Why should we give advertisers any data at all, I don’t get it? I agree it’s better than how tracking is being done today, but why create a tool to distribute information about my behavior across different sites (yes, anonymized)?
Why should we give advertisers any data at all, I don’t get it? I agree it’s better than how tracking is being done today, but why create a tool to distribute information about my behavior across different sites (yes, anonymized)?
But Mozilla is not in the ad business so why are they appeasing advertisers?
I could see Mozilla thinking advertisers will back off when they give them a more integrity-respecting tool, but my expectation is that advertisers will keep doing what they already do. Because why not?
Either way, distributing reports about my (anonymized) behavior, to advertisers, is still a slight breech of trust.
And even if it’s aggregated and mixed with others to a point of pure anonymity, it’s still a tool to manipulate your behavior on a large scale. I can see others not having a problem with it but I do.
But why appease advertisers, I don’t see the point? The current ad business only exists because it’s been possible to track people. It does not mean it’s impossible to do advertising without it. It’s not like it’s a right for advertisers to know in detail how their ads are performing.
Why wouldn’t Mozilla just disable all tracking? Why do they see any need to give anything back when minimizing another form of tracking?
But what is their incentive to make this feature to begin with? Who is it really for?
Edit: this is more of rhetorical question I guess. To rephrase it a bit to get closer to my point: who is the browser designed for? For the person using the browser? For the website owner? For advertisers?
While I’m not hating on Mozilla it still warrant a discussion.
Won’t they just use both this new feature and the classic way of tracking you, now having more data than before.
Yeah, strange design choice since the other buttons in theUI are not pill shaped.
Aside from that things look very nice.
Would you mind clarifying what you think is misleading in the title?
There are so many things you can do between nothing and full on invasion. Your question cannot possibly be in good faith.
Yeah, I admittedly chose the latter :)
I admittedly haven’t read the material, but your quoted text sounds very vague and indirect. Perhaps there was more content that was more direct and concrete.
Doesn’t the align perfectly with the claim in the book?
If we could just have a tax based on carbon footprint it would incentivize better decisions. And perhaps start low and then slowly increase the tax at a constant and predictable rate so industry and consumers can plan ahead. The tax income could also be equally distributed to all citizens, where people with less carbon footprint gets money back. And now we’ll have a thriving economy driving the climate transition.
Check out Citizens Climate Lobby by the way.
I was just gonna say, has to Flux
Not that I will convince you to use signal, but there are desktop versions as well, so technically not required to use a smart phone.
What about that is Zoroastrian?
Ah, that makes sense
Yeah, pretty much as Flex at 97% which is a nice comparison.
Ah, perhaps not as standard as I thought!
I find it kind of funny that your shared link url contain tracking parameters.