From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
This is after they bought an ad company last month, Mozilla is compromised now
Edit: Somebody pointed out the reason: Mozilla Foundation has no members. It's just the executives, no one in the actual community has any input in Mozilla's direction, and considering how wildly out of touch tech executives are this explains it all
A bunch of Firefox devs need to leave Mozilla, fork it and start up an actual non-profit not based around monetization. I would happily donate monthly if I knew it were going to Firefox development, instead of the dozen other things Mozilla spends its money on. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Proton did something similar.
This poll shows promise: https://mastodon.neat.computer/@jonah/112654592627487236
I think I would pay for a proton browser as well, if it isn’t just chromium. 5$ a month seems reasonable, but I am more the pay 250$ for lifetime type 😄
Is Librewolf already a Firefox without ad companies colonization ?
LibreWolf is little more than a custom config for Firefox, they don't do actual development on the engine, which is the important and very technically laborious part.
All of these claims clash with the reality of so many core open source projects, used by private users and massive corporations alike, that rely on single voluntary developers or super small groups which receive no flowers and no donations.
In general I agree: Open source projects are super hard to monetize and too much work does not get donations, flowers or even thanks.
For Firefox specifically I am not so sure, especially when Thunderbird seems to be doing good with their donation based model.
As long as Firefox is run by Mozilla throwing millions at their incompetent leadership, I will not donate a cent to Firefox.
If Firefox would get forked by some developers I'll happily donate money to them and given Firefox high visibility/importance, this might work out, like Thunderbird did.
You can’t donate a cent to Firefox anyway, the Mozilla Corporation does not accept donations. Thunderbird is also developed by a for profit company under the Foundation, but does accept non-tax-deductible donations.
I think it’s more because the Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit company and people barely understand the difference between the Corporation and Foundation or what the Foundation even does, or the rules that allow a non-profit to own a for-profit.
People should just use LibreWolf at this point
Be careful what you wish for. Firefox needs income and without audience for Firefox, Firefox is no more and then LibreWolf is no more.
I think Mozilla could find another way of getting profit without without tracking its users or depending on Google's funding.
But Firefox is open source, though. It's not going to disappear just like that.
Ok idealist.
What is your alternative funding stream for Mozilla?
It's bad.
Is it worse than the advertising owned browser that gives your information directly to said advertiser?
Fair question. First move for Mozilla: Fire the whole fucking leadership team and use the millions saved for some more developers working on Firefox. That should finance the next 2 years, afterwards we can think about next steps. :-P
I used to say the same, but now I wonder if they need as much as they have?
I am genuinely curious. There have been a lot of threads like this full of criticism for not spending enough on the browser.
It seems the browser is plenty funded, so maybe the org and co have too much and are in search of where to spend it?
Maybe it's just the company with too much and the org is still struggling?
This is misinformation. The setting in question is not a "privacy breach setting," it's to use a new API which, for sites that use it, sends advertisers anonymized data about related ad clicks instead of the much more privacy-breaching tracking data that they normally collect. This is only a good thing for users, which is why the setting is automatically checked.
It's illegal in Europe to have an opt-out checked by default, must be an opt-in unchecked by default. This is one of the reason that Microsoft has always troubles in Europe about privacy and opt-out services.
... first of all, providing a new API to give out information about me is not a good thing in my mind.
Second, this would be the first time in human history, the advertisers would not simply add that APIs information to everything else they aggregate including fingerprinting of your browser.
So, serious question: How is this good for me?
Edit: typo
It does not collect any more information about you. It provides far less information than pretty much every ad is already collecting, and that information is anonymized. It does not affect ad blocking solutions.
So, serious question: what are you not understanding here?
... as already mentioned above:
Are you trying to tell me that the host server is showing the ad, because last I checked, with my whitelist firewall, I never see ads because all ads are links to the ad server you are actually visiting. It is no different than opening up the webpage and connection to them. They get all the same fingerprinting info.
I'm not saying one way or another here, but there is no such thing as anonymous data collection. It only takes 2-3 unique identifiers to connect a person between a known and anonymous data set and there are almost always quite a few more unique identifiers than this in any given dataset. When I hear anyone say stalkerware is anonymous, I assume they are no longer just a privateer of a foreign drug cartel level state, instead they are full blown slave trader pirates fit for the gallows or worse.
This does not prevent regular ad tracking, this provides additional data to advertisers. It also means Mozilla is now tracking me, and then Mozilla does this "anonymizing" on their servers. I do not trust Mozilla with this data, and I don't trust that no way can be found de-anonymize or combine this data with other data ad networks already collect.
This is not in my interest at all. This data should not be collected. The ad networks can suck it, why should I help them?
https://blog.privacyguides.org/2024/07/14/mozilla-disappoints-us-yet-again-2/
What do you want? A Mozilla with no income? Because then there is no libre browser.
