5 ms·

Or just actively punishing Firefox because blocking tracking is also blocking ads, which is their revenue model. Why spend money optimizing for a browser that d

Or just actively punishing Firefox because blocking tracking is also blocking ads, which is their revenue model. Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue? If Firefox becomes the bastion of privacy sensitive people it will become more and more like Tor users, all tainted with the same labels. I mean it's already the case that recaptcha will more likely trigger on Firefox than Chrome, asking for multiple rounds of checks. Like visitors existing Tor exit nodes, in a bit less worse.

dmortin 7y ago
> Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue? Maybe sites will move to a model that you'll be offered to pay for their services if you block trackers. So you'll have a choice of paying with your data or paying with your money. Either way someone has to foot the bill at the end. I guess in this case most users will let trackers work instead of paying.
- re4ctor 7y ago
  That then gets into the ethics of should privacy only be for the wealthy
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    And that would get into the ethics of not allowing non wealthy people to pay with their data.
  - mrmonkeyman 7y ago
    Paying 2 dollars is not for the "wealthy". Nice try.
  - oldmanhorton 7y ago
    That's fair, but before computers, not much was available for free. Getting a newspaper would generally cost money, as would using the payphone to communicate, as would so many other things that are now freely available. So, while its definitely a problem, as long as it's cheap enough for "most" people to afford it, then I think we aren't really regressing? Perhaps if we consider information on the internet to be vital to daily life, a program like food stamps could be implemented? It sounds rather over engineered but it's the only idea I've ever heard for working around the "privacy is only for the wealthy" concern.
veselin 7y ago
As far as I remember, when websites were doing window pop-ups and Google toolbar removed them, they didn't block the toolbar users. So, the risk is low... unless Firefox does something stupid like full ad-blocking. But if something like this happens, I will be happy to build/use an extension for the other browsers that makes such websites invisible in all major social networks.
- Santosh83 7y ago
  Matter of time until Chrome simply bans such extensions.
- dwild 7y ago
  > As far as I remember, when websites were doing window pop-ups and Google toolbar removed them, they didn't block the toolbar users. So, the risk is low... He never said anything about blocking, here his exact quote about the retaliation: > Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue? Nobody ever optimized for a browser that had the Google toolbar installed. It's hard to stop doing something you never did. As the other parent comment said, it will happens naturally by the mere fact that theses users won't appears on statistics. For sure it will depends on the developers, and many of them will either use Firefox directly, or simply care enough about their craft to optimize for most of the browsers even though they don't appear on stats.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ric2b 7y ago
> because blocking tracking is also blocking ads It's not, the Internet is the only medium where it's assumed that tracking/targeting is necessary for advertising. TV, Magazines, radio, podcasts, cinema don't track users.
- uoaei 7y ago
  Well, they do, but only in aggregate and pretty indirectly: surveys, focus groups, requests for feedback, etc.
  - badrequest 7y ago
    Which are leagues more imprecise than the internet alternative.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  I agree but podcasting services often track users now - podcasters use services like ACast to generate unique targeted versions of the podcast mp3 on-download when people use feed managers to download. When I download a few different podcasts, I get an mp3 with targeted ads inserted in it, and they're presumably connecting IP geolocation info.
mottosso 7y ago
> Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue? A browser dedicated to websites that exists for reasons other than serving ads? Sign me up!

dmortin 7y ago

> Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue? Maybe sites will move to a model that you'll be offered to pay for their services if you block trackers. So you'll have a choice of paying with your data or paying with your money. Either way someone has to foot the bill at the end. I guess in this case most users will let trackers work instead of paying.

re4ctor 7y ago
That then gets into the ethics of should privacy only be for the wealthy
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  And that would get into the ethics of not allowing non wealthy people to pay with their data.
- mrmonkeyman 7y ago
  Paying 2 dollars is not for the "wealthy". Nice try.
- oldmanhorton 7y ago
  That's fair, but before computers, not much was available for free. Getting a newspaper would generally cost money, as would using the payphone to communicate, as would so many other things that are now freely available. So, while its definitely a problem, as long as it's cheap enough for "most" people to afford it, then I think we aren't really regressing? Perhaps if we consider information on the internet to be vital to daily life, a program like food stamps could be implemented? It sounds rather over engineered but it's the only idea I've ever heard for working around the "privacy is only for the wealthy" concern.

veselin 7y ago

As far as I remember, when websites were doing window pop-ups and Google toolbar removed them, they didn't block the toolbar users. So, the risk is low... unless Firefox does something stupid like full ad-blocking. But if something like this happens, I will be happy to build/use an extension for the other browsers that makes such websites invisible in all major social networks.

Santosh83 7y ago
Matter of time until Chrome simply bans such extensions.
dwild 7y ago
> As far as I remember, when websites were doing window pop-ups and Google toolbar removed them, they didn't block the toolbar users. So, the risk is low... He never said anything about blocking, here his exact quote about the retaliation: > Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue? Nobody ever optimized for a browser that had the Google toolbar installed. It's hard to stop doing something you never did. As the other parent comment said, it will happens naturally by the mere fact that theses users won't appears on statistics. For sure it will depends on the developers, and many of them will either use Firefox directly, or simply care enough about their craft to optimize for most of the browsers even though they don't appear on stats.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ric2b 7y ago

> because blocking tracking is also blocking ads It's not, the Internet is the only medium where it's assumed that tracking/targeting is necessary for advertising. TV, Magazines, radio, podcasts, cinema don't track users.

uoaei 7y ago
Well, they do, but only in aggregate and pretty indirectly: surveys, focus groups, requests for feedback, etc.
- badrequest 7y ago
  Which are leagues more imprecise than the internet alternative.
kevingadd 7y ago
I agree but podcasting services often track users now - podcasters use services like ACast to generate unique targeted versions of the podcast mp3 on-download when people use feed managers to download. When I download a few different podcasts, I get an mp3 with targeted ads inserted in it, and they're presumably connecting IP geolocation info.

mottosso 7y ago

> Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue? A browser dedicated to websites that exists for reasons other than serving ads? Sign me up!