this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
337 points (83.9% liked)

Technology

59574 readers
3081 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lodra@programming.dev 141 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

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 35 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 11 points 4 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“.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.de 28 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sadly, tracking is the only way to perform attribution without help from the browser. Tracking is terrible for privacy, because it gives companies detailed information about what you do online. While Firefox includes many privacy protections that make it more difficult for sites to track you online (Enhanced Tracking Protection, Total Cookie Protection, Query Parameter Stripping, and many other measures), there’s a huge incentive for sites to find ways around these in order to perform attribution. Our hope is that if we develop a good attribution solution, it will offer a real alternative to more objectionable practices like tracking.

"Our hope is, that if we transfer the bank robber some of our money in advance, they'll not come in and rob all of it."

No! Jail the fucker!

[–] Lodra@programming.dev 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

While I appreciate your sentiment, this just isn’t realistic in the current state of the world. First, you need to make these kind of tactics illegal enough to incarcerate a person. Second, you need to expand and enforce this law globally. We definitely need this level of global cooperation, but are also soooo far away from achieving it

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.de 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I mean they don't have to literally jail advertisers (although I'd love that). I'd agree with hefty fines. Which, while not perfect, several EU laws have shown is possible unilaterally (e.g. Apple allowing third party app stores in the EU, albeit kicking and screaming).

I agree that it's a mountain to climb, but we sure won't reach the summit if we walk in the other direction.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ParetoOptimalDev 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] c0smokram3r@midwest.social 118 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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 95 points 4 months ago (3 children)

"You're too dumb to understand so we make decisions for you"

Fuck that condescending prick with a pineapple.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 59 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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 34 points 4 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 58 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] kbal@fedia.io 28 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 12 points 4 months ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ItsComplicated@sh.itjust.works 100 points 4 months ago (20 children)

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

No thanks, I’ll pass

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 45 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Look, everything is going to disappoint us. Everything runs off a profit motive, and it turns out profit is immoral.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 39 points 4 months ago (2 children)

To disable:

user_pref("dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled", false);
[–] Dlolor@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Alternatively you can do the same through Settings -> Privacy & Security -> Website Advertising Preferences and uncheck "Allow websites to perform privacy-preserving ad measurement"

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 12 points 4 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 34 points 4 months ago

From the article, quoting a Firefox dev explaining the decision:

@McCovican @jonny @mathew @RenewedRebecca Opt-in is only meaningful if users can make an informed decision. I think explaining a system like PPA would be a difficult task. And most users complain a lot about these types of interruption.

In my opinion an easily discoverable opt-out option + blog posts and such were the right decision.

puts on They Live glasses

@McCovican @jonny @mathew @RenewedRebecca If we had made it opt in, then not a single human being on the planet would have enabled it, and we didn’t want that

[–] hummingbird@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago

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

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 29 points 4 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!

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 19 points 4 months ago

So all browsers except some forks of Firefox are cooked now/soon?

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 16 points 4 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.

[–] fin@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Should I now ditch Firefox for Librewolf?

Edit: I just did that

[–] uzay@infosec.pub 15 points 4 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.

[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Honest question, why does the fediverse like firefox so much? This is not a common opinion to have on the internet, but everyone here and on mastodon seems to have it.

[–] HKayn@dormi.zone 83 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Because otherwise you'd be supporting the Chromium monopoly, and that's the biggest sin imaginable in the Fediverse.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 42 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sin? I just want there to be competitors.

[–] hexabs@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Firefox is the competition.. To market dominated Chromium.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I'm not in favor of talking about the Fediverse like it is a data monopoly like META or reddit. Lots of people make this place work in operations and content. Seems not that cool to slam them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] theherk@lemmy.world 71 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because it is FOSS and responsible for many great contributions to apis that make the web what it is. It has history that goes way back. It has been decently transparent, certainly when compared to its closest competitors. It isn’t Google. It has a massive library of extensions. They aren’t planning to deprecate manifest v2.

Don’t get me wrong, I also like other browsers and I’m looking forward to seeing what comes from the servo reboot. But Firefox is bread and butter and there is often drummed up nonsense about it.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 28 points 4 months ago

Mozilla also maintains fantastic JS docs

[–] Toes@ani.social 13 points 4 months ago

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

[–] PassingThrough@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 15 points 4 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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] swayevenly@lemm.ee 12 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Anyone see the option to turn it off on Android phones?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›