LWD 1d ago • 100%
after many months, and being blocked by more and more external servers, it is clear that image proxying is seriously degrading the user experience
By "external servers," does that mean external to the Lemmy network itself?
I'm interested how Mastodon handles this, since it is a much more active social network that also encourages media sharing.
LWD 2d ago • 100%
Acceptable Ads is bullshit on many levels:
- It's made by an ad company
- The same ad company runs multiple popular ad blockers (including AdBlock Plus)
- There are no standards on privacy invasion
uBlock Origin, or at least uBlock Origin Lite on Chromium-like browsers, are must-haves.
The best browser you can set up for a family member, IMO, is Firefox. Disable Telemetry (which should rid them of Mozilla's own ad scheme too), install uBlock Origin, remind them to never call or trust any other tech support people who reach out to them, and maybe walk them through some scam baiting videos.
I'm still evaluating which Chrome-likes are best at actual ad blocking, and the landscape is grim.
LWD 2d ago • 100%
It's probably the nature of the change, too.
- It's easy to add a switch to disable the button.
- It doesn't cut into their bottom line.
- It's damn good PR.
Other stuff that people have been complaining about, like the massive backlash against baking in 3rd-party AI, won't make the cut.
Relatively benign things like tab grouping are challenging, so despite being much more popular, the easier-to-implement AI features were given a fast pass to Release versions of Firefox.
LWD 2d ago • 100%
Are there raw numbers on how many people use web browsers in general? Firefox releases a report, and it's definitely been dipping, but that dip might be accounted for by a switch to other browsers (based on its percent of market share).
I'd be curious if you had any good sources for this, because my searches are mostly yielding crappy listicle blogs.
LWD 2d ago • 100%
I've seen their reasoning, but I don't agree with it. The biggest counterexample to their concerns are other browsers: Firefox is no trouble maintaining its IP, and Brave is fully open source yet has not been formed once AFAIK.
LWD 2d ago • 100%
I'm very aware of its built-in bloat, but the ad blocking still seems to perform more like an MV2 ad blocker than an MV3 one (more is blocked even when using the same lists), and it allows you to natively select individual elements to block yourself.
LWD 3d ago • 12%
In my personal experience, and with great regret, I must say that Brave does a better job with its built-in ad blocking than Vivaldi has. Even after I did my damnedest to tweak the ad blocker settings (adding more lists from more sources, removing the "allow some ads" list, etc).
LWD 3d ago • 100%
Based on every browser statistic page I can find, about 2/3 of mobile traffic is through Google Chrome. There's no ad blocker on that.
And mobile traffic is significant nowadays - it comprises around half of all traffic anywhere, despite requiring the viewer to be hunched over a phone or tablet.
LWD 5d ago • 100%
No argument from me there. I didn't mean to come across this argumentative, I just wanted to point it out here because of the context of this post (someone looking to move away from Firefox). And because, to me, ad telemetry still is a black box.
LWD 5d ago • 100%
Mozilla is adopting a ton of the things that were wrong with Brave. Recently, Brave criticized Mozilla's PPA data collection for being too centralized, which implies to me that otherwise, there's a lot of overlap between the two allegedly "private" systems. I don't trust Brave telemetry, but it seems not even they can come up with many ways to differentiate themselves from Mozilla.
If they're different somehow, I would love to know how.
In a way other than accrued trust or distrust, that is. At this point, I don't think Mozilla is owed any inherent trust.
LWD 6d ago • 100%
Santander Bank user [solved by reducing ETP to Standard] (almost lost this user we've had since 2003!):
Give this employee a raise
LWD 1w ago • 100%
How worried should people be if they are on the latest version of Fennec, which was last updated for 129.0.2 a couple months ago? (For anyone who isn't keeping track: that's not ESR (128 is), and it's two major versions behind Firefox Release).
LWD 1w ago • 100%
I wasn't going to make a generic comment about how cryptocurrency is only worth money to people if they can convince other people to also purchase the cryptocurrency...
... But then I looked at your post history, and it's like a week of pivoting conversations to be about Monero.
- New GPU released? Perfect for mining Monero.
- FBI made fake cryptocurrency? Monero isn't fake.
- People shouldn't store your information, so use Monero
- Taylor Swift donates for hurricane victims? Monero is worth more than her!
Edit: oh god it was worse than I thought
- All cryptocurrency is good... JK just Monero
- Good YouTube video? They should accept Monero.
- Good nudes? (NSFW) Take my Monero
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(probably more, but mods removed many) - Their phone wallpaper? Anime girl Monero
LWD 2w ago • 75%
It's worse: I would say every group is malicious. Ad companies try to look like they are policing themselves, in the hopes that they don't suffer external regulation. But back when AdBlock Plus started this nonsense, people made uBlock Origin in response. People wouldn't just take the ad industry at its word.
