3 ms·
Oh, the Google fanboys. “Didn’t you read the article? This is purely for privacy reasons.” Nevermind that this makes it harder to actually keep your privacy. Ne
by codeflo 8y ago
Oh, the Google fanboys. “Didn’t you read the article? This is purely for privacy reasons.” Nevermind that this makes it harder to actually keep your privacy. Nevermind that this is exactly what people warned would happen in a browser monoculture controlled by an ad company. That’s just a coincidence. It must be, because Google are the good guys, am I right?
- B-Con 8y agoSupporting privacy would allow browsers to block requests, full stop. There's no way to spin this specific action as pro-privacy.
- londons_explore 8y agoThe design as presented isn't for addressing privacy concerns. It still allows extensions to get a list of URL's accessed
- tehduder9 8y agofirefox isn't that good with privacy either https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-which-slurps-user-browsing-data/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-whi...
- AsyncAwait 8y agoThis was a terrible mistake by Mozilla, but a test pilot for a limited number of users doesn't seem permanently worse than what Google does in regards to privacy. Moreover, this presumably didn't affect users who installed via a package manager, while with Chrome the installation method doesn't matter. However I wish Mozilla was publicly funded, so that they don't have to constantly search for alternative revenue sources.
- tinus_hn 8y agoIrrelevant whataboutism. It doesn’t matter what Firefox does, the article is about Google Chrome/Chromium.