4 ms·

"Internt for people, not for profit" This is a great slogan, but actions speak louder than words. Why hasn't FF implemented basic privacy protections and block

"Internt for people, not for profit" This is a great slogan, but actions speak louder than words. Why hasn't FF implemented basic privacy protections and block trackers like Safari does? If Firefox is really "for people," this seems like an area they should be leading in. A cynic (like me) might suggest that it is because Mozilla has become utterly dependent on ad revenue for their survival. Long gone are the days when Mozilla was funded by donations and t-shirt sales. There was a time when it was more than just a browser maker, it was the spearhead of an internet movement for open source. I miss those days.

sf_rob 9y ago
I think that it's likely because Apple has much more leverage and their major source of funding isn't their browser. I could imagine a world where ad-based services started blocking/paywalling Firefox user-agents. Hopefully now that Apple has opened the door Mozilla is safe to walk through too.
- Jerry2 9y ago
  You actually think that websites would ban Firefox' user agent?!?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    That depends, really. Firefox usage is barely in the double digits and has been steadily declining for quite a while. If it becomes a hassle, then maybe. I'd expect them to boot Safari users first. We will have to see how it goes.
  - sf_rob 9y ago
    Publishers are already treating adblock (not tracking protection) users far more aggressively than they have in the past. I imagine if the number of users that are hampering advertiser value went up by an order of magnitude that these publishers may react in a far more aggressive way.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    You mean, like half of Google’s newer products? Google Allo Web, Hangouts, the Inbox Beta, Google Earth, etc all don’t work, or for a long time didn’t work in Firefox.
mquander 9y ago
Is the built-in Firefox "tracking protection" feature not as good as Safari at this?
482794793792894 9y ago
Because implementing such user protections takes away from the revenue stream of webpage owners. As a result of that, those have much less of a incentive to ensure compatibility with Firefox, which ultimately means lots of broken webpages when browsing with Firefox. What's more, with Google at 60% market share and growing, and not offering such protections for their users, it becomes increasingly more likely for webpage owners to just drop Firefox completely. It's not worth the effort compared to the money they make off of oblivious Chrome users. You also seem to not be aware of Tracking Protection. Firefox blocks trackers by default in Private Browsing. There's more examples where Firefox goes the extra mile to protect user privacy, but Tracking Protection really is just exactly what you said. You should've seen the outcry from webpage owners when that was pushed out to users.

sf_rob 9y ago

I think that it's likely because Apple has much more leverage and their major source of funding isn't their browser. I could imagine a world where ad-based services started blocking/paywalling Firefox user-agents. Hopefully now that Apple has opened the door Mozilla is safe to walk through too.

Jerry2 9y ago
You actually think that websites would ban Firefox' user agent?!?
- KGIII 9y ago
  That depends, really. Firefox usage is barely in the double digits and has been steadily declining for quite a while. If it becomes a hassle, then maybe. I'd expect them to boot Safari users first. We will have to see how it goes.
- sf_rob 9y ago
  Publishers are already treating adblock (not tracking protection) users far more aggressively than they have in the past. I imagine if the number of users that are hampering advertiser value went up by an order of magnitude that these publishers may react in a far more aggressive way.
- kuschku 9y ago
  You mean, like half of Google’s newer products? Google Allo Web, Hangouts, the Inbox Beta, Google Earth, etc all don’t work, or for a long time didn’t work in Firefox.

mquander 9y ago

Is the built-in Firefox "tracking protection" feature not as good as Safari at this?

482794793792894 9y ago

Because implementing such user protections takes away from the revenue stream of webpage owners. As a result of that, those have much less of a incentive to ensure compatibility with Firefox, which ultimately means lots of broken webpages when browsing with Firefox. What's more, with Google at 60% market share and growing, and not offering such protections for their users, it becomes increasingly more likely for webpage owners to just drop Firefox completely. It's not worth the effort compared to the money they make off of oblivious Chrome users. You also seem to not be aware of Tracking Protection. Firefox blocks trackers by default in Private Browsing. There's more examples where Firefox goes the extra mile to protect user privacy, but Tracking Protection really is just exactly what you said. You should've seen the outcry from webpage owners when that was pushed out to users.