Now... For some reason, people have changed their minds.
LWD 2w ago • 66%
There's actually a whole group called the Acceptable Ads Committee who decides on making advertisements distinct and unintrusive... But they don't have any policies regarding privacy invasion.
They also partner with popular ad blocking software developers, such as AdBlock Plus.
They also have eight members, via their other name "eyeo", on the W3C PATCG committee (alongside Mozilla, Facebook, Google, more ad companies).
LWD 2w ago • 66%
Let's say there's a table, and sitting at it are nine companies that want to wring every penny out of consumers by any means necessary. Mozilla sits at the table.
How many horrid companies are there at the table now?
Theres a massive difference between advocating for something bu havinf some power and influence, and doing so with the power of a monopoly.
And what a table it is.
LWD 2w ago • 66%
I have no idea where you got this idea I'm advocating for an adtech monopoly.
You continue to put words in my mouth
LWD 2w ago • 66%
You are the one who began demanding an argument about Anonym
This was a bizarre thing to read, because I never brought up Anonym, never even mentioned them.
You brought them up. Right here.
It's strange that you would accuse me, or anyone else, of arguing against something you brought up yourself. WTF
LWD 2w ago • 75%
How did you get an endorsement for adtech industry lobbying out of my other comments?
how would my comments insinuate that I want them to create a monopoly?
Having enough political power to exert control over an industry is monopoly control in my book. Not yours?
I'd rather Ads not exist. I'd rather tracking not exist. But...
Ads and tracking. Hmm.
I hate to see "but" after a statement like that.
Mozilla planting a flag on that hill only means they go extinct unless the political, legal, or economic environment of our society changes.
WTF? Up until recently, they did plant their flag on that hill. Mozilla fight tracking. They blocked it. And you know what? Unlike you, I'm willing to take the stand that they did the right thing there.
And I have no idea why you would say that their decision to do that for years up until 2022 was a bad thing.
While you repeatedly insist (without basis) that services must use ads to exist, let me remind you: you are on Lemmy.
LWD 2w ago • 71%
Google is one of the largest members of the Private Advertising Technology Community Group, which allegedly seeks to replace traditional advertisement tracking with new, more private advertisement tracking. (Other members include Facebook, many ad corporations, and an unfortunate name you my recognize.)
If you have heard of Topics, FLoC, "Privacy" Sandbox, etc, those proposals are all closely linked to this group.
The W3C launders and legitimizes sponsors this commission, so these may become canonical web standards in the very near future.
I've talked to a few people who have insisted that the standards established by this committee should be mandatory... Not on the web level, but on a government level.
## Context [Senate Bill (SB) 1047](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_and_Secure_Innovation_for_Frontier_Artificial_Intelligence_Models_Act) is legislation proposed by Senator Scott Wiener for **regulating AI models** that cost over $100 million to train. The bill was **designed to hold AI companies accountable for potential damages** caused by their models. It gained [widespread support](https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-criticized-over-ai-safety-bill-veto-1961118) from the population of California and a broad coalition of labor unions, AI safety advocates, Hollywood figures, and [current and ex-employees](https://www.fastcompany.com/91187145/openai-anthropic-google-employees-come-out-in-support-of-california-ai-bill) of AI megacorporations. However, many giant corporations [including](https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/29/24232172/california-ai-safety-bill-1047-vetoed-gavin-newsom) Google, Amazon, Meta, and OpenAI opposed the bill, asking Gavin Newsom to veto it. ## Mozilla's statement On August 29, Mozilla joined the corporations to endorse a veto, publishing its own statement: >Mozilla is a champion for both openness and trustworthiness in AI, and we are deeply >concerned that SB 1047 would imperil both of those objectives. For over 25 years, Mozilla has >fought Big Tech to make the Internet better, creating an open source browser that challenged >incumbents and raised the bar on privacy, security, and functionality for everyone in line with our manifesto. > >Today, we see parallels to the early Internet in the AI ecosystem, which has also become >increasingly closed and consolidated in the hands of a few large, tech companies. >We are concerned that SB 1047 would further this trend, harming the open-source community and >making AI less safe — not more. > >Mozilla has engaged with Senator Wiener's team on the legislation; we appreciate the Senator’s >collaboration, along with many of the positive changes made throughout the legislative process. >However, we continue to be concerned about key provisions likely to have serious >repercussions. For instance, provisions like those that grant the Board of Frontier Models >oversight of computing thresholds without statutory requirements for updating thresholds as AI proves safe will likely harm the open-source AI community and the startups, small businesses, >researchers, and academic communities that utilize open-source AI. > >As the bill heads to the Governor’s desk, we ask that Governor Newsom consider the serious >harm this bill may do to the open source ecosystem and pursue alternatives that address >concrete AI risks to ensure a better AI future for all. Source: [Mozilla (PDF)](https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2024/08/Statement-on-SB-1047.pdf). Gavin Newsom vetoed this bill on September 29th.
