17 ms·

Your FYI is also useful for the contrapositive of that feeling, which we often see on HN: "Look how Firefox is leading privacy improvements and how much more pr

Your FYI is also useful for the contrapositive of that feeling, which we often see on HN: "Look how Firefox is leading privacy improvements and how much more privacy forward it is than Chrome".

michaelt 6y ago
You see, when Firefox improves privacy it's for the good of users, but when Chrome improves privacy it's because Google can track you just fine despite the change and they want to give competing ad networks a kicking. /s ?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  I mean, that can be true, no? Google does have many ways of tracking you and blocking others from doing it while still doing it themselves certainly helps them maintain their moat.
  - Groxx 6y ago
    AMP is a pretty good example of this. Good for Google, reduces tracking (by anyone but Google), bad for everyone else.
- tasogare 6y ago
  Both browsers are funded mainly by the same source, so in the end changes in any of them is Google’s move anyway.
- GeekyBear 6y ago
  >You see, when Firefox improves privacy it's for the good of users, but when Chrome improves privacy it's because Google can track you just fine despite the change and they want to give competing ad networks a kicking. /s ? Given that Firefox improving privacy generally doesn't draw antitrust scrutiny, where is the problem with that statement? >The questions from Justice Department investigators have touched on how Chrome policies, including those related to cookies, affect the ad and news industries, four people said. Investigators are asking whether Google is using Chrome, which has 60% global market share, to reduce competition by preventing rival ad companies from tracking users through cookies while leaving loopholes for it to gather data with cookies, analytics tools and other sources, the sources added. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-antitrust-google-exclusive/exclusive-googles-privacy-push-draws-u-s-antitrust-scrutiny-sources-idUSKBN2BA10I https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-antitrust-google-exc... If Google were truly improving privacy, one would expect their changes to decrease their own ability to track users, not just their competitors.
m463 6y ago
But doesn't chrome have baked-in identification? (not that firefox doesn't have lots of phone-home behavior you can't turn off like firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com)
- behnamoh 6y ago
  Exactly. In FF, one of the first things I always do is turn off "Firefox Data Collection and Use" in the Settings.
lucideer 6y ago
True, but this case contains a little more complexity. Namely: 1. Chrome, as the dominant browser, drives developer behaviour (devs need to change their websites when Chrome breaks compat). Firefox doesn't have this luxury, so some features like this must necessarily be lead by Chrome in the monopolistic browser world we live in. 2. Referers allow websites to individually track users better, which is bad for user privacy if you are concerned about entities such as Facebook, etc. tracking you. However, those entities are Google's competitors; for Google, Chrome does the tracking, so they have no need of the Referer. Removing it is "good" for user privacy w.r.t. Google's competitors, and simultaneously good for Google (disadvantaging such competitors).
- 3grdlurker 6y ago
  It seems that the solution to the “complex” scenario you’re describing is simple: use Firefox instead of Chrome.
  - toxik 6y ago
    It’s only simple in the sense that it takes few words to say, but then world peace is also simple: just stop having wars.
    - boston_clone 6y ago
      Do you really think the two are in any way comparable? It's a web browser.
      - guipsp 6y ago
        It's an analogy.
  - k_sze 6y ago
    Still easier said than done. There are still many websites that break in weird ways because the developers don’t care about Firefox. I myself religiously use Firefox by default and only use Chrome if I bump into some websites don’t work in Firefox. But my kid’s teachers often send links that my kid needs to use for school work. And a lot of them are educational websites that don’t work in Firefox. I can’t be home all day to provide tech support. So having Firefox as the default browser is simply a no-go. Guess what wins, between Chrome and Firefox?
IAmNotAFix 6y ago
Google consistenly tries to make it harder for their competitors to grab user data.
jonas21 6y ago
It's also useful for recognizing how preconceived notions and biases influence upvoting behavior and by extension what gains visibility on the front page, further reinforcing those biases. At the time I'm writing this, there are 740 upvotes and 187 comments on this story vs. 12 upvotes and 0 comments for the top submission when Chrome made the same change [1]. Without the FYI, I would have assumed this was Firefox leading the way in privacy because I was simply unaware that Chrome had done it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008516

