6 ms·

> Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take user's side and do not cooperate with marketing companies Browsers were supposed to act as agents working

> Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take user's side and do not cooperate with marketing companies Browsers were supposed to act as agents working for the user. User-agents. These days it's getting harder and harder to find a browser that doesn't work for an ad company at the expense of the user. Chrome's entire reason for existing is data collection. Firefox can, for now at least, be hardened to work for the user (and prevent a lot of fingerprinting), but Mozilla is an ad-tech company too now. They've made their lack of respect for Firefox users clear by making Firefox spy on users by default so that Mozilla can sell that data to marketers. Currently, you can disable that spying in about:config by setting dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled to false (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41311479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41311479 and also https://web.archive.org/web/20240827185708/https://make-firefox-private-again.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240827185708/https://make-fire...). No idea how long that will continue to be an option or how often you'll have to go back and reset that back to false following updates though. We really need a new browser that actually works in the interest of the users.

AyyEye 2y ago
Mozilla is a Google vassal and nothing more. Google analytics? Check. Firefox Safebrowsing sending your private tab traffic to google? Of course! https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox Mozilla only has their Google billion$ in mind, not you. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/articles/mozilla https://digdeeper.neocities.org/articles/mozilla
- dheera 2y ago
  > Google analytics? Check. Add this to /etc/hosts 0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com 0.0.0.0 google-analytics.com 0.0.0.0 ssl.google-analytics.com
  - tommica 2y ago
    Is it as simple as this?
    - dogecoinbase 2y ago
      Unfortunately no. The entire point of DoH is to bypass the ability of the users to prevent browsers from providing browsing habits to their owners.
      - bluejekyll 2y ago
        No, that is not the entire point of DoH. That’s like saying the entire point of TLS is to prevent users from looking at the traffic being sent to a website. DNS without DoH, DoT, or DoQ, is wide open to anyone snooping traffic in the raw, that’s not necessarily information you want to share with the world.
        autoexec 2y ago
        Which (for people not handing all of their DNS traffic over to google anyway) usually just means that their ISP can see their DNS traffic which is kind of a moot point because your ISP can see the domains you go to even with DoH. If somebody is on your local network capturing packets or they've cracked your wifi you've got bigger problems than your DNS leaking a list of domains. They'll also see the IP of every server you visit online anyway The way DoH is implemented usually means that all of your DNS traffic is collected by some third party for-profit corporation like cloudflare anyway (who admittedly will already know most of the domains you visit anyway because of how often cloudflare's IP space is where DNS will point you). There really aren't any good options for DNS and privacy, just a lot of compromises. Host your own. Or, if your ISP is trustworthy, you might be better off using what they provide. The DNS traffic between you and your ISP's servers should never leave their network.
        unethical_ban 2y ago
        ISPs seeing the domains of user traffic is not a given. And DoH is a step toward mitigating that. People were setting their DNS resolver to custom values before DoH. I agree that DoH would ideally be enabled at the OS level, or that the browser flow would default to still checking host file before sending out the query.
  - jhpacker 2y ago
    With GA4, the tracker code is loaded from www.googletagmanager.com (even if the tag isn't loaded via a GTM container). The measurement requests can be sent to (region1|www).google-analytics.com or analytics.google.com (to share cookies with Google login better).
  - _Algernon_ 2y ago
    Firefox doesn't respect hosts by default. An about:config option needs to be toggled for this to work.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Fascinating. I wonder what the history is of Firefox deciding to ignore hosts? Hosts has been standard since the early days of the Internet.
- willywanker 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - autoexec 2y ago
    I think it's the tone of the site that turns people off. I'm sympathetic to the message, and I love a simple website without JS and trackers, but I have to admit that design wise it's a little reminiscent of some of the websites made by schizophrenics. Whoever that creator is it looks like they've even missed some things too. I didn't see anything about the Mr Robot fiasco, or that one time they pushed a pop up ad at everyone and then, after the backlash, told the firefox users who were upset about it to add a line to about:config that would only disable the one ad they'd already clicked past: browser.vpn_promo.enabled = true Keeping the door open for using browser.whatever_else_promo.enabled later on I guess.
    - willywanker 2y ago
      He's moved the URL here - the site continues to be updated - https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml True, no mention of Mr. Robot though I'd say that was minor compared to whatever else they've been pulling off.
kilolima 2y ago
I just switched to Libre Wolf, seems like a pretty good Firefox replacement but without the malware.
rpastuszak 2y ago
> but Mozilla is an ad-tech company too now. The recent events related to FF are not that much of a shift, considering that Google pays $20B per annum to its (technically non-ad tech) partners, then 85% of Mozilla's total revenue comes from its partnership with Google. That ship had sailed long time ago. https://untested.sonnet.io/Defaults+Matter%2C+Don't+Assume+Consent https://untested.sonnet.io/Defaults+Matter%2C+Don't+Assume+C...
