4 ms·

I realize it's an ad hominem, but I'm surprised Gruber didn't further emphasize the fact that Battelle runs an ad network. Of course it's in his best interest t

I realize it's an ad hominem, but I'm surprised Gruber didn't further emphasize the fact that Battelle runs an ad network. Of course it's in his best interest to be able to set 3rd-party cookies. Understanding that puts Battelle's argument in a different light. Given that Mozilla claims they "fight for the users," is there a reason Firefox doesn't also default to only allowing first-party cookies? (Perhaps it has something to do with the massive deal with Google that represents 90% of their revenues?)

ootachi 15y ago
There is an article on how to do it: http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Disabling%20third%20party%20cookies http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Disabling%20third%20part... It mentions: "Some websites (e.g. Microsoft's Hotmail, MSN, and Windows Live Mail webmail) use third-party cookies for purposes that are not necessarily privacy concerns, and disabling third-party cookies may cause problems with those sites." That's probably the reason.
- bstar77 15y ago
  I'm guessing that MS is using the cookie for a purpose that it was not intended for. That's not to say it's inappropriate, but it's up to them to understand the risks and make sure the app works in both states.
- shhantaram 15y ago
  Google who is mozillas 90% income is not mentioned but ms is the examples to make them look bad..sleazy at best
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Have you read it? They're saying that some websites use them for purposes that are not privacy concerns. As long as Google doesn't do this - by which I mean, as long as they only use third-party cookies for tracking - they're irrelevant, because Mozilla would shut them down anyway. It's only sleazy if you see it as an attack and not a simple explanation.
- Tloewald 15y ago
  May cause? Not necessarily? Seriously? Anyone with third party cookies disabled ever had a problem with a web mail service? Mozilla is willing to break html5 video for all intents and purposes because h264 isn't open enough (but this oddly helps Google) and allow third party cookies by default of reasons that make no sense (but this oddly helps Google) and it gets it's money from... Oh that's weird.
huggyface 15y ago
but I'm surprised Gruber didn't further emphasize the fact that Battelle runs an ad network Everyone has an agenda. Gruber is an very pro-Apple/anti-Google advocate. He could also be credibly classified as anti-web (where the argument suits his prior agenda. As I'm sure many will call shenanigans, I could happily reference at least a dozen examples of his misinformed anti-web sentiment). Did Gruber declare any of that in his observations? Did the submitter? Given that Mozilla claims they "fight for the users," is there a reason Firefox doesn't also default to only allowing first-party cookies? To most people the benefit of third-party cookies outweighs the detriments. Outside of the functional benefits, the economic foundation of most of the content that people rely upon depends upon third-party cookies. Firefox isn't an irrational group. They realize that undermining the platform doesn't do much for their users. Apple, on the other hand, has no advantage helping the economic cause of the web as a whole. Quite the opposite, in fact. Which is how they chose a default that is contrary to every other web vendor. If you want to monetize users you'll just need to wrap that HTML up into a WebView and submit it to the app store -- be sure to add some iAd support.
othermaciej 15y ago
The third party cookie blocking in Firefox is different from the feature available in Safari. Safari's policy is designed to block third-party cookies unless you already have a first-party relationship with the site. So, unless circumvented, it will block ad networks from tracking you but won't prevent things like the Facebook "like" button from working. The Firefox policy will prevent use of third-party cookies always, even for sites where you have a pre-existing relationship. The Safari policy was designed to pick a tradeoff of privacy vs. compatibility that would let it be enabled by default. Since most users never change default settings, this arguably gives more privacy benefit to the typical user, at the expense of a bit more control for experts. Side note: the Chrome third-party cookie blocking setting behaves roughly the same as that in Safari, but is not on by default, so it has less privacy impact than either the Safari or Firefox approaches.

ootachi 15y ago

There is an article on how to do it: http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Disabling%20third%20party%20cookies http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Disabling%20third%20part... It mentions: "Some websites (e.g. Microsoft's Hotmail, MSN, and Windows Live Mail webmail) use third-party cookies for purposes that are not necessarily privacy concerns, and disabling third-party cookies may cause problems with those sites." That's probably the reason.

bstar77 15y ago
I'm guessing that MS is using the cookie for a purpose that it was not intended for. That's not to say it's inappropriate, but it's up to them to understand the risks and make sure the app works in both states.
shhantaram 15y ago
Google who is mozillas 90% income is not mentioned but ms is the examples to make them look bad..sleazy at best
- icebraining 15y ago
  Have you read it? They're saying that some websites use them for purposes that are not privacy concerns. As long as Google doesn't do this - by which I mean, as long as they only use third-party cookies for tracking - they're irrelevant, because Mozilla would shut them down anyway. It's only sleazy if you see it as an attack and not a simple explanation.
Tloewald 15y ago
May cause? Not necessarily? Seriously? Anyone with third party cookies disabled ever had a problem with a web mail service? Mozilla is willing to break html5 video for all intents and purposes because h264 isn't open enough (but this oddly helps Google) and allow third party cookies by default of reasons that make no sense (but this oddly helps Google) and it gets it's money from... Oh that's weird.

huggyface 15y ago

but I'm surprised Gruber didn't further emphasize the fact that Battelle runs an ad network Everyone has an agenda. Gruber is an very pro-Apple/anti-Google advocate. He could also be credibly classified as anti-web (where the argument suits his prior agenda. As I'm sure many will call shenanigans, I could happily reference at least a dozen examples of his misinformed anti-web sentiment). Did Gruber declare any of that in his observations? Did the submitter? Given that Mozilla claims they "fight for the users," is there a reason Firefox doesn't also default to only allowing first-party cookies? To most people the benefit of third-party cookies outweighs the detriments. Outside of the functional benefits, the economic foundation of most of the content that people rely upon depends upon third-party cookies. Firefox isn't an irrational group. They realize that undermining the platform doesn't do much for their users. Apple, on the other hand, has no advantage helping the economic cause of the web as a whole. Quite the opposite, in fact. Which is how they chose a default that is contrary to every other web vendor. If you want to monetize users you'll just need to wrap that HTML up into a WebView and submit it to the app store -- be sure to add some iAd support.

othermaciej 15y ago

The third party cookie blocking in Firefox is different from the feature available in Safari. Safari's policy is designed to block third-party cookies unless you already have a first-party relationship with the site. So, unless circumvented, it will block ad networks from tracking you but won't prevent things like the Facebook "like" button from working. The Firefox policy will prevent use of third-party cookies always, even for sites where you have a pre-existing relationship. The Safari policy was designed to pick a tradeoff of privacy vs. compatibility that would let it be enabled by default. Since most users never change default settings, this arguably gives more privacy benefit to the typical user, at the expense of a bit more control for experts. Side note: the Chrome third-party cookie blocking setting behaves roughly the same as that in Safari, but is not on by default, so it has less privacy impact than either the Safari or Firefox approaches.