3 ms·

Mozilla's title, "A free and open internet shouldn't come at the expense of privacy", is very misleading about the content of the article. In plain speech, the

Mozilla's title, "A free and open internet shouldn't come at the expense of privacy", is very misleading about the content of the article. In plain speech, the article's about Mozilla looking for new ways to deliver ads in web browsers. Maybe this is a suitable place for mods to override the original title and write a non-deceptive one. edit: Here's a few other threads on the same topic (of Mozilla's advocacy of a "privacy-preserving attribution", or "interoperable private attribution", of browser ads): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41643991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41643991 ("Firefox tracks you with “privacy preserving” feature (noyb.eu)"; 14 days ago, 130 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40971247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40971247 ("A word about private attribution in Firefox (reddit.com)"; 85 days ago, 102 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40954535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40954535 (""Firefox added [ad tracking] and has already turned it on without asking you" (mastodon.social)"; 87 days ago, 187 comments)

raxxorraxor 2y ago
It is a lie on part of Mozilla. A logic that only makes sense with a lot of false premises, like the necessity and inevitably of surveillance advertising. A simple legislative change and all that would be illegal without it hitting the economy at all with exception of some parts of the advertising industry. I don't know what changed for Mozilla, but this doesn't look like a way into the future. Or maybe they want to go that way, but they then should release Firefox/Thunderbird from ambitions like these. These project had other goals than what Mozilla today espouses.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > It is a lie on part of Mozilla. I agree. > A simple legislative change There's no such thing as a "simple legislative change" when big money and powerful companies are involved.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    True. It would only technically be simple, not politically. This reluctance of legislative forces should be remembered when they try to get power over social media or other platforms to "protect the kids".
fmajid 2y ago
Orwellian BS indeed. You cannot serve two masters, Mozilla has chosen its camp, and it is not that of the users.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

It is a lie on part of Mozilla. A logic that only makes sense with a lot of false premises, like the necessity and inevitably of surveillance advertising. A simple legislative change and all that would be illegal without it hitting the economy at all with exception of some parts of the advertising industry. I don't know what changed for Mozilla, but this doesn't look like a way into the future. Or maybe they want to go that way, but they then should release Firefox/Thunderbird from ambitions like these. These project had other goals than what Mozilla today espouses.

JohnFen 2y ago
> It is a lie on part of Mozilla. I agree. > A simple legislative change There's no such thing as a "simple legislative change" when big money and powerful companies are involved.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  True. It would only technically be simple, not politically. This reluctance of legislative forces should be remembered when they try to get power over social media or other platforms to "protect the kids".

fmajid 2y ago

Orwellian BS indeed. You cannot serve two masters, Mozilla has chosen its camp, and it is not that of the users.