4 ms·

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... has been built

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... has been built-in for nearly two years, and new privacy-protecting features are frequently being added. (Disclosure: I work for Mozilla but not on this)

Nextgrid 5y ago
This is nowhere near enough though, and it used to be even worse. Basic spyware such as Google Analytics could be blocked by uBlock for ages and yet it's only recently that the built-in Firefox solution started blocking it (by replacing it with a neutered shim). Furthermore, considering uBlock Origin and the underlying filter lists are available under a permissive license, what's the point behind developing & maintaining your own (inferior) implementation?
- INTPenis 5y ago
  So which browser do you prefer?
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    I run Safari & Firefox. FF is still the "least bad" choice but I'm still not happy that I have to fix it by installing an add-on where that add-on (or at least the core parts of it such as filter lists) are licensed in a way that would allow the browser to have this fix out of the box.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- lolrepeatlol 5y ago
  You have to realize Mozilla does not have the marketshare to do this. Most of the web relies on ads, and since uBlock Origin blocks them, there would be no incentive for those sites to support Firefox. Even if you just blocked trackers (as does ETP Strict Mode), many ads get blocked because those ads bundle tracking code within them. This, again, would cause there to be little to no incentive for most website owners to support Firefox. What Mozilla is currently doing makes sense. They are being lax on the standard setting so that websites can still make ad revenue and have an incentive to support the browser. If Firefox had a lot more marketshare, it might have been possible that this could slide.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    Outside of media heavy applications such as video conferencing software, do websites explicitly do specific things to “support” Firefox beyond complying with the specs? > many ads get blocked because those ads bundle tracking code within them uBlock filter lists can provide fallback shims that would be loaded in place of ad scripts to deal with this exact problem. The shim implements a neutered version of the original script so that all the surrounding (non-malicious) code can continue to run without errors.
    - lolrepeatlol 5y ago
      > Outside of media heavy applications such as video conferencing software, do websites explicitly do specific things to “support” Firefox beyond complying with the specs? You'd be surprised. Apple Business Manager does not support Firefox, for example. > uBlock filter lists can provide fallback shims that would be loaded in place of ad scripts to deal with this exact problem. The shim implements a neutered version of the original script so that all the surrounding (non-malicious) code can continue to run without errors. My point was that ads were being accidentally blocked and that websites wouldn't get their ad revenue.
      - Nextgrid 5y ago
        > My point was that ads were being accidentally blocked and that websites wouldn't get their ad revenue. Blocking ads would be the point - ads are malware.
  - apostacy 5y ago
    I would assert that the exact opposite is true. Taking a strong stand in favor of users would increase their market share. Over a decade ago, one of the best things that Firefox did to compete against IE6 was to include a built in popup blocker that was on by default. Exactly the same criticisms were made. It was called irresponsible and disruptive, since so much revenue came from popups, and horrible flash-based full screen pop-under ads. But I am glad that Firefox didn't let the pleas of the established market prevent them from siding with users.

Nextgrid 5y ago

This is nowhere near enough though, and it used to be even worse. Basic spyware such as Google Analytics could be blocked by uBlock for ages and yet it's only recently that the built-in Firefox solution started blocking it (by replacing it with a neutered shim). Furthermore, considering uBlock Origin and the underlying filter lists are available under a permissive license, what's the point behind developing & maintaining your own (inferior) implementation?

INTPenis 5y ago
So which browser do you prefer?
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I run Safari & Firefox. FF is still the "least bad" choice but I'm still not happy that I have to fix it by installing an add-on where that add-on (or at least the core parts of it such as filter lists) are licensed in a way that would allow the browser to have this fix out of the box.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
lolrepeatlol 5y ago
You have to realize Mozilla does not have the marketshare to do this. Most of the web relies on ads, and since uBlock Origin blocks them, there would be no incentive for those sites to support Firefox. Even if you just blocked trackers (as does ETP Strict Mode), many ads get blocked because those ads bundle tracking code within them. This, again, would cause there to be little to no incentive for most website owners to support Firefox. What Mozilla is currently doing makes sense. They are being lax on the standard setting so that websites can still make ad revenue and have an incentive to support the browser. If Firefox had a lot more marketshare, it might have been possible that this could slide.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Outside of media heavy applications such as video conferencing software, do websites explicitly do specific things to “support” Firefox beyond complying with the specs? > many ads get blocked because those ads bundle tracking code within them uBlock filter lists can provide fallback shims that would be loaded in place of ad scripts to deal with this exact problem. The shim implements a neutered version of the original script so that all the surrounding (non-malicious) code can continue to run without errors.
  - lolrepeatlol 5y ago
    > Outside of media heavy applications such as video conferencing software, do websites explicitly do specific things to “support” Firefox beyond complying with the specs? You'd be surprised. Apple Business Manager does not support Firefox, for example. > uBlock filter lists can provide fallback shims that would be loaded in place of ad scripts to deal with this exact problem. The shim implements a neutered version of the original script so that all the surrounding (non-malicious) code can continue to run without errors. My point was that ads were being accidentally blocked and that websites wouldn't get their ad revenue.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      > My point was that ads were being accidentally blocked and that websites wouldn't get their ad revenue. Blocking ads would be the point - ads are malware.
- apostacy 5y ago
  I would assert that the exact opposite is true. Taking a strong stand in favor of users would increase their market share. Over a decade ago, one of the best things that Firefox did to compete against IE6 was to include a built in popup blocker that was on by default. Exactly the same criticisms were made. It was called irresponsible and disruptive, since so much revenue came from popups, and horrible flash-based full screen pop-under ads. But I am glad that Firefox didn't let the pleas of the established market prevent them from siding with users.