation (unintended data use), `Data protection by design and default` AKA `privacy by design` (by ignoring settings), and right to object (disregarding preferences).
It is absolutely unfair to argue that it is not personal information about me. It seems to me that they are lying, or at the very least twisting words so thin. My trust in them is vanishing.
There is no way to reliably verify their differential privacy, and even if there was, they still had no informed consent to collect the data and send it off.
To give controls to a user, and then totally ignore them, is what got Facebook in big trouble.
It really looks like Mozilla is not only not listening to explicitly stated user preferences, preferences that have been set intentionally, but it's outright ignoring them and doing the very opposite of what the users intention is!
If they thought that they had a good reason to do so, and that the ends justifies the means, they are so very wrong.
I have used Firefox for as long as it's existed. For Mozilla, this is an almost sadistic own goal. How did they think that this was going to be okay? Did they think people would not find out? There will have to be changes after this at Mozilla if they were to regain trust and I'm really sceptical they can do it.
I really want / wanted them to succeed but I don't see how.
Well said. +1
I've supported Firefox as my daily-driver on desktop and laptop since 2016. I feel that a browser should be 100% open-source and used to feel FF also had it's USERS interest at heart. FF was what I relied on to continue to fight for internet privacy in your browser and the growing ad garbage on the web. FF + uBlock was great and made the web a joy for me. I would donate to FF if I could.
I've basically had enough of this. Commercialization has now infiltrated all browsers. There are none left (except for a few FF forks run by who knows). I put up with the many blunders FF has done over the past years like; "Mr Robot" incident, Tracking my default browser in Windows with a Scheduled Task that always comes back after updates, Studies are on-by-default, increasing tracking features added in that were Opt-Out and now THIS latest "anonymous" collection of my browsing habits sold to advertisers. This is appalling.
I'm tired of having to go through all the release notes and settings again to see what I have to disable this time on my own devices plus my clients FF installs and family I've recommended FF to. I can do that with Edge or Chrome.
I'm out FF. I uninstalled FF 128 from my PC fully today (and any others I help support) and will try out Vivaldi for a bit (they seem still pretty grounded DESPITE it not being 100% open-source). and if that doesn't meet my needs I will just use Edge. I'd try Brave but again that is an advertising company at this point that also pitches crypto.
It is a sad day for me. I really am holding out hope for Ladybird next at this point because I don't think FF ever goes back now to it's stand and to what it represented.
I've supported Firefox as my daily-driver on desktop and laptop since 2016. I feel that a browser should be 100% open-source and used to feel FF also had it's USERS interest at heart. FF was what I relied on to continue to fight for internet privacy in your browser and the growing ad garbage on the web. FF + uBlock was great and made the web a joy for me. I would donate to FF if I could.
I've basically had enough of this. Commercialization has now infiltrated all browsers. There are none left (except for a few FF forks run by who knows). I put up with the many blunders FF has done over the past years like; "Mr Robot" incident, Tracking my default browser in Windows with a Scheduled Task that always comes back after updates, Studies are on-by-default, increasing tracking features added in that were Opt-Out and now THIS latest "anonymous" collection of my browsing habits sold to advertisers. This is appalling.
I'm tired of having to go through all the release notes and settings again to see what I have to disable this time on my own devices plus my clients FF installs and family I've recommended FF to. I can do that with Edge or Chrome.
I'm out FF. I uninstalled FF 128 from my PC fully today (and any others I help support) and will try out Vivaldi for a bit (they seem still pretty grounded DESPITE it not being 100% open-source). and if that doesn't meet my needs I will just use Edge. I'd try Brave but again that is an advertising company at this point that also pitches crypto.
It is a sad day for me. I really am holding out hope for Ladybird next at this point because I don't think FF ever goes back now to it's stand and to what it represented.
The new leadership has made it an ad company.
Is this the final form of all tech companies now?
Well put <3
There is a lot fire directed at Mozilla on HN. I'm not saying I support or can make sense of all of their decisions but I'd love for someone in the criticizers camp to explain what steps they would take to make Mozilla and the continued development of Firefox a financially sustainable and independent endeavour.
> but I'd love for someone in the criticizers camp to explain what steps they would take to make Mozilla and the continued development of Firefox a financially sustainable and independent endeavour.
Let me give them money. Either straight-up take donations to fund firefox development, or sell a "Firefox Pro" that doesn't have these stupid anti-features. But don't refuse to take money from users and complain that because you don't take money from users you're "forced" to screw them over.
Let me give them money. Either straight-up take donations to fund firefox development, or sell a "Firefox Pro" that doesn't have these stupid anti-features. But don't refuse to take money from users and complain that because you don't take money from users you're "forced" to screw them over.
I have some ideas of varying quality. Others have been mentioned in the thread.
Really, though, it’s not like me or any of the commenters are being paid millions a year to fix these problems. If I were being paid $6,903,089 I feel like I might be well-equipped to fix them.
Really, though, it’s not like me or any of the commenters are being paid millions a year to fix these problems. If I were being paid $6,903,089 I feel like I might be well-equipped to fix them.
What's the point of an alternative to Chrome if it replicates the same bad behaviors and follows the same incentives?
They've been pulling in half a billion dollars per year for 15 years. They should have budgeted to invest part of that money to build a development trust fund.
> There is a lot fire directed at Mozilla on HN.
Gee I wonder why...
Could it be them disregarding users preferences over and over again or claiming to stand for privacy while siphoning your data at every opportunity. Sure will be hard finding an example of that behavior.
Gee I wonder why...
Could it be them disregarding users preferences over and over again or claiming to stand for privacy while siphoning your data at every opportunity. Sure will be hard finding an example of that behavior.