- autoexec 2y ago
  Firefox really has been going downhill for a long time. Forcing Pocket into the browser, the ad infested new tab page, telemetry, making user accounts a thing, force installing TV show promotions, etc. What they haven't done before is spend a fortune buying up an ad-tech start up. They barely even bother to maintain a pretense that they care about Firefox users. They basically came right out and said "We know that users don't want this, we can't convince them to, so we were right to force it on them by default and just hope most people don't notice and start complaining" (https://cdn.adtidy.org/blog/new/2wffyscreen_mozilla.png?mw=1360 https://cdn.adtidy.org/blog/new/2wffyscreen_mozilla.png?mw=1...)
  - bad_user 2y ago
    > Forcing Pocket into the browser Fun fact: by subscribing to Pocket, you're directly contributing to Firefox's development. Mozilla found itself in a situation of damned if they do, damned if they don't. People scream at them for depending on Google, and then they scream at them for trying to diversify their revenue. Nobody wants to pay for a browser, browsers are essentially incredibly complex nowadays, and I have yet to hear how in the world are browsers supposed to get funding. And of course they want to cater to advertisers because it is advertising that maintains the open web, and it is advertising that is paying for all browser development, actually, including Safari. And the open web is also dying, because people have been moving to mobile apps, where all pretence that "the user agent must act on your behalf" is gone. In other words, even if you get what you wish for, in a couple of years it may not matter at all.
    - 2y ago
cyanydeez 2y ago
Power balance is how relationships always evolve. Browsers are basically politicians at this point and they are easily swayed by the power of the dollar and have varying degrees of requirements to side with the users. Google, of course, has rammed chrome into it's primary place.
ineptech 2y ago
> Mozilla is an ad-tech company too now. I'm sorry, this seems egregious. I agree that it should've been off by default but I challenge anyone to read how the implementation works (not just the blog post and the FUD responses to it) before calling it a giveaway to the ad industry: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experime... FF is currently a key tool in the fight to avoid a Google-top-to-bottom future, and before we start the meme that it's gone to shit we should be really really sure that's actually true.
- axolotlgod 2y ago
  It really is disheartening to see so many technically-inclined people berate the one browser that is preventing Apple/Google hegemony. The expectations set upon Mozilla and Firefox are so unrealistic it's laughable. Firefox is rock solid, open-source, backed by a great organization (which has recently reinvested additional resources in it) and a joy to use imo. Also, the levels of vitriol that even the slightest bit of anonymous telemetry incurs is unhelpful and I encourage people who hold that viewpoint to really interrogate it.
  - codedokode 2y ago
    While Firefox is great, they should not sell their userbase to Facebook with such proposals. If ad companies want to know about ad effectiveness, they must pay the users for collecting the data, not collect it for free without asking the user.
- autoexec 2y ago
  Ultimately, the problem is that entire premise is deeply offensive. I do not want my browsing history being monitored, collected, sent to third parties, and sold to marketers in any form period. I do not want a browser using my data in any way to support surveillance capitalism. The implementation is just FLoC/Topics API all over again and it's still not compelling. The first kick in the teeth comes right at the start where the entire thing is predicated on data gathered from having an ad shoved in your face. > At impression time, information about an advertisement is saved by the browser in a write-only store. This includes an identifier for the ad and whether this was an ad view or an ad click. I do not want ads. Ever. Like many (likely most) firefox users, I go to some lengths to prevent them from showing up in any form. Now that firefox is going to be profiting directly off of firefox users seeing and clicking on ads they will certainly degrade our ability to prevent them. It then involves sending my data to third parties so that it can be aggregated. Then my browsing has to be monitored to identify conversion events. None of this is acceptable. Here's what their Cookie Monster paper says: > User perspective. Ann browses various publisher sites that provide content she is interested in, such as nytimes.com and facebook.com. Ann does not mind seeing relevant advertising, understanding that it funds the free content she enjoys. I am not Ann. I very much mind seeing advertising, relevant or not. I do not understand that if funds "free content" I enjoy. If I need to be exploited to pay for something, that thing it isn't "free" and if it's infested with ads I do not enjoy it. The entire thing is based on a fantasy where users find this acceptable. We don't and it isn't. If we did, we'd probably all just be using chrome. > FF is currently a key tool in the fight to avoid a Google-top-to-bottom future Why should we care if Firefox isn't Google if both are just going to exploit us?
crooked-v 2y ago
Safari does a decent job of that, especially with Apple pushing an increasing number of privacy features by default. Of course, that comes with it being as a feature of an expensive hardware ecosystem, rather than an independent product.
sebazzz 2y ago
> Firefox can, for now at least, be hardened to work for the user (and prevent a lot of fingerprinting), but Mozilla is an ad-tech company too now. That still isn’t a great reason to then keep using the even worse option, being Chrome, instead.

