mossTechnician

15 ms·

241.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
Even if ads must be improved for some reason, I don't see why Mozilla can come up with a solution that is only marginally better than what Google and Facebook have proposed the same group as Mozilla (PATCG). And PPA was jointly develop
242.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
> they have a good review process for popular browser extensions... [Google] have conflict of interest when it comes to hosting stuff like Ublock. It's serendipitous you mentioned that extension, because Mozilla recently came unde
243.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
100%? Does that apply to other things that needed government intervention, like child labor, company towns, etc? I don't see a problem with making rules for companies to follow. We have a rules that say companies can't advertise n
244.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
Brave is like Firefox: it's open source, But it connects to some closed source servers to serve up contentious features (IMO this is a bigger problem on Brave than Firefox, since many of them cannot be fully hidden).
245.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
>What you'll do... Advocate for the role of generative AI in driving productivity, setting a transformational agenda that distinguishes Firefox as a leader in this space. Shouldn't the right tool be selected after a problem has
246.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
It feels metaphorical, doesn't it? The last time there was a rebrand, Mozilla publicly announced it, published several ideas, and let the community decide on one. This time, Mozilla created a rebrand privately, announced it via a priva
247.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
> Neither are bad, and both are necessary. Ad networks that track you are necessary ?
248.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
I personally don't buy into the notion that advertisement is inherently good or necessary. Especially when the "best" ads effectively manipulate emotions and remain in people's subconscious. A corner store cashier does n
249.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
> Then people complain about seeing diaper ads when they don't even have a baby. The opposite is worse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
250.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
Ideally the Lite version of uBlock Origin provides the same protections as loading the traditional app without making any adjustments, requires no background JavaScript to run, has an even smaller memory footprint[1], and even alleviates po
251.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
This might be unpopular, but I don't think Mozilla's behavior is inherently good[1]. And even if it has, I don't think it should be used as a litmus test for other corporate behavior. Every company should stand on its own aga
252.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
Out of all the criticism Firefox fans make of the mobile version, excess CPU usage and excess RAM usage are at the top of the list. Maybe high-end phones run Firefox decently now, but not everybody has a high-end phone. If uBOL has a place
253.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
They developed Privacy Preserving Attribution with Facebook to collect data from browsers. It's enabled by default in fresh Firefox installs. They also acquired an advertisement subsidiary, Anonym, earlier this year. So when Mozilla ma
254.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
Mozilla has the capability to handle compromised addons; this whole mess happened because they wiped out every version of uBOL except for the earliest one. They just haven't used that capability responsibly... Yet.
255.
by mossTechnician 2y ago
> It's unfortunate that almost none of the PPA criticisms actually go into depth on why its implementation isn't sufficiently private This is a pretty in-depth criticism. https://www.privacyguides.org/articles&#
256.
by 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.