• makeasnek@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Firefox user and evangelist of over a decade. Fuck Firefox for this. Condescending snake oil bullshit is what this is. There’s many ways that Firefox is objectively worse that chrome. It’s supported fewer places, it’s slower, whatever. Firefox is only good because they’re not the web browser with a monopoly and they’re a non-profit so they care about things like privacy. But for some reason, they seem determined to destroy all the goodwill that has brought them over time and push users wanting those things away. That’s like Firefox’s entire user base. I can use some other minority market share browser. Bye Felicia

  • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Great article, Makes a lot of the arguments I made against advertiser and mozilla apologists in the previous threads better than I could have.

    I think

    PPA is an additional privacy attack surface that has no value for end users whatsoever […]

    and

    If they truly believed this was the one path away from the constant data theft perpetuated by the advertising industry, they would’ve announced this loudly and proudly. They could’ve given the privacy and general Firefox communities ample time to scrutinize the protocol beforehand.

    sums it up pretty well.

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

    i think the goal is to come up with a ‘better’ solution than what google has already rolled-out to the majority of web users… but with firefox’s too-low adoption rate, it won’t do anything significant.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The thing is, what Google has rolled out is really fucking good already. Sites only get to know general “topics”, and only ones you’ve used recently. It’s controlled by your own browser so you can easily opt out entirely or block certain topics you don’t want from being associated with you. They also specifically decided not to add topics for sensitive topics from even being available in the Topics API.

      It’s really fucking good for privacy, unless you’re an extremist who believes there shouldn’t be anything even vaguely resembling relevant advertising. Which is the exact same group of people criticising Firefox here. And also the exact same group of people inadvertently extending the life of 3rd party cookies that Google is trying so desperately to kill off. But they can’t kill it off because the privacy extremists have meant take-up of Topics isn’t high enough.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          It’s someone not willing to make any modest concessions in order to make the vast array of free content available viable to create. Modest concessions like your browser saying “here’s a small subset of topics the person might be interested in”. You’ve got to be pretty extremist to suggest that that’s privacy-invading.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            If the concession removes somebody’s privacy, it is a privacy invalidating concession. Your definition not mine

            Software running on my computer, should be my agent, representing my interests, and if I just want to display data transmitted over the network, and not send any data back, that should be within my explicit control. Not even talking about privacy, talking about agency.

            If open source software, written by a non-profit, wants to violate my agency with opt outs rather than explicit consensual opt-ins. At the very least it’s not respecting my privacy, and at worst it’s trying to lie to me, remove my agency from my own devices.

            You can say there’s a social contract, that people online have to feed the advertising machines, and I’m happy to debate you about that. There is utility there for sure, but saying you’re an extremist if you don’t want to participate is also an extreme position. And I don’t think it’s reasonable

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Then why did Mozilla deploy this silently, with it enabled silently?

            If it’s so good for end users, wouldn’t they shout it from the rooftops?

            Further, Google, et al, created the battlefield by 2000, and now you’re sitting here blaming users for being suspicious of people who’ve repeatedly, over TWO DECADES, made it clear they have, at best, an antagonistic attitude towards web users.

            At this point, no, fuck them. I will block everything, at every turn. Just the same as I’ll never let the guy who stole half my CD collection back into my house.