Many people are upset about this, but it is in my opinion an excellent thing. Mozilla and Facebook are working together to improve one aspect of Facebook’s privacy
It’s not like Mozilla is shilling and getting paid off, as some people seem to think.
This is how privacy is really improved, by working with the companies and governments that have power in the space, not by sitting in your cave using only librewolf and tor, and refusing to use anything you don’t build from source and self host.
That only helps you at best, and the privacy abusers (google, facebook) will just ignore you.
I don’t know, but FF, although having nice options for privacy, don’t set them by default, leaving the user to go investigate what to set and whatnot… And adds is a sensitive topic, though it’s understandable they want to make money…
That’s why I use instead Librewolf, which is pretty much FF with sane settings by default (actually I have to modify some not allowing me to use the browser under some scenarios), and removing binary blobs (FF still includes binary blobs). For Librewolf, the other nice thing is that it comes with uBlock-Origin by default, however it might be it’ll be harder for uBlock to actually block new ways of adds…
Yea, well, I don’t trust Facebook/Meta any bit, and although mozilla can teach them a few more ethical things, as I don’t trust such partner it’s dealing with, then I get suspicious, and I don’t know if the end result will be also included on FF, since its sort of a web spec, and as said, FF tend to make sane privacy options not the default, and not so obvious, which hadn’t stopped me from using it, I just use Librewolf which is pretty close, it’s a derivative with sane defaults for privacy, and I hope if the spec materializes, and becomes part of FF, there’s a way on Librewolf to opt it out by default, or make it more obvious, or at least helped somehow by uBlock… We’ll see …
I see it as on the same level of a vegan advocacy organisation working with one of the biggest meat companies in the world. Sure, the vegan org might reduce the suffering of the animals under their control, but that shouldn’t be their goal, complete abolishment of animal agriculture should be.
I am vegan and must hope any lessening of suffering happens.
I hate hunting, but know that a dairy cow is far more likely to suffer far more than a deer a hunter shot. I’d be willing to negotiate if I knew i could lessen the problem. Case by case, of course.
All-or-nothing might make the individual feel holier-than-thou, but the problem is just as bad as before. Idealism is not the same as realism.
I’d argue that both can be done - diminish a problem by offering some solutions, but go right back by trying to eliminate that problem.
It’s an apt comparison, but do you want complete abolishment of all forms of telemetry, tracking or advertising? Or perhaps more relevant, is that Mozilla’s goal? I don’t think so. See this post by them.
"A whole sh*tton of how we communicate is controlled by a few centi-billionaires. That’s a new word for all of us: centi-billionaire. It means worth over $100 billion USD. Each.
Social networks are using us as much as we use them. They slice and dice us into categories to get micro-targeted. Newsflash: people aren’t “targets” and it’s not cool to create little bubbles.
Oh and security. If you’re sick of reading about — and getting caught in — one data breach after another, we feel you.
If you want to get out of this mess, we are with you. Mozilla, the not-for-profit behind Firefox, was purpose-built to make the internet what it can be: an open tool for everyone — the powerful and the weak, the right and the left, everyone."
Yes, yes and yes. And Mozilla have been selling out their user’s data since the day they took money from Google.
This is honestly what annoys me more than anything about Mozilla: they pretend to be champions for privacy, but they aren’t. And people fall for it. They are controlled opposition. They are the social democrats of the privacy world: channeling privacy supporters into their compromise (and compromised) position and painting the radicals as unreasonable dreamers.
If they were to finally die, that would probably be good for online privacy. A real non-corrupt free software fork of chromium could take off with built-in ad blocking and actually good privacy defaults. Firefox is sucking the oxygen out of the room right now.
Ultimately all tracking and data collecting besides what’s absolutely necessary needs to be declared 100% illegal. I have no hope Mozilla will help in this fight at all.
I just think that when Firefox dies, maintaining a chromium fork with Google tracking crap ripped out is going to be way easier than continuing development on Firefox, and can be done by way fewer people.
Firefox will take down Tor Project with it. Chromium/Blink is that bad. Also, Firefox allows user.js and userchrome.css modifications, something unparalleled in Blink/WebKit world.
Firefox is not going anywhere. Google is scared of antitrust and antimonopoly lawsuits.
complete abolishment of animal agriculture is not done overnight with in one fell swoop. It’s done with small changes here and there. Slowly forging a new culture where it is considered worse and worse to treat animals badly. (and what counts as animal abuse will start covering more and more things). Slowly changing the norm. Same goes for privacy, user rights, etc. There are of course some key moments, watershed moments, legislations (GDPR for example), but those had a long journey of tiny steps all over the world before they came into being. Sort of like tectonic plates building up tension over tens, hundreds, thousands of years before they snap into place in one huge earthquake
How is that supposed to work? Firefox’s own products in itself are not that reassuring for user privacy. It was better when Moxie collaborated with them to improve whatsapp code. At least that guy’s products were respected for privacy at that time.
Mozilla and Facebook are working together to improve one aspect of Facebook’s privacy
Pretty naïve statement, in my opinion. Mozilla should fight for the complete disruption of the ad-supported web, not pretending to “improve” it. Anyway, a sinking ship is a sinking ship…
Many people are upset about this, but it is in my opinion an excellent thing. Mozilla and Facebook are working together to improve one aspect of Facebook’s privacy
It’s not like Mozilla is shilling and getting paid off, as some people seem to think.
