4 ms·

I'm glad the author recognizes the danger of trackers and the value of Firefox blocking them. Unfortunately, the rest of the Washington Post hasn't gotten the m

I'm glad the author recognizes the danger of trackers and the value of Firefox blocking them. Unfortunately, the rest of the Washington Post hasn't gotten the message. When I try to read the article just get a message that I have to disable tracking protection first. https://pasteboard.co/Ikt16xy.png https://pasteboard.co/Ikt16xy.png https://www.washingtonpost.com/steps-for-disabling-firefoxs-native-adblocker/2018/05/21/fb95bf4e-5d37-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html?utm_term=.b9a04242a46f https://www.washingtonpost.com/steps-for-disabling-firefoxs-...

98codes 7y ago
I disabled Ghostery and (ironically) Firefox tracker protection, and I still got that same message. If you subscribe, they still want to throw ads and trackers at you unless you pay the higher tier fee, at double the cost. The hypocracy is thick; they're not wrong about Chrome though.
thom 7y ago
Heh, you can't even use it in Europe with paying for them to respect the GDPR.
abstractbarista 7y ago
I just disable JS any time a site does this to me. It forces them to either renege on their threats and send me the HTML, or I just leave and never come back because there's nothing to see.
- satysin 7y ago
  Speaking of disabling JS. I wish Firefox had the same simple per site JS toggle like Chrome has it the Site settings area. I can't find a way to disable JS per site without using an extension such as uBlock Origin. Firefox has some site policy settings but I never got them to work not to mention they are a pain to manage even if they did work. I would like a simple enable/disable toggle as part of the site permissions interface they have when you click on the (i) next to the address.
catacombs 7y ago
Your pasteboard link is dead.
SanchoPanda 7y ago
On Ublock origin, disabling cosmetic filtering almost always fixes this.
razster 7y ago
I just use the adblocker to block those warnings. Problem solved.
- amelius 7y ago
  Yes, and it would be great if Firefox blocked those messages altogether. Persuading a user to disable safety features is not ok.
danShumway 7y ago
I've been critical of reporters for ignoring this hypocracy, but I don't think it applies here. The reporter doesn't control what the Washington Post does; they can only choose what they report on. I am critical of reporters who refuse to acknowledge that conflict of interest, or who only report on the Facebook/Google side of things without acknowledging that this is something that applies to the web (and news sites) in general. But I don't feel like that's what happened here, the author is reporting on web tracking in general, and giving mostly accurate information, regardless of the fact that consumers who follow it will also be blocking some of the WP's own trackers. I do kind of get annoyed that journalists aren't doing more to champion ad blockers, given that they are one of the easiest, simplest steps someone can take to reduce tracking. But... baby steps. Is the WP itself as a business being hypocritical? Sure, but to me that's a very different problem than what I typically see in privacy reporting. I'm more worried about whether or not reporters are willing to include browser tracking and news trackers in the discussion about privacy at all. Is the narrative, "Google is evil", or is it, "we have a structural problem that many, many businesses are complicit in"?
scarface74 7y ago
Shouldn’t you be glad that the Washington Post is not interfering with a journalist’s article even though it’s against their business interest?
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  I’d be happier if journalism weren’t a business at all and consent were actually difficult to manufacture. Granted they aren’t trying too hard at the consent part these days.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So do you work for free?
    - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
      Shockingly there are other was to provide services and produce goods than for profit corporations.

98codes 7y ago

I disabled Ghostery and (ironically) Firefox tracker protection, and I still got that same message. If you subscribe, they still want to throw ads and trackers at you unless you pay the higher tier fee, at double the cost. The hypocracy is thick; they're not wrong about Chrome though.

thom 7y ago

Heh, you can't even use it in Europe with paying for them to respect the GDPR.

abstractbarista 7y ago

I just disable JS any time a site does this to me. It forces them to either renege on their threats and send me the HTML, or I just leave and never come back because there's nothing to see.

satysin 7y ago
Speaking of disabling JS. I wish Firefox had the same simple per site JS toggle like Chrome has it the Site settings area. I can't find a way to disable JS per site without using an extension such as uBlock Origin. Firefox has some site policy settings but I never got them to work not to mention they are a pain to manage even if they did work. I would like a simple enable/disable toggle as part of the site permissions interface they have when you click on the (i) next to the address.

catacombs 7y ago

Your pasteboard link is dead.

SanchoPanda 7y ago

On Ublock origin, disabling cosmetic filtering almost always fixes this.

razster 7y ago

I just use the adblocker to block those warnings. Problem solved.

amelius 7y ago
Yes, and it would be great if Firefox blocked those messages altogether. Persuading a user to disable safety features is not ok.

danShumway 7y ago

I've been critical of reporters for ignoring this hypocracy, but I don't think it applies here. The reporter doesn't control what the Washington Post does; they can only choose what they report on. I am critical of reporters who refuse to acknowledge that conflict of interest, or who only report on the Facebook/Google side of things without acknowledging that this is something that applies to the web (and news sites) in general. But I don't feel like that's what happened here, the author is reporting on web tracking in general, and giving mostly accurate information, regardless of the fact that consumers who follow it will also be blocking some of the WP's own trackers. I do kind of get annoyed that journalists aren't doing more to champion ad blockers, given that they are one of the easiest, simplest steps someone can take to reduce tracking. But... baby steps. Is the WP itself as a business being hypocritical? Sure, but to me that's a very different problem than what I typically see in privacy reporting. I'm more worried about whether or not reporters are willing to include browser tracking and news trackers in the discussion about privacy at all. Is the narrative, "Google is evil", or is it, "we have a structural problem that many, many businesses are complicit in"?

scarface74 7y ago

Shouldn’t you be glad that the Washington Post is not interfering with a journalist’s article even though it’s against their business interest?

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
I’d be happier if journalism weren’t a business at all and consent were actually difficult to manufacture. Granted they aren’t trying too hard at the consent part these days.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So do you work for free?
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Shockingly there are other was to provide services and produce goods than for profit corporations.