Mozilla recently [removed](https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197) every version of uBlock Origin Lite from their add-on store except for the oldest version. Mozilla says a manual review flagged these issues: > Consent, specifically Nonexistent: For add-ons that collect or transmit user data, the user must be informed... > > Your add-on contains minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code. You need to provide the original sources... uBlock Origin's developer gorhill [refutes](https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issuecomment-2329365796) this with linked evidence. > Contrary to what these emails suggest, the source code files highlighted in the email: > > * Have nothing to do with data collection, there is no such thing anywhere in uBOL > * There is no minified code in uBOL, and certainly none in the supposed faulty files Even for people who did not prefer this add-on, the removal could have a chilling effect on uBlock Origin itself. > Incidentally, **all the files reported as having issues are exactly the same files being used in uBO for years**, and have been used in uBOL as well for over a year with no modification. Given this, **it's worrisome what could happen to uBO in the future**. And gorhill notes uBO Lite had a purpose on Firefox, especially on mobile devices: > [T]here were **people who preferred the Lite approach of uBOL**, which was designed from the ground up to be an efficient suspendable extension, thus **a good match for Firefox for Android**. New releases of uBO Lite [do not have a Firefox extension](https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/releases); the last version of this coincides with gorhill's message. The [Firefox addon page](https://duckduckgo.com/?q="uBlock+origin+lite"+site%3Aaddons.mozilla.org) for uBO Lite is also gone.
www.coindesk.com
Gary Vee is a notorious ~~grifter~~ [NFT salesman](https://youtu.be/u4zWwp6dzHE?t=247) with a checkered past. Webacy is a cryptocurrency wallet "technology layer" that "provides security features" like password backup, "digital wills", etc.
discourse.mozilla.org
On Valentine's Day 2024, Mozilla came out with [a piece critical of AI chatbots](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/creepyexe-mozilla-urges-public-to-swipe-left-on-romantic-ai-chatbots-due-to-major-privacy-red-flags/) titled "Creepy.exe: Mozilla Urges Public to Swipe Left on Romantic AI Chatbots Due to Major Privacy Red Flags." But before they found red flags, back in 2019, Mozilla promoted a workshop on a creepy, rainbow-washed, chatbot ecosystem where people identified as "queer" were required to bare their most intimate sexual thoughts. From the post: > your... interactions will be recorded... you will occasionally be prompted with random survey questions What kinds of questions did they randomly ask the people who would "queer the AI"? Creepy stuff like > **Have you ever sexted** with a stranger? > **Have you ever sexted with a machine**? > Do you remember the first time you were **aroused** by language? > Do you think an artificial intelligence could help **fulfill some of these... needs**? The workshop providers guided people into establishing an intimate, sexual connection with the chatbot they could create. > How might we build trust with an AI? > How might we give it its own sense of desire? Even the consenting participants in the workshop complained about the AI's creep factor: > it feels like the A.I. is **gas-lighting you**. > Seems like **a noncommittal sexting bot.** It should at least be clear about what it’s trying to do. The startup that Mozilla fostered for this panel ended up crashing and burning, but its creepier, worse brethren live on inside of Firefox 130, displayed as first-class options within Mozilla's chatbot options. I just thought it would be fun to take a trip down memory lane to see how many creepy red flags AI companies could get within Mozilla's view without ever concerning them.
Now that [Google and Microsoft each consume more power than some fairly big countries](https://www.techradar.com/pro/google-and-microsoft-now-each-consume-more-power-than-some-fairly-big-countries), maybe it's time for 2024 Mozilla to take heed of 2021 Mozilla's warnings.