This is how privacy is really improved, by working with the companies and governments that have power in the space, not by sitting in your cave using only librewolf and tor, and refusing to use anything you don’t build from source and self host.
That only helps you at best, and the privacy abusers (google, facebook) will just ignore you.
I don’t know, but FF, although having nice options for privacy, don’t set them by default, leaving the user to go investigate what to set and whatnot… And adds is a sensitive topic, though it’s understandable they want to make money…
That’s why I use instead Librewolf, which is pretty much FF with sane settings by default (actually I have to modify some not allowing me to use the browser under some scenarios), and removing binary blobs (FF still includes binary blobs). For Librewolf, the other nice thing is that it comes with uBlock-Origin by default, however it might be it’ll be harder for uBlock to actually block new ways of adds…
You missed the point, it’s not about firefox.
Yea, well, I don’t trust Facebook/Meta any bit, and although mozilla can teach them a few more ethical things, as I don’t trust such partner it’s dealing with, then I get suspicious, and I don’t know if the end result will be also included on FF, since its sort of a web spec, and as said, FF tend to make sane privacy options not the default, and not so obvious, which hadn’t stopped me from using it, I just use Librewolf which is pretty close, it’s a derivative with sane defaults for privacy, and I hope if the spec materializes, and becomes part of FF, there’s a way on Librewolf to opt it out by default, or make it more obvious, or at least helped somehow by uBlock… We’ll see …
I see it as on the same level of a vegan advocacy organisation working with one of the biggest meat companies in the world. Sure, the vegan org might reduce the suffering of the animals under their control, but that shouldn’t be their goal, complete abolishment of animal agriculture should be.
I am vegan and must hope any lessening of suffering happens. I hate hunting, but know that a dairy cow is far more likely to suffer far more than a deer a hunter shot. I’d be willing to negotiate if I knew i could lessen the problem. Case by case, of course. All-or-nothing might make the individual feel holier-than-thou, but the problem is just as bad as before. Idealism is not the same as realism. I’d argue that both can be done - diminish a problem by offering some solutions, but go right back by trying to eliminate that problem.
It’s an apt comparison, but do you want complete abolishment of all forms of telemetry, tracking or advertising? Or perhaps more relevant, is that Mozilla’s goal? I don’t think so. See this post by them.
Is it Mozilla’s goal?
2020’s Unfck the Internet, by Mozilla:
"A whole sh*tton of how we communicate is controlled by a few centi-billionaires. That’s a new word for all of us: centi-billionaire. It means worth over $100 billion USD. Each.
Social networks are using us as much as we use them. They slice and dice us into categories to get micro-targeted. Newsflash: people aren’t “targets” and it’s not cool to create little bubbles.
Oh and security. If you’re sick of reading about — and getting caught in — one data breach after another, we feel you.
If you want to get out of this mess, we are with you. Mozilla, the not-for-profit behind Firefox, was purpose-built to make the internet what it can be: an open tool for everyone — the powerful and the weak, the right and the left, everyone."
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/how-to-unfck/
Yes, yes and yes. And Mozilla have been selling out their user’s data since the day they took money from Google.
This is honestly what annoys me more than anything about Mozilla: they pretend to be champions for privacy, but they aren’t. And people fall for it. They are controlled opposition. They are the social democrats of the privacy world: channeling privacy supporters into their compromise (and compromised) position and painting the radicals as unreasonable dreamers.
If they were to finally die, that would probably be good for online privacy. A real non-corrupt free software fork of chromium could take off with built-in ad blocking and actually good privacy defaults. Firefox is sucking the oxygen out of the room right now.
Ultimately all tracking and data collecting besides what’s absolutely necessary needs to be declared 100% illegal. I have no hope Mozilla will help in this fight at all.
Starting from paragraph 2, I could replace “Mozilla” and “chromium” vice versa and your comment would actually hold true.
I just think that when Firefox dies, maintaining a chromium fork with Google tracking crap ripped out is going to be way easier than continuing development on Firefox, and can be done by way fewer people.
Firefox will take down Tor Project with it. Chromium/Blink is that bad. Also, Firefox allows user.js and userchrome.css modifications, something unparalleled in Blink/WebKit world.
Firefox is not going anywhere. Google is scared of antitrust and antimonopoly lawsuits.
complete abolishment of animal agriculture is not done overnight with in one fell swoop. It’s done with small changes here and there. Slowly forging a new culture where it is considered worse and worse to treat animals badly. (and what counts as animal abuse will start covering more and more things). Slowly changing the norm. Same goes for privacy, user rights, etc. There are of course some key moments, watershed moments, legislations (GDPR for example), but those had a long journey of tiny steps all over the world before they came into being. Sort of like tectonic plates building up tension over tens, hundreds, thousands of years before they snap into place in one huge earthquake
How is that supposed to work? Firefox’s own products in itself are not that reassuring for user privacy. It was better when Moxie collaborated with them to improve whatsapp code. At least that guy’s products were respected for privacy at that time.
Even if they don’t live up to your standards, you can agree they are way ahead of the competition.
Are you talking about Chrome?
Does Chrome allow editable user.js and userchrome.css? Does Chrome not leak IPs via WebRTC? Is Chrome used as base for Tor Browser?
Pretty naïve statement, in my opinion. Mozilla should fight for the complete disruption of the ad-supported web, not pretending to “improve” it. Anyway, a sinking ship is a sinking ship…