Comment

Comment on Firefox CTO Responds On Collecting User Advertisement Data

We’ve been collaborating with Meta on this, because any successful mechanism will need to be actually useful to advertisers, and designing something that Mozilla and Meta are simultaneously happy with is a good indicator we’ve hit the mark.

Oh, truly? Facebook happy with something that somehow respects people’s privacy and integrity? Perhaps instead it just shows that Mozilla is slipping. Because they have been, and at this rate it seems like they won’t stop. Sad to see.

There is a toggle to turn it off because some people object to advertising irrespective of the privacy properties, and we support people configuring their browser however they choose.

That’s not good enough. If this thing needs to be present, the option should be there to toggle on, not off. I don’t opt-in to privacy in my bathroom or bedroom, the privacy is mine by default. I don’t have to announce to the world that I don’t want it peeking in.

source

Sort:hotnew top

simple@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

If this thing needs to be present, the option should be there to toggle on, not off.

This is my takeaway in general. The idea of this sounds fine, but the fact that they opted everyone into this experiment is really stupid considering a huge chunk of people use Firefox are privacy-conscious and care deeply about this stuff.

source
- LouNeko@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Well you close and lock the door. So you kind of do opt-in. It’s just muscle memory at that point.
  
  source
- NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Honestly?
  
  Yes, it is shitty. But if you at all care about privacy you should be monitoring your software anyway. You never know when a previously “good” companies will do something you disagree with
  
  source
  - dojan@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Yes, it is shitty. But if you at all care about privacy you should be monitoring your software anyway.
    
    That’s only the case because privacy isn’t the default, and it should be. Privacy is something that’s been taken from us. I think people that don’t want to learn or care much about privacy are still entitled to it.
    
    source
  - DudeDudenson@lemmings.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Pretty much, if you’re security conscious you’ll go and turn it off, if it keeps meta from lobbying against the mozzila foundation it seems like a happy middle ground.
    
    If/when they make it so you can’t turn it off anymore that will be a different story
    
    source
- Zarxrax@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Isn’t privacy invasion (ie, cookies) already ON by default? What’s the difference?
  
  source
  - simple@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Not all cookies are harmful and some websites don’t work properly without cookies. Having cookies off by default also usually means user preferences wouldn’t be saved when you leave and return to a website.
    
    source
isaaclyman@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Do we think anyone would actually opt in?

I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that making it an opt-in feature is probably seen in this case as equivalent to throwing the entire feature in the trash.

source
- dojan@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You’re probably right, and that’s precisely the point. They’re wasting time and resources on something no one wants.
  
  source
  - isaaclyman@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I’m with you there. The only explanation that makes sense to me is if they’re really hurting for cash. And if they are, I honestly don’t have a solution that falls between “go bankrupt” and “sell out our users in the least noxious way we can come up with.”
    
    source