Noyb has previously gone after Microsoft, Meta and more.
  • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
    996·
    1 month ago

    Copy/pasting my comment from the earlier thread on this that got deleted for misinformation

    After reading about the actual feature (more), this seems like an absolutely gigantic non-issue. Like most anti-Mozilla stories end up being.

    The whole thing is an experimental feature intended to replace the current privacy nightmare that is cross-site tracking cookies. As-implemented it’s a way for advertisers to figure out things like “How many people who went to our site and purchased this product saw this ad we placed on another site?”, but done in such a way that neither the website with the ad, nor the website with the product, nor Mozilla itself knows what any one specific user was doing.

    The only thing I looked for but could not find an answer on one way or the other is if Mozilla is making any sort of profit from this system. I would guess no but actually have no idea.

    There are definitely things that can be said about this feature, like “Fuck ad companies, it should be off by default” (my personal take), or “It’s a pointless feature that’s doomed to failure because it’ll never provide ad companies with information as valuable as tracking cookies, so it’ll never succeed in its goal to replace tracking cookies” (also my take). But the feature itself has virtually no privacy consequences whatsoever for anybody.

    I’m absolutely convinced there’s a coordinated anti-Firefox astroturfing campaign going on lately.

    • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      91·
      1 month ago

      I’m all for this. All of this will be blocked on my devices anyway but for the greater good, this would be a great step to take

      • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        1 month ago

        Yeah - I’ve actually softened my own stance since I wrote that paragraph near the end, too, I just didn’t feel like editing a message that I claimed to have copy/pasted. While I still have no intention of enabling the feature in my install, that’s out of pure spite for anything that could conceivably help an advertiser somewhere, even if it isn’t at my expense. I do see value in the feature itself existing. While I think the industry is unlikely to abandon tracking cookies and swap to this system voluntarily, I could see certain governments eventually mandating such a change, if the feature proves robust enough.

        I might even go as far as to agree that on-by-default is the better option for the feature’s chances of success - but for new installs. When new features are added to existing installs in updates, particularly if those features are in the “Privacy & Security” section of the settings page, it would probably be better practice to ask the user to pick an option on the first boot after updating.

    • Blisterexe@lemmy.zipEnglish
      494·
      1 month ago

      I genuinely cannot understand why people hate mozilla so much, it boggles the mind.

      • Corvid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        154·
        1 month ago

        There’s so many anti-Mozilla people on Lemmy it’s crazy. I’m getting downvotes in other threads in this community for pointing out that all the anti-Mozilla FUD has amounted to nothing of substance.

      • devfuuu@lemmy.worldEnglish
        122·
        1 month ago

        There are many interests playing to make sure it is destroyed. Any little non issue explodes big. Or people just don’t know how to read.

      • ysjet@lemmy.worldEnglish
        252·
        1 month ago

        Google is spending a lot of cash to make Firefox look bad so people are unmotivated to change away from Chrome when manifest v3 is fully rolled out.

      • vonxylofon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        1 month ago

        It’s not like it’s not been rolling out features and opting people in without telling them…

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyzEnglish
        12·
        1 month ago

        I love Firefox, I’ve even spent money to support it in the past. The Mozilla organization seems at best incompetent and at worst willfully corrupt. There’s no love lost here.

          • acockworkorange@mander.xyzEnglish
            31·
            1 month ago

            When your mission is to create a safe and private web and you squandered your organization’s money to give huge payouts to your executives for not achieving their stated goals, that’s a form of corruption. Their relationship with Google was always viewed with skeptic eyes too. There are more. Nothing people can prove, but looks suspicious. Like I said, at best incompetence.

    • BelatedPeacock@lemmy.worldEnglish
      83·
      1 month ago

      Edit: I did a stupid. Anonym made PPA and that was part of the acquisition.

      The only thing I looked for but could not find an answer on one way or the other is if Mozilla is making any sort of profit from this system. I would guess no but actually have no idea.

      Fuck ad companies…

      Mozilla bought an ad company (Anonym) shortly after implementing PPA. Their goal appears to be to pivot their revenue plan to (in part) being an ad company.

      I’m absolutely convinced there’s a coordinated anti-Firefox astroturfing campaign going on lately.

      I cannot know for sure whether that’s true or not, but a lot of very bad decisions have happened at Mozilla over the last six months and I think they’ve been the straw that’s broken the camel’s back.

      • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        1 month ago

        Their acquisition of Anonym was all about acquiring the feature this article is about, PPA. Anonym created PPA. In fact Anonym seems to have been created for the explicit purpose of creating this privacy-respecting system as an alternative to cross-site tracking cookies. I see no reason to doubt Mozilla’s intentions here.

  • Boozilla@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    1 month ago

    The article which was removed for misinformation got me curious. So I finally downloaded and installed LibreWolf (which is Firefox under the hood). After using it for full day I really like it so far. Another user (thanks, @RustyNova@lemmy.world ) gave me some good tips to pay attention to the two icons to the left of the URL bar, which was very helpful.

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.websiteEnglish
      151·
      1 month ago

      Every single time someone mentions they abandoned firefox for something “better”, it’s chromium based. Privacy is good, but the most important for me is to avoid monopoly/monoculture.

    • Grangle1@lemm.eeEnglish
      3·
      1 month ago

      Falkon is better for privacy than stock Chrome or Firefox, but I still find Brave or LibreWolf better than that.

      • Peffse@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        1 month ago

        I chucked Brave shortly after they decided to install a VPN service on my machine without consent or notification.

        A service that silently reinstalled itself on Brave update.

        A service that did not remove itself when you uninstall Brave. It took a lot of research and time to rip out the guts of that. I will never trust Brave again.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.worldEnglish
          91·
          1 month ago

          I think brave should be disregarded as something safe and privacy respecting if they were willing to silently whitelist Facebook trackers in the past. Then there is their whole crypto obsession.

      • nyan@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        2·
        1 month ago

        Only problem is that you wouldn’t be able to visit most sites, because Mosaic only supports HTTP 1.0. You could go for Lynx, though. Just remember to disable the cookie support.