3 ms·

Another Mozilla PR piece regarding "privacy"... let me see, did they finally bundle (or reimplement) uBlock Origin as a standard feature of the browser? No. Did

Another Mozilla PR piece regarding "privacy"... let me see, did they finally bundle (or reimplement) uBlock Origin as a standard feature of the browser? No. Did they make telemetry opt-in as required per the GDPR? No. Did they stop opening Mozilla webpages on first run which contain Google Analytics (also in breach of the GDPR)? No. Snark aside, this change (for once!) does have some benefits. Tracking using IP address & user-agent alone is pretty strong regardless of cookies/etc and can't be completely blocked client-side when you do need to load the requested resource (such as browsing the malicious website, or third-party websites using Google Fonts/ReCaptcha/etc), so containing these within their own VPN, separate from other browsing activity is an effective countermeasure.

james-redwood 5y ago
They derive nearly 90% of their revenue from allowing Google to be the default search engine. Default uBlock is an impossibility. If you’d like Firefox with that feature, try the LibreWolf fork.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  That doesn't prevent me from calling them out on their bullshit. You want to make money from ads? Fine, but don't go around shouting "PRIVACY" at every possible opportunity and giving people a false sense of security.
probably_wrong 5y ago
While I agree with most of your points, I don't want Firefox to implement uBlock Origin. Should Firefox prioritize compatibility with it? Yes. Should the uBlock Origin developers have the personal cell phone of Mozilla's CTO? Also yes. But there's nothing to be gained from absorbing it, and all we'll get is more bureaucracy. If anything, I'd like Firefox to focus more on their core product, not less.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  My argument is that Firefox should have functionality equivalent to uBlock Origin by default, so that less tech-savvy users who install the "privacy" focused browser actually get some without having to browse for extra add-ons and potentially install an inferior or outright malicious option.
  - sciurus 5y ago
    > My argument is that Firefox should have functionality equivalent to uBlock Origin by default It largely does. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...
  - echelon 5y ago
    That'll cause Firefox to get blacklisted by a large number of websites. It doesn't take much for a website to determine that the Firefox user agent (or detectable fingerprint) results in zero advertising ROI. They'll block it outright and ask you to use Chrome. Then Chrome wins.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      Then you pretend to be Chrome, which you should do anyway to defeat fingerprinting.
      - echelon 5y ago
        Outside of running the Chrome process itself, you can't defeat fingerprinting. Even headless use can be detected.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
j1elo 5y ago
Maybe not integrating it, but allowing uBlock Origin to use Firefox Sync and sync filter lists and other settings would be very useful on Firefox for Android: * https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Cloud-storage#firefox-browsers https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Cloud-storage#firefox... > Firefox for Android can't sync extensions settings. This is tracked in Bugzilla #1316442. * https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1316442 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1316442

james-redwood 5y ago

They derive nearly 90% of their revenue from allowing Google to be the default search engine. Default uBlock is an impossibility. If you’d like Firefox with that feature, try the LibreWolf fork.

Nextgrid 5y ago
That doesn't prevent me from calling them out on their bullshit. You want to make money from ads? Fine, but don't go around shouting "PRIVACY" at every possible opportunity and giving people a false sense of security.

probably_wrong 5y ago

While I agree with most of your points, I don't want Firefox to implement uBlock Origin. Should Firefox prioritize compatibility with it? Yes. Should the uBlock Origin developers have the personal cell phone of Mozilla's CTO? Also yes. But there's nothing to be gained from absorbing it, and all we'll get is more bureaucracy. If anything, I'd like Firefox to focus more on their core product, not less.

Nextgrid 5y ago
My argument is that Firefox should have functionality equivalent to uBlock Origin by default, so that less tech-savvy users who install the "privacy" focused browser actually get some without having to browse for extra add-ons and potentially install an inferior or outright malicious option.
- sciurus 5y ago
  > My argument is that Firefox should have functionality equivalent to uBlock Origin by default It largely does. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...
- echelon 5y ago
  That'll cause Firefox to get blacklisted by a large number of websites. It doesn't take much for a website to determine that the Firefox user agent (or detectable fingerprint) results in zero advertising ROI. They'll block it outright and ask you to use Chrome. Then Chrome wins.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    Then you pretend to be Chrome, which you should do anyway to defeat fingerprinting.
    - echelon 5y ago
      Outside of running the Chrome process itself, you can't defeat fingerprinting. Even headless use can be detected.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

j1elo 5y ago

Maybe not integrating it, but allowing uBlock Origin to use Firefox Sync and sync filter lists and other settings would be very useful on Firefox for Android: * https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Cloud-storage#firefox-browsers https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Cloud-storage#firefox... > Firefox for Android can't sync extensions settings. This is tracked in Bugzilla #1316442. * https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1316442 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1316442