Can you imagine a world where Linux wasn't directly getting paid by Amazon to hook all your machines up to AWS? You can't! And how could vim possibly be developed without dropbox integration and sponsorship, that would never work. There is no way a world exists where Krita doesn't sell all your drawings to OpenAI, how are they going to make any money?
None of these nice things could exist if they weren't selling out their users, that's just reality.
Yes I get your point. Some software can run without a large income stream, on a volunteer basis.
You’re using that fact to say that Firefox also can. And if you care to look at my profile you’ll see I’ve argued time and time again that Mozilla is an overblown organisation and should be slimmed down to a couple of hundred, working solely on the browser.
I doubt, however, that you can build a modern, up-to-date browser on a volunteer basis.
How many full-time people do you think it takes?
Linux has full time developers. Blender has full time developers. Lots of other projects have full time developers. They still don't sell my data to Google.
A web browser is a very visible piece of software, relied upon by end users, businesses and governments alike. I'm sure enough people and organizations would donate their time and money to fund this, if it existed.
Advertisers can already easily get this data without this setting, and any measures you take to block ads also by definition affect this setting.
Meanwhile, if this works and becomes widely available, regulators will be able to take measures against user surveillance without having to succumb to the ad industry's argument that they won't know whether their ads work.
And yes, this provides data to advertisers, but it's data about their ads, not about users.
Ah yes, the hypothetical second step, in which tracking is going to be outlawed (I'm not holding my breath), except, of course, for the third party services that do the aggregating, which will "sell" (literal quote) the aggregate data, so I guess these are by semantic sophistry not adtech companies but something else.
I'm so glad this genius "plan" can be used to justify Mozilla funneling data to adtech firms right now, because in some hypothetical future timeline this somehow can be construed with a bunch of hand-waving and misdirection to be in my interest.
How about instead we have a browser that only cares about the users, and not give a fuck about adtech? Its number one goal should be to treat adtech as hostile, and fight to ruin that whole industry.
... No, it does not. The ads are currently already tracking clicks and conversions, on top of a whole boatload of other personal data. This API instead provides them with just the click and conversion data, divorced from the personal data and then aggregated with all the other site visitors.
Being against this proposal basically means you trust random websites and ad companies more with your data then you do Mozilla and LetsEncrypt.
This API instead
Instead of what? As I said, this is in addition to existing tracking, with some vague promise that if current tracking methods were banned or abandoned, this could be used instead. Except it's not getting banned (Mozilla is not going to out-lobby Google) or abandoned (market forces prevent that), and why oh why would I want some alternative way for ad companies to get my data in that situation anyway? Let them die.
Now if another person is going to repeat this nonsense talking point, which you have picked up strait from Mozilla's corporate PR, I'm going to lose my mind. Have some critical thinking skills. They are giving away your data right now and they give you nothing in return except a nonsense promise of a fairytale future.
Please I just want a browser that acts in the user's interest only, does not work with Meta on adtech, and does not think it's their duty to save the ad industry from itself.
Again, no, that's not true. This API is only used by sites that opt into it, and in so doing, they are disabling the normal tracking which is far more invasive.
Where does it say that? How would this be enforced?
It's enforced by the websites, they opt into this API. It says that everywhere you can read about this.
I can't find this in the announcements and stuff. Where does it say that exactly?
https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment
Check out the second and third paragraphs in particular.
This initial implementation is just to test the actual API, so I don't believe sites using it will be blocking the other tracking yet, but once this API is tested and starts to see adoption, the goal is replacing tracking with this anonymized attribution.
You said:
Again, no, that’s not true. This API is only used by sites that opt into it, and in so doing, they are disabling the normal tracking which is far more invasive.
OK, your source for this:
A full version of an in-browser attribution API will offer strong privacy protections, while providing considerable flexibility in how to measure ad performance. Our long term goal is a standardized attribution solution. We believe that a good attribution system will give advertising businesses a real alternative to more objectionable practices, like tracking, which should allow browsers to further restrict those practices.
Nowhere does it say websites are disabling other tracking methods.
It says that browsers could (maybe, in the future) restrict other methods of tracking, if this gets widespread mainstream adoption. Why are these things related exactly? Mozilla could presumably implement these tracking restrictions right now. The reason they are related in the minds and PR of Mozilla drones is that they don't dare do this without providing an alternative for the ad industry. Their corporate overlords won't "allow" it.
But right now, this restricts and replaces nothing, they literally are giving you vague promises about future improvements, while already collecting your data, like I said.
I will remind you that you accused others of spreading misinformation in this thread. I will accept your little mea culpa song and dance now. Gimme!
Sorry but where does it say they will disable "normal tracking" if they use this API?
In the entire pitch, the announcement, this clarification, and all the technical data? Read literally any of it again and you'll see that this is the whole point of the API.
You are missing the point. websites WILL NOT STOP TRACKING YOU! Nothing in this API can do that.