• hotpot8toe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I mean people freaking out about this don’t actually understand what’s happening and why Mozilla is doing it. Mozilla is trying to build a new privacy-based advertising. The feature needs to be opt-in by default in order to have a chance to become mainstream. Forget about the technical details and whether the user understands what it is. Most people don’t change default settings. So they can never get websites to try this better technology if their own users aren’t adopting it.

    I also hate the attitude of this community they think Firefox is built for them(ultra tech savy, extremely privacy concious) when 99% of their users are not these things. If you want ultra privacy, go use Libreawolf or whatever. Those solutions are for that type of person. Firefox and Mozilla builds for the average person, which is why they correctly say that the user won’t understand the feature. (Anyone says otherwise is in a tech bubble and haven’t seen normal people interacting with their computers).

    • Don_alForno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Privacy based advertizing:

      1. Develop ad

      2. Think about what websites your target demographic will probably frequent. (Be creative, dear marketing person! You can do it! This is the essence of what you’re getting paid for!)

      3. Pay those sites to display your ad

      Done.

      Forget about the technical details and whether the user understands what it is.

      No. Why? It’s simple. They are collecting data I don’t want the ad networks to have instead of the ad networks and give it to the ad networks. That’s only more private than the status quo if I’m okay with them to have this data and trust them to handle it responsibly. Which I have no reason to.

      which is why they correctly say that the user won’t understand the Feature.

      See explanation above. That’s not too complicated to explain to a person that managed to turn on the computer. It only gets complicated when you try to follow the mental gymnastics you need to think this feature adds privacy for anybody.

    • fin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      99% of their users are not these things

      I don’t think so. People using Firefox are freaking evangelists trying to spread privacy. And if Firefox should lose those people, it will truly be the end

      • hotpot8toe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        99% was referring to them not being both tech savy and extremely privacy conscious. I don’t disagree that the appeal of Firefox is better privacy. I just don’t think the average user is looking to absolutely remove every drop of data collected. I mean just look at the default Firefox homepage it comes with. It has sponsored shortcuts and sponsored stories. They put them there because the average user actually clicks on them. If everyone was privacy conscious like you say, they would turn off the feature and Firefox wouldn’t keep it because they don’t make money from it. But that’s obviously not the case.

        • Paradox@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          And these days, privacy is basically the only appeal of Firefox. It’s slower than chrome or webkit based browsers, hangs out with Safari in terms of standards support, and can’t hold a candle to either other browser when it comes to battery life. Why mozilla seems determined to throw that all away is beyond me

          • Feyd@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s slower than chrome or webkit based browsers, hangs out with Safari in terms of standards support, and can’t hold a candle to either other browser when it comes to battery life.

            Sources?

  • chip@feddit.rocks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I had my doubts reading that Ladybird browser announcement, but more and more I’m thinking that Mozilla is desperately chasing the gravy train that has long departed with their sugar daddy (google) laughing all the way to the horizon.

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So is it safe to assume that alternate builds of Firefox (Pale Moon et al) will be probably removing that “feature” ?

  • kersplomp@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Honest question, why does the fediverse like firefox so much? This is not a common opinion to have on the internet, but everyone here and on mastodon seems to have it.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because it is FOSS and responsible for many great contributions to apis that make the web what it is. It has history that goes way back. It has been decently transparent, certainly when compared to its closest competitors. It isn’t Google. It has a massive library of extensions. They aren’t planning to deprecate manifest v2.

      Don’t get me wrong, I also like other browsers and I’m looking forward to seeing what comes from the servo reboot. But Firefox is bread and butter and there is often drummed up nonsense about it.

    • Kayn@dormi.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because otherwise you’d be supporting the Chromium monopoly, and that’s the biggest sin imaginable in the Fediverse.

  • CO5MO ✨@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    WTH, Mozilla 🤦🏼‍♀️

    Also, fuck you, dude:

    One Mozilla developer claimed that explaining PPA would be too challenging, so they had to opt users in by default.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      i read that as more like “nobody would opt in if it was opt-in”.