AyyEye 2y ago

Mozilla is a Google vassal and nothing more. Google analytics? Check. Firefox Safebrowsing sending your private tab traffic to google? Of course! https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox Mozilla only has their Google billion$ in mind, not you. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/articles/mozilla https://digdeeper.neocities.org/articles/mozilla

dheera 2y ago
> Google analytics? Check. Add this to /etc/hosts 0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com 0.0.0.0 google-analytics.com 0.0.0.0 ssl.google-analytics.com
- tommica 2y ago
  Is it as simple as this?
  - dogecoinbase 2y ago
    Unfortunately no. The entire point of DoH is to bypass the ability of the users to prevent browsers from providing browsing habits to their owners.
    - bluejekyll 2y ago
      No, that is not the entire point of DoH. That’s like saying the entire point of TLS is to prevent users from looking at the traffic being sent to a website. DNS without DoH, DoT, or DoQ, is wide open to anyone snooping traffic in the raw, that’s not necessarily information you want to share with the world.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        Which (for people not handing all of their DNS traffic over to google anyway) usually just means that their ISP can see their DNS traffic which is kind of a moot point because your ISP can see the domains you go to even with DoH. If somebody is on your local network capturing packets or they've cracked your wifi you've got bigger problems than your DNS leaking a list of domains. They'll also see the IP of every server you visit online anyway The way DoH is implemented usually means that all of your DNS traffic is collected by some third party for-profit corporation like cloudflare anyway (who admittedly will already know most of the domains you visit anyway because of how often cloudflare's IP space is where DNS will point you). There really aren't any good options for DNS and privacy, just a lot of compromises. Host your own. Or, if your ISP is trustworthy, you might be better off using what they provide. The DNS traffic between you and your ISP's servers should never leave their network.
        unethical_ban 2y ago
        ISPs seeing the domains of user traffic is not a given. And DoH is a step toward mitigating that. People were setting their DNS resolver to custom values before DoH. I agree that DoH would ideally be enabled at the OS level, or that the browser flow would default to still checking host file before sending out the query.
- jhpacker 2y ago
  With GA4, the tracker code is loaded from www.googletagmanager.com (even if the tag isn't loaded via a GTM container). The measurement requests can be sent to (region1|www).google-analytics.com or analytics.google.com (to share cookies with Google login better).
- _Algernon_ 2y ago
  Firefox doesn't respect hosts by default. An about:config option needs to be toggled for this to work.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Fascinating. I wonder what the history is of Firefox deciding to ignore hosts? Hosts has been standard since the early days of the Internet.
willywanker 2y ago
[flagged]
- autoexec 2y ago
  I think it's the tone of the site that turns people off. I'm sympathetic to the message, and I love a simple website without JS and trackers, but I have to admit that design wise it's a little reminiscent of some of the websites made by schizophrenics. Whoever that creator is it looks like they've even missed some things too. I didn't see anything about the Mr Robot fiasco, or that one time they pushed a pop up ad at everyone and then, after the backlash, told the firefox users who were upset about it to add a line to about:config that would only disable the one ad they'd already clicked past: browser.vpn_promo.enabled = true Keeping the door open for using browser.whatever_else_promo.enabled later on I guess.
  - willywanker 2y ago
    He's moved the URL here - the site continues to be updated - https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml True, no mention of Mr. Robot though I'd say that was minor compared to whatever else they've been pulling off.

kilolima 2y ago

I just switched to Libre Wolf, seems like a pretty good Firefox replacement but without the malware.

rpastuszak 2y ago

> but Mozilla is an ad-tech company too now. The recent events related to FF are not that much of a shift, considering that Google pays $20B per annum to its (technically non-ad tech) partners, then 85% of Mozilla's total revenue comes from its partnership with Google. That ship had sailed long time ago. https://untested.sonnet.io/Defaults+Matter%2C+Don't+Assume+Consent https://untested.sonnet.io/Defaults+Matter%2C+Don't+Assume+C...

