• CO5MO ✨@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    5 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
      arrow-up
      99
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 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
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 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
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 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.

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 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.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      • kbal@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 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.

  • ItsComplicated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    Mozilla has added special software co-authored by Meta and built for the advertising industry

    No thanks, I’ll pass

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        I wish I could. Every time I hear about a React app, it’s some godforsaken ad choked nightmare of a “web 2.0” site that just makes the internet painful to use. I understand it may be possible to write a performant and usable GUI with it, but you never hear of such things

        • bamboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          5 months ago

          Web 2.0 was the mid-2000s idea that every website and service would be accessible via an http api and that it would allow easy integration. It was ads that killed Web 2.0, as users accessing a site via its api rather than its ad-filled website wouldn’t see any of those ads.

          • Scrollone@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            5 months ago

            God I miss Web 2.0. The Fediverse is trying to bring that concept back, luckily.

      • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        5 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.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is not sealioning lmao

          You’re falling into the trap where anyone who disagrees with you has some sort of ulterior motive or grand scheme. I don’t need to remind you why that is not a good thing.

          • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 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
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 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.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Browsers are an unsustainable mess of reckless feature creep. At some point we may all transition from using websites at all.

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Away from the all-in-one solution browser to using apps for each discrete feature. Like using a video player already on the OS to play videos or using a Gemini capsule to navigate to text-only “sites”.

    • fin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 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

      • mrvictory1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        FF users include both normal people and freaking evangelists trying to spread privacy.

        • Paradox@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 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

    • Don_alForno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 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
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 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
    36
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

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

  • Zwiebel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    5 months ago

    Explaination from the article:

    The way it works is that individual browsers report their behavior to a data aggregation server (operated by Mozilla), then that server reports the aggregated data to an advertiser’s server. The “advertising network” only receives aggregated data with differential privacy, but the aggregation server still knows the behavior of individual browsers!

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

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

  • Deceptichum@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 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.

  • uzay@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 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
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Should I now ditch Firefox for Librewolf?

    Edit: I just did that

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 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
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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.

        • antler@feddit.rocks
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 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
            1
            ·
            5 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
              2
              ·
              5 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
                2
                ·
                5 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.