Idk, I've been a pretty big booster of Mozilla (check my comment history) but this one is appalling.
Legit, this is the same FLoC we had to bully Chrome out of having. And now Ffx is putting it in sneakily by as an opt out default with no notice.
Legit, this is the same FLoC we had to bully Chrome out of having. And now Ffx is putting it in sneakily by as an opt out default with no notice.
So they're doing their own FLoC?
Pretty much yes though this one is far more privacy-minded, where FLoC was just a thinly-veiled attempt at business as usual.
I turned it off immediately nonetheless. One thing to note though is that the switch doesn't exist in mobile Firefox. And it's not clear to me whether that means the feature doesn't exist at all or that I just can't turn it off?
I turned it off immediately nonetheless. One thing to note though is that the switch doesn't exist in mobile Firefox. And it's not clear to me whether that means the feature doesn't exist at all or that I just can't turn it off?
Use Firefox Nightly on Android and you get access to about:config and with that this switch.
You can access about:config with chrome://geckoview/content/config.xhtml even in non-nightly versions.
Credit goes to this guy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40955452
Credit goes to this guy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40955452
So that means it's on but can't be disabled without using this hacking around? That's not cool :(
and for those wondering, looks like it is called "dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled"
Hah. Thanks. I was stopping by this thread again to post exactly that. I have to say that config option was not obvious. After scrolling through about:config and filtering only the modified list I still couldn't find it. I finally backed up prefs.js, toggled it, then pulled a diff.
And, I needed the config entry because I couldn't find any gui option to opt out of it on mobile.
And, I needed the config entry because I couldn't find any gui option to opt out of it on mobile.
A word of caution: Nightly is not equivalent with Stable. Using a non-stable build, especially one built every day, means there's a substantial risk of bugs and data loss.
I've used it for years and have not had many crashes so there is no real need for 'caution'. I also run Debian Sid on laptops, another 'unstable' system which is remarkably stable despite its moniker. If these were relatively new systems/programs there would be more churn but at this stage of their development the changes made tend to more gradual and less crash-prone.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
There's always risk in running complex untested software.
There's always risk in running complex untested software.
There's always risk in running complex software
It is nothing like FLoC.
Anybody know if it's possible to turn this off at build time and how? This seems like a thing we ought to have a conversation about with the distro maintainers.
Six and a half years ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931730
This is in their DNA.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931730
This is in their DNA.
This might be a stupid question but who exactly gets access to that data? What's the process for getting said access? I guess it's paid but is it accessible to most ad networks or just the big players? (I can see upsides and downsides either way)
I’ve begrudgingly kept this enabled because if this works users are a lot better off, cannot be manipulated as they are currently, and it frees up the browser makers to break all the ways people are being tracked, pointing advertiser networks to this alternative.
Want to move away from browsers with potential corporate influences
I have a website. If I wanted to take advantage of this being on in my visitors browser (I really don't), what would I do? How do I use this? What exactly is it?
[dupe]
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40952330
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40952330
Is Firefox's implementations of the Topics API as introduced in Chrome a couple of months back? Or is this something different?
Different
Could PPA be used for the needs of developers doing analytics for determining which features are actually being used? For web-apps or for local apps?
It seems it could be a more private way to implement such functionality, if applicable.
It seems it could be a more private way to implement such functionality, if applicable.
well it is good that i just bought 256gbs of ram... (compiling ff needs like 80)
The way this story is unfolding feels like a tipping point in the management of Mozilla/Firefox.
Imagine if it was Apple doing this to Safari, it would certainly rile up more users even though it would be the same thing.
Imagine if it was Apple doing this to Safari, it would certainly rile up more users even though it would be the same thing.
I'm curious (I know nothing about the tech): is this "privacy-preserving ad measurements" too complicated for the EU investigate and for law-makers to understand (is that the point)? Or designed to get the most data in the most GDPR-compliant way?
[deleted]
illiac786(1)
If you're not paying for it, you are the product.
Danegeld won't save you in the long run, nothing is stopping the companies from spying on you anyway and profiting twice.
And if you are paying for it you are an idiot.
See Youtube Premium for example. Or just generally giving money to Google in any shape or form.
See Youtube Premium for example. Or just generally giving money to Google in any shape or form.
I was about to clear it - but, you know what, it IS needed.
Website publishers need to know what works and what doesn’t - otherwise they cannot improve nor generate revenue.
So, privacy preserving measuring? I’m in, well done Mozilla.
Website publishers need to know what works and what doesn’t - otherwise they cannot improve nor generate revenue.
So, privacy preserving measuring? I’m in, well done Mozilla.
It is needed for advertisement business, for Mozilla corp. (which is an ads business too https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t... ), not for Firefox users.
Mozilla has enough money to run Firefox for a decade without accepting any additional money if they stop spending money left and right on non-relevant things.
Mozilla has enough money to run Firefox for a decade without accepting any additional money if they stop spending money left and right on non-relevant things.
Yeah, fair point. Sometimes, I’m a .
Off it goes!
Off it goes!
[deleted]
Leaving the ethical discussion aside; from a practical standpoint this won't impact anyone worried about privacy using Firefox unless they insist on not using an ad-blocker (which would be add odds with caring about privacy¹). This feature would only be used if you click on (or perhaps just encounter?) an ad and eventually buy something on the target website.
1: Or just caring about your mind constantly battling distractions.
1: Or just caring about your mind constantly battling distractions.
The best objection to these proposals isn't privacy, it's that a browser vendor is lifting a finger for advertisers. I guess the fundamental question there is if we prefer to outright shut down online advertising, or give it the tools it needs to be less bad. Opinions differ, but all major browser vendors are in the latter category.