autoexec 2y ago
Firefox really has been going downhill for a long time. Forcing Pocket into the browser, the ad infested new tab page, telemetry, making user accounts a thing, force installing TV show promotions, etc. What they haven't done before is spend a fortune buying up an ad-tech start up. They barely even bother to maintain a pretense that they care about Firefox users. They basically came right out and said "We know that users don't want this, we can't convince them to, so we were right to force it on them by default and just hope most people don't notice and start complaining" (https://cdn.adtidy.org/blog/new/2wffyscreen_mozilla.png?mw=1360 https://cdn.adtidy.org/blog/new/2wffyscreen_mozilla.png?mw=1...)
- bad_user 2y ago
  > Forcing Pocket into the browser Fun fact: by subscribing to Pocket, you're directly contributing to Firefox's development. Mozilla found itself in a situation of damned if they do, damned if they don't. People scream at them for depending on Google, and then they scream at them for trying to diversify their revenue. Nobody wants to pay for a browser, browsers are essentially incredibly complex nowadays, and I have yet to hear how in the world are browsers supposed to get funding. And of course they want to cater to advertisers because it is advertising that maintains the open web, and it is advertising that is paying for all browser development, actually, including Safari. And the open web is also dying, because people have been moving to mobile apps, where all pretence that "the user agent must act on your behalf" is gone. In other words, even if you get what you wish for, in a couple of years it may not matter at all.
  - 2y ago

cyanydeez 2y ago

Power balance is how relationships always evolve. Browsers are basically politicians at this point and they are easily swayed by the power of the dollar and have varying degrees of requirements to side with the users. Google, of course, has rammed chrome into it's primary place.

ineptech 2y ago

> Mozilla is an ad-tech company too now. I'm sorry, this seems egregious. I agree that it should've been off by default but I challenge anyone to read how the implementation works (not just the blog post and the FUD responses to it) before calling it a giveaway to the ad industry: https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experime... FF is currently a key tool in the fight to avoid a Google-top-to-bottom future, and before we start the meme that it's gone to shit we should be really really sure that's actually true.

axolotlgod 2y ago
It really is disheartening to see so many technically-inclined people berate the one browser that is preventing Apple/Google hegemony. The expectations set upon Mozilla and Firefox are so unrealistic it's laughable. Firefox is rock solid, open-source, backed by a great organization (which has recently reinvested additional resources in it) and a joy to use imo. Also, the levels of vitriol that even the slightest bit of anonymous telemetry incurs is unhelpful and I encourage people who hold that viewpoint to really interrogate it.
- codedokode 2y ago
  While Firefox is great, they should not sell their userbase to Facebook with such proposals. If ad companies want to know about ad effectiveness, they must pay the users for collecting the data, not collect it for free without asking the user.
autoexec 2y ago
Ultimately, the problem is that entire premise is deeply offensive. I do not want my browsing history being monitored, collected, sent to third parties, and sold to marketers in any form period. I do not want a browser using my data in any way to support surveillance capitalism. The implementation is just FLoC/Topics API all over again and it's still not compelling. The first kick in the teeth comes right at the start where the entire thing is predicated on data gathered from having an ad shoved in your face. > At impression time, information about an advertisement is saved by the browser in a write-only store. This includes an identifier for the ad and whether this was an ad view or an ad click. I do not want ads. Ever. Like many (likely most) firefox users, I go to some lengths to prevent them from showing up in any form. Now that firefox is going to be profiting directly off of firefox users seeing and clicking on ads they will certainly degrade our ability to prevent them. It then involves sending my data to third parties so that it can be aggregated. Then my browsing has to be monitored to identify conversion events. None of this is acceptable. Here's what their Cookie Monster paper says: > User perspective. Ann browses various publisher sites that provide content she is interested in, such as nytimes.com and facebook.com. Ann does not mind seeing relevant advertising, understanding that it funds the free content she enjoys. I am not Ann. I very much mind seeing advertising, relevant or not. I do not understand that if funds "free content" I enjoy. If I need to be exploited to pay for something, that thing it isn't "free" and if it's infested with ads I do not enjoy it. The entire thing is based on a fantasy where users find this acceptable. We don't and it isn't. If we did, we'd probably all just be using chrome. > FF is currently a key tool in the fight to avoid a Google-top-to-bottom future Why should we care if Firefox isn't Google if both are just going to exploit us?

crooked-v 2y ago

Safari does a decent job of that, especially with Apple pushing an increasing number of privacy features by default. Of course, that comes with it being as a feature of an expensive hardware ecosystem, rather than an independent product.

sebazzz 2y ago

> Firefox can, for now at least, be hardened to work for the user (and prevent a lot of fingerprinting), but Mozilla is an ad-tech company too now. That still isn’t a great reason to then keep using the even worse option, being Chrome, instead.