There seems to be minimal information about this online, so I'm leaving this here so cooler heads can prevail in discussion. Link to filing: https://archive.org/details/jyjfub ## Notable portions: Teixeira was hired as Chief Product Officer and was in line to become CEO. > Mr. Teixeira became Chief Product Officer (“CPO”) of Mozilla in August, 2022. During the hiring process, Mr. Teixeira had conversations with executive recruiting firm, Russell Reynolds Associates, that one of Mozilla Corporation’s hiring criteria for the CPO role was **an executive that could succeed Mitchell Baker as CEO**. > > Also, shortly after being hired, Mr. Teixeira had conversations with Ms. Baker about being positioned as her successor. After taking medical leave to deal with cancer, Mozilla swiftly moved to replace CEO Mitchell Baker with someone else. > **Shortly before Mr. Teixeira returned** from leave, Mozilla board member Laura Chambers was appointed Interim CEO of Mozilla and Ms. Baker was removed as CEO and became Executive Chair of the Board of Directors. After returning, Teixeira was ordered to lay off 50 preselected employees, and he objected due to Mozilla not needing to cut them and their disproportionate minority status. > In a meeting with Human Resources Business Partner Joni Cassidy, Mr. Teixeira discussed his concern that people from groups underrepresented in technology, like female leaders and persons of color, were disproportionately impacted by the layoff. > >... Ms. Chehak verbally reprimanded Mr. Teixeira, accusing him of violating [a] non-existent “onboarding plan” and **threatening to place Mr. Teixeira back on medical leave** if he did not execute the layoffs as instructed. Mozilla's lack of inclusivity was a known problem >In February 2022, Mozilla commissioned the firm of Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. to assess its performance in providing a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace culture. > > The report delivered in 2023 from Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. states in part: “**MoCo falls into the Cultural Incapacity category** based on leadership’s inadequate response to the needs of a diverse culture or else the need to create a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture, which is reflected in current systems, processes and procedures, policies and practices, or the lack thereof, and are **incongruent with MoCo’s stated values** and goals.” Steve Teixeira has been put on leave. > On May 23, 2024, Mozilla placed Mr. Teixeira on administrative leave. > > Mr. Teixeira requested a reason for being placed on administrative leave. > >Mozilla did not provide Mr. Teixeira with a reason why he was placed on administrative leave. > >Mozilla cut off Mr. Teixeira’s access to email, Slack messaging, and other Mozilla systems. > >Mozilla instructed employees not to communicate with Mr. Teixeira about work-related matters. > >Upon information and belief, an investigation into Mr. Teixeira’s allegations was finally conducted in late May 2024, but Mozilla did not do so under its internal policies and procedures regarding managing complaints of discrimination. Mr. Teixeira was not contacted to participate in the investigation into his complaint of unlawful treatment. ## Coverage online so far ~~I say "alleged" because there appears to be no consensus on the veracity of this document.~~ Update: [this appears to be confirmed](https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/s/hKuq4465wf). This has received no "news" coverage besides [one angry loudmouth](https://archive.is/WIRNz) (Bryan Lunduke) whose entire commentary career has been shaped by his political beliefs, regardless of truth.
I recently downloaded Firefox Nightly and noticed some **new settings that were enabled by default**: > * Suggestions from Firefox Nightly Get suggestions from the web related to your search > * Suggestions from sponsors Support Firefox Nightly with occasional sponsored suggestions > > [Learn more about Firefox Suggest](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-suggestions-firefox) The link in the UI doesn't mention sponsorships anywhere. But [this page does](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox_suggest_mobile#w_who-are-mozillas-partners-for-sponsored-suggestions): > Who are Mozilla’s partners for sponsored suggestions? > >We partner with organizations to serve up some of these suggestion types... For sponsored results, we primarily work with adMarketplace, while also providing non-sponsored results from Wikipedia. This page links to the [adMarketplace Privacy Policy](https://www.admarketplace.com/privacy-policy) which makes it pretty clear **this company is okay with collecting your IP address and passing it to further unnamed entities**. Elsewhere, they say Firefox sends them "the number of times Firefox suggests or displays specific content and your clicks on that content, as well as basic data about your interactions with Firefox Suggest", and then will share interaction information "in an aggregate manner with our partners". ----------------- Update: Switched the link from the Desktop to the Mobile version. Added more quotes from FF, and bolded info about their one named AdTech partner.
Today, when I navigated to amazon\.com on Firefox for Android, [I received a jarring message](https://i.imgur.com/fp2pigl.png) that I could "try" a new service, [Fakespot](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/mozilla-acquires-review-checking-scammer-spotting-service-fakespot-for-firefox), on the app. Fakespot is littered with privacy issues. Among other things, FakeSpot/Mozilla was forced to admit: "[**We sell** and share **your personal information**](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/138lqzt/thanks_to_the_state_of_california_mozillas_new)" [Fakespot's privacy policy](https://www.fakespot.com/privacy-policy) allows them to store and/or sell: * Your email address * Your IP address * "Protected chacteristics" ie gender, sexuality, race... * Data scraped from across the web * Account IDs * Things you bought **(This *is* sold to advertisers)** * Things you considered buying **(This *is* sold to advertisers)** * Your precise location **(This *is* sold to advertisers)** * Inferences about you **(This *is* sold to advertisers)** **Right before Mozilla acquired them, Fakespot updated their privacy policy to allow transfer of private data to any company that acquired them.** (Previous Privacy Policy [here](http://web.archive.org/web/20230127032213/https://www.fakespot.com/privacy-policy). Search "merge" in both.) People donate to Mozilla because they believe in the company's stated goals. Why were the donations put into an acquisition of a company with this kind of privacy policy? And why has Mozilla focused on bundling it as bloat into their browser? Now that [Brave is in hot water for becoming bloated](https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/20/23925192/brave-browser-vpn-windows-11), Mozilla should buck the trend, not follow it.