- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- firefox@fedia.io
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- firefox@fedia.io
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/23894598
Despite its emphasis on protecting privacy, Mozilla is moving towards integrating ads, backed by new infrastructure from their acquisition of Anonym. They claim this will maintain a balance between user control and online ad economics, using privacy-preserving tech. However, this shift appears to contradict Mozilla’s earlier stance of protecting users from invasive advertising practices, and it signals a change in their priorities.
You must log in or register to comment.
A bit disingenuous to call explaining what they’re doing as doubling down.
Also disingeneous to call it adding ads to firefox, because that’s also not what is happening. They’re trying to replace cookies with something better for our privacy, and them developing this feature will not impact any users who block ads or disable tracking cookies already.
I think they should go ahead and make the feature so that people who don’t care about ads at least don’t get tracked.
They are not trying to “replace” cookies. This is effectively adding yet another way to track users. Sure, may not be as invasive as cookies, but this does nothing to remove or modify them either.
Then there’s the fact thay they deployed this behind the scenes and did not mention it until they were called out.
This comment alone:
“As part of this work, we are also committing to being transparent and open about our intent and plans prior to launching tests or features.”
… means they have no intention to be honest about shit.
It doesn’t track users. It collects anonymous statistics and assign them to a unique ID without storing any other information about the user.
And it IS meant to replace cookies, but you can’t just replace them all at once and disable the legacy cookies. It is going to have a gradual transition.
And they did tell us about this many months ago.
Hahaha, because data can never be de-anonymised, right?
Oh, yea, that’s repeatedly been show to not be true.
That depends entirely on what kind of data is stored and how often a new unique ID is created, and that’s something users can seize control over.
It tracks anonymous statistics, without my express consent, for the benefit of a third party. I do not care if it exists to replace cookies, because I’m not even convinced that cookies need to exist at all anymore. What utility do they provide to the actual person using the browser that can’t be accomplished through some other more modern API? If the only functionality left to replace is tracking people then maybe just deprecate them and move on.
Didn’t we go through all this like a month ago?
Why are people still excusing Mozilla for this?
Right? They’ve done some good stuff over the years, but that does not eliminate the fact that they have chosen to be part of all the enshitification going on.
disingeneous to call it adding ads
Who called it adding
So banning ublock origin lite from the addon store was malice, after all?
That means they will drop MV2 as soon as Chrome ends the business/legacy support, since they were the alternative.
I think the ublock origin lite thing was a legitimate mistake, though I understand Mozilla’s depleting benefit of the doubt.
THe developer also don’t want to develop uBLock Origin Lite. Mozilla is sucking all energy out of people.
of course they don’t want, it’s such an inferior addon that it’s almost useless for privacy. it’s little besides just visually hiding ads. but that’s the best that can be done on chrome
uh… no… The add-on was also developed for Firefox, which still have Manifest V2. Because of the headache of Mozilla, Hill decided to stop development for Mozilla and only release the latest (signed) add-on via github, without further updates. The developer just makes a statement that it’s getting so worse to develop for Firefox that he just doesn’t do it anymore.
yes, it was made for Firefox too. did I say it wasn’t? but I think there was no real reason for anyone to use it on Firefox.
Well you said:
but that’s the best that can be done on chrome
And I think the best use of such a plugin is actually to use it on Firefox. Since Firefox (or Firefox forks) still support Manifest v2. So actually ad-blocks on Chrome are worse, because Google created Manifest v3, which sounds newer… but it ACTUALLY worse. Manifest v3 basically disallow developer to block ads effectively. Just in the name of kugh kugh ‘privacy’ or ‘security’… Don’t get fooled by Google here!!
SO please do not use Google Chrome, they are killing ad-blockers by the introduction of Manifest v3. More info: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-ad-blockers/
I agree with you, I think there might have been a misunderstanding.
Well you said:
but that’s the best that can be done on chrome
that’s true. what I wanted to mean is that I don’t think gorhill really wants to develop that addon (uBO Lite), as I can imagine he’s fed up with the limitations and how little he can do there. I don’t know he’s reason for developing it, though. Maybe as an experiment on what it could still accomplish.
And I think the best use of such a plugin is actually to use it on Firefox. Since Firefox (or Firefox forks) still support Manifest v2.
I’m a little confused here. we don’t need that plugin on Firefox, because we have the full capability version.
SO please do not use Google Chrome
I totally agree. That would be a huge downgrade. Not looking back, only forward, for FF forks and whatever the future may bring us.
Yet another Mozilla hit piece that seemingly-intentionally misrepresents the good they’re doing for users.It begs the question: who has the means and motivation to consistently pay “journalists” to malign the only browser that has the slightest chance of tearing any significant amount of users away from chromium-based browsers?
EDIT: Turns out the answer to my question above might, in fact, be OP! They wrote a patently false, inflammatory title that isn’t supported by the article (or reality) at all, and I fell for it like a sucker.
…did we read two different articles? The only link I see is to Mozilla’s own blog, explaining their choices in a relatively positive way. I’ve seen the effect you pointed out a lot, I just don’t see it here.
I guess the hit piece is just the title OP put on the post.
Nope; you read an article, and I just reacted to comments on Lemmy, assuming that those commenting had read the article.
If I’d simply opened the link, I’d’ve seen it was on mozilla.org and would’ve realized it was just that the OP made a shitty clickbait title, not another Mozilla hit piece.
Shame on you, OP! Also shame on me.
I’m very happy that I moved to Floorp.
No idea what’s that but it sounds… sticky.
Here ya go! it’s a Japanese fork of FF that’s more focused on privacy. I prefer Librewolf personally but it’s good to have options I guess.
Fork of Firefox
Firefork
I just… I… I can’t install a browser that’s called “Floorp”. I just cant. I wouldn’t be able to look another person in the eyes and tell them that “I use floorp”. It’s probably a perfectly good fork of Firefox, but I just can’t.
Not my problem xd
I can already see a crowd of advertisers running to them for the remaining 3% of its users.