      • kbal@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        One Mozilla developer claimed that explaining PPA would be too challenging

        It’s not that difficult to explain. “When you visit the website of a participating advertiser whose ads you’ve seen, do you want us to tell them that someone saw their ads and visited their site, without telling them it was you? Y/N”

        But if they asked such a question almost all of the small fraction of users who bother to read the whole sentence would still see no good reason to want to participate. Coming up with one is that hard part. It requires some pretty fancy rationalizations. Firefox keeping track of which ads I’ve seen? No, thanks.

        If there was an option to make sure that advertisers whose ads I’ve blocked know that they got blocked, I might go for that.

        The writer apparently thinks that the previous Mozilla misstep into advertising land was the Mr. Robot thing six years ago, which seems to confirm my impression that this one is getting a bigger reaction than their other recent moves in this direction. We’ll see if the rest of the tech press picks it up. Maybe one day when the cumulative loss of users shows up more clearly in the telemetry they’ll reconsider.

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think explaining a system like PPA would be a difficult task.

      IMO that just means they barely understand it themselves. Anyone that understands something with an amount of proficiency can explain it to child and it’ll make sense, given they don’t use technical nomenclature.

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The difficulty is in spinning it to sound non invasive. And of course takes a level of self corruption to even want to do that, since PPA is invasive and you have to delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      “You’re too dumb to understand so we make decisions for you”

      Fuck that condescending prick with a pineapple.

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Chill; he’s probably not talking about you. He is talking about “your mom”. If you want her to use Firefox, it’s got to be simple.

        • Emerald@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          But this PPA stuff doesn’t need to be enabled by default. They are opting-in all Firefox users to something they don’t understand.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve tried explaining to the Firefox cult that they do a lot of tracking and telemetry by default but they just hurl insults. Time to leave the cult.

    • fin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      tracking and telemetry by Firefox is not even comparable to that of chrome. Google knows you better than you. Firefox’s telemetry used to be solely for improving user experience, and not ads and bullshit.

      Now that Firefox’s gonna show us some ads, I think I have to get away from it as a protest

    • sturlabragason@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I get a lot of beef for Brave. Any viable alternatives that aren’t derivatives of Chromium or FF but are maintained?

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Look, everything is going to disappoint us. Everything runs off a profit motive, and it turns out profit is immoral.

    • Dlolor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Alternatively you can do the same through Settings -> Privacy & Security -> Website Advertising Preferences and uncheck “Allow websites to perform privacy-preserving ad measurement”

      • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yup, but that’s already mentioned in the article. Thought I’d give people the exact userpref, so they can modify their custom user.js if they have one.

  • hummingbird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Sad to see Mozilla being managed into the ground, betraying their principles and selling their users.

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      IMO it’s the option in Data collection called Marketing data. It doesn’t say it’s PPA outright, but it sounds like the same sort of thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • PassingThrough@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is there a list anywhere of this and other settings and features that could/should certainly be changed to better Firefox privacy?

    Other than that I’m not sure I’m really going to jump ship. I think I’m getting too old for the “clunkiness” that comes with trying to use third party/self hosted alternatives to replace features that ultimately break the privacy angle, or to add them to barebones privacy focused browsers. Containers and profile/bookmark syncing, for example. But if there’s a list of switches I can flip to turn off the most egregious things, that would be good for today.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Just use LibreWolf; I’m not up to speed on this stuff but I more or less believe the hype that it will protect my privacy simply by taking Firefox and adding an ad blocker for me and disabling all the shit for me

        • antler@feddit.rocks
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Some browsers have built in adblock (by reimplementing mv2 apis or otherwise) and cut out the hangouts plugin or let you disable it

          Not all, but a couple

          • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            For now, that’s possible. But for how long? When mv2 came out, we had a few hold off as long as they could, but now they’re all v2 or v3. New technology will always kill the old, whether or not it’s better. It’s only a matter of time. Going with a browser that has consistently made anticonsumer decisions because a different browser has made a few, doesn’t seem like the sensible choice here. Granted, we should have a browser that hadn’t made any such decisions, but we don’t yet have one that I’m aware (I hope I’m wrong).

            • antler@feddit.rocks
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Totally agree, unfortunately it’s a question of whether Chromium forks can’t keep up with cutting out Google stuff comes before or after Mozilla and/or their rendering engine falls apart.

              Fingers crossed for Ladybird + Servo

              • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’m still holding out for Mozilla. They’ve gone all “corporate” lately, but they weren’t always that way. Ladybird does look like a good project.