4 ms·

> the ad industry is not going away That's the start of full blown stockholm syndrome. No data is ever fully anonymous, don't pretend otherwise. So no data sh

by consp 2y ago

> the ad industry is not going away That's the start of full blown stockholm syndrome. No data is ever fully anonymous, don't pretend otherwise. So no data should be send at all.

Klonoar 2y ago
What you call Stockholm syndrome, I call reality. ;P This is an area that we are stuck contending with. Legal solutions are needed here but that path is mired by complex and powerful lobbying. If Mozilla can push for a more private or more protective - even if not fully private or fully protective - then I’d like to see where it goes.
- freeone3000 2y ago
  Or they could just not do this shit. Completely refuse to help your enemies. Actually support their users.
  - Barrin92 2y ago
    Firefox has 3% market share. Completely refusing to engage with your enemies only works when you have the actual guns to back that attitude up. If you refuse to engage with the ad industry they just ignore you. Oh and the company that owns a large part of the world's ad industry and owns the browser that has 65% market share also pays like 90% of your bills. I mean, what's step two of your glorious plan to charge fists raised into battle?
    - nubinetwork 2y ago
      Maybe they would have a better market share if they weren't constantly pulling this shit every two or three years...
      - lucianbr 2y ago
        I know it feels right to say that. But really, do you think the majority of people who switched from Firefox to Chrome did it because FF did not address their privacy concerns? Seems ridiculous. However bad FF is, Chrome is much worse. It seems far more likely that the remaining 3% are the few people who care, and therefore, "pulling this shit" did not cause the current market share.
        freeone3000 2y ago
        Which means the people who care about privacy are their CORE market. You do not offend your core market. I’m not a business expert but c’mon. I’m willing to put up with slowness and incompatability when I feel like firefox is on my side. Now? I’m going back to Safari.
      - jasondozell 2y ago
        As if… Firefox’s popularity and then decline stems from consumer perceptions of functionality and general availability (i.e. marketing)
    - closewith 2y ago
      Firefox playing their game makes Firefox completely redundant. The advertisers get your data either way, so why not use Chrome? Firefox compromising heralds its own irrelevance.
      - gjm11 2y ago
        > The advertisers get your data either way, so why not use Chrome? You might believe that the advertisers get less of your data if you use Firefox. Similarly: you might be less likely to have your house burgled if there are locks on the doors and a burglar alarm, even though people with those things still get burgled sometimes. You might be less cold outdoors in winter if you wear a parka, even though it's still cold. You might be less bored if you buy/rent/stream some interesting books, music and movies, even though having those doesn't guarantee never being bored. You might be less likely to lose your next chess game if you practice tactics and learn openings, even though you'll still lose if you play Magnus Carlsen. You might be less likely to have a heart attack or stroke if you take those antihypertensives the doctor prescribed you, even though those are still tragically things that can happen to anyone. Etc., etc., etc. Very few things are absolute and perfect. It's usually a matter of "less" versus "more". This latest thing gives advertisers more information about me than they would have if Firefox didn't do it. (Unless I turn it off, which in fact I have done.) It doesn't give them very much information about me. I'm pretty sure they would get much more information about me if I switched to using Chrome (e.g., because Firefox supports better adblockers). For the avoidance of doubt, I do think Mozilla should have made more noise about what they were doing, I do think there's a repeated pattern of them putting things into Firefox that their users don't really want and hoping no one will notice[1], I do think that says something bad about how Mozilla is run, and I would be happier if the Firefox project were run by people less inclined to do such things. But none of that means that you might as well use Chrome instead of Firefox, if you happen to value the things that Firefox still does better than Chrome. [1] Actually, I think they know perfectly well that some users will notice, and they've decided it's overall better PR to do the thing quietly, wait for people to complain, and then say "oh, whoops, we should have been more open about this, we're so sorry and will totally not do the same thing again in six months".
        2y ago
    - account42 2y ago
      Actually it's the other way around. As long as Firefox only has a negligible market share, advertisers are not going to care about it enough to work around Firefox-exclusive tracking protection forever. Regulators are also not going to be concerned that Firefox makes certain business models harder because it is insignificant.

by consp 2y ago

> the ad industry is not going away That's the start of full blown stockholm syndrome. No data is ever fully anonymous, don't pretend otherwise. So no data should be send at all.

