4 ms·

Honestly yes > To make matters worse, Mozilla has turned on its “privacy preserving attribution” by default. Users have not been informed about this move, nor

Honestly yes > To make matters worse, Mozilla has turned on its “privacy preserving attribution” by default. Users have not been informed about this move, nor have they been asked for their consent to be tracked by Firefox. So more privacy by default is bad? What kind of inverted logic is that? > If killing PPA meant the internet would suddenly be advertising free, I would be 110% on board, but that's not going to happen. Advertising is the dominant business model on the web and it's not going away Obviously At some point, this exagerated antagonism causes more troubles than it solves This is the same logic of people who think rent controls do anything but cause more problems than it "solves"

Cpoll 2y ago
> So more privacy by default is bad? Is this necessarily the case, though? 1. Does this bypass user's cookie blocking measures (e.g. PiHole, ad blockers)? If so, it's reducing those users' privacy and opting them in by default. 2. If the user was previously interacting with GDPR-compliant websites only, is this reducing their privacy? They're not given the opportunity to consent or revoke consent to this collection of their data. 3. What are the implications of a data breach of Mozilla's servers? Would this have a greater negative impact on users' privacy than a breach of a single website?
- raverbashing 2y ago
  > Does this bypass user's cookie blocking measures (e.g. PiHole, ad blockers)? If so, it's reducing those users' privacy and opting them in by default. This is a nonsensical way to act upon this. You don't make collective choices putting the exceptions in front of the general case. 3. well it is not better than most brokers out there right?
  - Cpoll 2y ago
    > exceptions By some (possibly spurious) Google search results, there may be ~900 million ad block users, so not exactly "exceptions." That number seems possible: consider there are 3.5 billion people that use Chrome (i.e. took steps to switch from their default browser, in most cases). > 3. Good point, I admit.
mossTechnician 2y ago
> So more privacy by default is bad? It's not more privacy, though. It's more tracking. Just because the word "privacy" appears in the title, does not make it so. I blame Mozilla for the way this feature is presented.

Cpoll 2y ago

> So more privacy by default is bad? Is this necessarily the case, though? 1. Does this bypass user's cookie blocking measures (e.g. PiHole, ad blockers)? If so, it's reducing those users' privacy and opting them in by default. 2. If the user was previously interacting with GDPR-compliant websites only, is this reducing their privacy? They're not given the opportunity to consent or revoke consent to this collection of their data. 3. What are the implications of a data breach of Mozilla's servers? Would this have a greater negative impact on users' privacy than a breach of a single website?

raverbashing 2y ago
> Does this bypass user's cookie blocking measures (e.g. PiHole, ad blockers)? If so, it's reducing those users' privacy and opting them in by default. This is a nonsensical way to act upon this. You don't make collective choices putting the exceptions in front of the general case. 3. well it is not better than most brokers out there right?
- Cpoll 2y ago
  > exceptions By some (possibly spurious) Google search results, there may be ~900 million ad block users, so not exactly "exceptions." That number seems possible: consider there are 3.5 billion people that use Chrome (i.e. took steps to switch from their default browser, in most cases). > 3. Good point, I admit.

mossTechnician 2y ago

> So more privacy by default is bad? It's not more privacy, though. It's more tracking. Just because the word "privacy" appears in the title, does not make it so. I blame Mozilla for the way this feature is presented.