Your FYI is also useful for the contrapositive of that feeling, which we often see on HN: "Look how Firefox is leading privacy improvements and how much more privacy forward it is than Chrome".

michaelt 6y ago

You see, when Firefox improves privacy it's for the good of users, but when Chrome improves privacy it's because Google can track you just fine despite the change and they want to give competing ad networks a kicking. /s ?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ViViDboarder 6y ago
I mean, that can be true, no? Google does have many ways of tracking you and blocking others from doing it while still doing it themselves certainly helps them maintain their moat.
- Groxx 6y ago
  AMP is a pretty good example of this. Good for Google, reduces tracking (by anyone but Google), bad for everyone else.
tasogare 6y ago
Both browsers are funded mainly by the same source, so in the end changes in any of them is Google’s move anyway.
GeekyBear 6y ago
>You see, when Firefox improves privacy it's for the good of users, but when Chrome improves privacy it's because Google can track you just fine despite the change and they want to give competing ad networks a kicking. /s ? Given that Firefox improving privacy generally doesn't draw antitrust scrutiny, where is the problem with that statement? >The questions from Justice Department investigators have touched on how Chrome policies, including those related to cookies, affect the ad and news industries, four people said. Investigators are asking whether Google is using Chrome, which has 60% global market share, to reduce competition by preventing rival ad companies from tracking users through cookies while leaving loopholes for it to gather data with cookies, analytics tools and other sources, the sources added. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-antitrust-google-exclusive/exclusive-googles-privacy-push-draws-u-s-antitrust-scrutiny-sources-idUSKBN2BA10I https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-antitrust-google-exc... If Google were truly improving privacy, one would expect their changes to decrease their own ability to track users, not just their competitors.

m463 6y ago

But doesn't chrome have baked-in identification? (not that firefox doesn't have lots of phone-home behavior you can't turn off like firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com)

behnamoh 6y ago
Exactly. In FF, one of the first things I always do is turn off "Firefox Data Collection and Use" in the Settings.

lucideer 6y ago

True, but this case contains a little more complexity. Namely: 1. Chrome, as the dominant browser, drives developer behaviour (devs need to change their websites when Chrome breaks compat). Firefox doesn't have this luxury, so some features like this must necessarily be lead by Chrome in the monopolistic browser world we live in. 2. Referers allow websites to individually track users better, which is bad for user privacy if you are concerned about entities such as Facebook, etc. tracking you. However, those entities are Google's competitors; for Google, Chrome does the tracking, so they have no need of the Referer. Removing it is "good" for user privacy w.r.t. Google's competitors, and simultaneously good for Google (disadvantaging such competitors).

3grdlurker 6y ago
It seems that the solution to the “complex” scenario you’re describing is simple: use Firefox instead of Chrome.
- toxik 6y ago
  It’s only simple in the sense that it takes few words to say, but then world peace is also simple: just stop having wars.
  - boston_clone 6y ago
    Do you really think the two are in any way comparable? It's a web browser.
    - guipsp 6y ago
      It's an analogy.
- k_sze 6y ago
  Still easier said than done. There are still many websites that break in weird ways because the developers don’t care about Firefox. I myself religiously use Firefox by default and only use Chrome if I bump into some websites don’t work in Firefox. But my kid’s teachers often send links that my kid needs to use for school work. And a lot of them are educational websites that don’t work in Firefox. I can’t be home all day to provide tech support. So having Firefox as the default browser is simply a no-go. Guess what wins, between Chrome and Firefox?

IAmNotAFix 6y ago

Google consistenly tries to make it harder for their competitors to grab user data.

jonas21 6y ago

It's also useful for recognizing how preconceived notions and biases influence upvoting behavior and by extension what gains visibility on the front page, further reinforcing those biases. At the time I'm writing this, there are 740 upvotes and 187 comments on this story vs. 12 upvotes and 0 comments for the top submission when Chrome made the same change [1]. Without the FYI, I would have assumed this was Firefox leading the way in privacy because I was simply unaware that Chrome had done it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008516