• Admiral Patrick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

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

      • Queue
        link
        fedilink
        English
        09 months ago

        Programming languages isn’t adware made by a company that has horrible track records for respecting privacy. If you love Facebook so much, stay there and take your sealioning with you.

          • Queue
            link
            fedilink
            English
            29 months ago

            I’d rather not use products made by companies that influence voters and led to a genocide. Sorry I have moral standard.

          • @lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            29 months ago

            “Hating on anything the Nazis did is stupid because they can build ok cars”

            Doing one ok thing doesn’t negate the fact that Meta is one of the most evil, unethical hellholes of a company. Anything they touch is absolutely rotten.

  • @PassingThrough@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    09 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.

      • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘
        link
        fedilink
        English
        09 months ago

        otherwise a privacy respecting Chromium browser

        With manifest v3 and this thing active on chromium browsers, privacy respecting chromium may not exist.

        • @antler@feddit.rocks
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          9 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            09 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
              09 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                19 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.

    • mozz
      link
      fedilink
      19 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

    • @Dlolor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      09 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -19 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.

  • John Richard
    link
    fedilink
    English
    09 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
      -19 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

  • @uzay@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

    Default Firefox is becoming more and more unusable. I hope distros will start switching to something like Librewolf as the default browser in the future or heavily (and visibly) change the default Firefox config themselves.

    • @fin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 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

        • Paradox
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 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

  • CO5MO ✨
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    29 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.

    • @BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

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

      Fuck that condescending prick with a pineapple.

    • kn0wmad1c
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 months ago

      If you can’t explain a difficult concept in a simple way, then you don’t truly understand it.

      • kbal
        link
        fedilink
        19 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.

        • Paradox
          link
          fedilink
          English
          09 months ago

          Let’s not forget when they shipped a full page ad for a Disney movie into a browser update

    • @jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      9 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 a child layman and it’ll make sense, given they don’t use technical nomenclature.

      *Layman is a better term. Children are… complicated.

      • @solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        19 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.

  • Toes♀
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

    Oh wow, that needs to be off by default like yesterday. 💀

  • @Lodra@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    So I read a bit of Mozilla’s documentation about this feature. It sounds like they’re trying to replace the current practices with something safer. Honestly, my first thought is that this is a good thing for two reasons.

    • It’s an attempt to replace cross site tracking methods, which are terrible
    • Those of us that fight against ads, tracking, etc. can simple use typical methods to block the api. Methods that were already using (I think)

    If both of these are true, then it could be a net positive for the world. Please tell me if I’m wrong!

    • @cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      39 months ago

      Sometimes I just get tired of having to fight against software to have it behave in a semi-decent way. The same way you technically “can” run a decent windows installation after removing/disabling/blocking a ton of stuff, I don’t really want a browser that can be trusted after you had to tinker with dozens of settings to just get back to basic non-intrusive behavior.

      I said this in another thread on the same topic somewhere else, but considering user tracking as an inevitability that we have to accept means we’ve already lost on that front.

      • @Lodra@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        19 months ago

        Wow. I 100% agree with you here.

        There’s an element of trust when you buy a product. You trust that the product itself isn’t malicious and is intended to help you in some way. E.g. “This food is safely prepared and won’t poison me.” Harvesting user data and advertising really violate that trust.

        Though it is worth noting that we don’t buy web browsers. We simply use them for “free“.

    • @ParetoOptimalDev@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 months ago

      I agree.

      Imagine a world where Chrome doesn’t exist and instead Firefox + privacy preserving attribution is the default for all of the people who won’t listen to your reasons why they shouldn’t use chrome or say “I don’t need privacy, I have nothing to hide”.

      It seems like Mozilla is trying to do the browser equivalent of shifting the overton window and I’m for that.

      However I’ll be monitoring them very very closely.

      • @Lodra@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        09 months ago

        Ya this is definitely one to maintain some skepticism about. People are criticizing the API’s security in other posts.

  • @NerdyPopRocks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

    Does Firefox explain what measures they’ve taken to protect their aggregation servers? If so, this is a perfectly fine and practical method for privacy preservation

    • @NerdyPopRocks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Looks like they are using a Prio based protocol. If they are using Prio2+, I think this article is likely overblown. EDIT: I mixed up my sources - Mozilla tested Prio for telemetry collection. They are using a system called IPA for ads, and I don’t know whether there are formal guarantees for this system

  • @Deceptichum@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

    Mozilla pays its CEOs millions and millions of dollars. They exist to get funding from Chrome to look like there is competition in the industry.