5 ms·
I have to say, I don't really care much for this, and I'm surprised to see it coming from Mozilla. "Prefer:Safe" is rather vague-sounding. I was expecting some
by chimeracoder 12y ago
I have to say, I don't really care much for this, and I'm surprised to see it coming from Mozilla.
"Prefer:Safe" is rather vague-sounding. I was expecting something about incorporating something like "HTTPS Everywhere" into Firefox.
I understand the appeal of something to prevent kids from stumbling across porn or violence online, but let's not muddy words like "trust" (which mean something very different when talking about security and privacy) with the concept of age-appropriate content.
- chc 12y agoI think the idea isn't so much a porn filter as it is a "treat this user as a child" request. So, for example, social networking sites might work in restricted mode. I do agree "prefer safe" is a very poor way of expressing that desire, though. Maybe "child-safe", but not just "safe", which implies a related but different idea.
- bostik 12y agoIf this takes off at all, I can see the sites reacting by altering the advertising group selection based on the presence of the header. "Cool, an under-10 browsing. Let's push all the autoplay toy videos we have in rotation." I already get the creeps from the toy ads squeezed between and in the middle of children's TV shows.
- ClassicFarris 12y agoI agree… If this is only done when, Parental Controls, are enable from the OS level. Then a: "parental-control:enabled" header would make more sense, right?