Klonoar 2y ago

What you call Stockholm syndrome, I call reality. ;P This is an area that we are stuck contending with. Legal solutions are needed here but that path is mired by complex and powerful lobbying. If Mozilla can push for a more private or more protective - even if not fully private or fully protective - then I’d like to see where it goes.

freeone3000 2y ago
Or they could just not do this shit. Completely refuse to help your enemies. Actually support their users.
- Barrin92 2y ago
  Firefox has 3% market share. Completely refusing to engage with your enemies only works when you have the actual guns to back that attitude up. If you refuse to engage with the ad industry they just ignore you. Oh and the company that owns a large part of the world's ad industry and owns the browser that has 65% market share also pays like 90% of your bills. I mean, what's step two of your glorious plan to charge fists raised into battle?
  - nubinetwork 2y ago
    Maybe they would have a better market share if they weren't constantly pulling this shit every two or three years...
    - lucianbr 2y ago
      I know it feels right to say that. But really, do you think the majority of people who switched from Firefox to Chrome did it because FF did not address their privacy concerns? Seems ridiculous. However bad FF is, Chrome is much worse. It seems far more likely that the remaining 3% are the few people who care, and therefore, "pulling this shit" did not cause the current market share.
      - freeone3000 2y ago
        Which means the people who care about privacy are their CORE market. You do not offend your core market. I’m not a business expert but c’mon. I’m willing to put up with slowness and incompatability when I feel like firefox is on my side. Now? I’m going back to Safari.
    - jasondozell 2y ago
      As if… Firefox’s popularity and then decline stems from consumer perceptions of functionality and general availability (i.e. marketing)
  - closewith 2y ago
    Firefox playing their game makes Firefox completely redundant. The advertisers get your data either way, so why not use Chrome? Firefox compromising heralds its own irrelevance.
    - gjm11 2y ago
      > The advertisers get your data either way, so why not use Chrome? You might believe that the advertisers get less of your data if you use Firefox. Similarly: you might be less likely to have your house burgled if there are locks on the doors and a burglar alarm, even though people with those things still get burgled sometimes. You might be less cold outdoors in winter if you wear a parka, even though it's still cold. You might be less bored if you buy/rent/stream some interesting books, music and movies, even though having those doesn't guarantee never being bored. You might be less likely to lose your next chess game if you practice tactics and learn openings, even though you'll still lose if you play Magnus Carlsen. You might be less likely to have a heart attack or stroke if you take those antihypertensives the doctor prescribed you, even though those are still tragically things that can happen to anyone. Etc., etc., etc. Very few things are absolute and perfect. It's usually a matter of "less" versus "more". This latest thing gives advertisers more information about me than they would have if Firefox didn't do it. (Unless I turn it off, which in fact I have done.) It doesn't give them very much information about me. I'm pretty sure they would get much more information about me if I switched to using Chrome (e.g., because Firefox supports better adblockers). For the avoidance of doubt, I do think Mozilla should have made more noise about what they were doing, I do think there's a repeated pattern of them putting things into Firefox that their users don't really want and hoping no one will notice[1], I do think that says something bad about how Mozilla is run, and I would be happier if the Firefox project were run by people less inclined to do such things. But none of that means that you might as well use Chrome instead of Firefox, if you happen to value the things that Firefox still does better than Chrome. [1] Actually, I think they know perfectly well that some users will notice, and they've decided it's overall better PR to do the thing quietly, wait for people to complain, and then say "oh, whoops, we should have been more open about this, we're so sorry and will totally not do the same thing again in six months".
      - 2y ago
  - account42 2y ago
    Actually it's the other way around. As long as Firefox only has a negligible market share, advertisers are not going to care about it enough to work around Firefox-exclusive tracking protection forever. Regulators are also not going to be concerned that Firefox makes certain business models harder because it is insignificant.