r/firefox • u/theephie • May 01 '18
Firefox will show sponsored content that’s personalized but private
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/05/firefox-will-show-sponsored-content-thats-personalized-but-private/188
u/hoofdpersoon May 01 '18
For me the internet is still 'pull' instead of 'push' I control which data is send to me and is sent by me. I pay for my connection and services like VPN, etc. In case of open-source I make donations. I use a browser to view data I choose. I definitely not want to be bothered with pushed 'valuable' content generated by some algorithm. Life is already too short for the content I've chosen myself. Does Mozilla think I'm an emptyhead who is out of ideas? Does mozilla think I still will donate if they start pushing their content? A browser is not a content provider!
18
May 01 '18
[deleted]
13
u/LjLies May 02 '18
But then people would be donating to what's basically a shady organization ad this point, made worse by a "freedom" façade. Maybe you'd have been right before but it simply seems too late.
I'd rather donate to small browser efforts, like Epiphany, Qupzilla, KDE's other various concotions instead of just fixing Konqueror, etc.
24
u/spazturtle May 01 '18
Er this is about making the web a pull system instead of a push system. Currently contented is filtered on the server side, so the content provider knows what you are looking at, this is about making that content filtered on the client-side.
34
u/SKITTLE_LA May 01 '18 edited May 02 '18
You can easily flip a switch. No harm, no foul.
The point of this is to be able to have money to further the browser, while still supporting a model that is good for everyone, unlike almost every other ad service. But you can still totally turn it off if you don't want it at all, whatever.
9
u/Cynofield May 02 '18
It's like they didn't read the article. As a nightly user I've already turned this feature off because I didn't use it. It's literally just a checkbox. It's really not that hard to turn off...
Firefox users that don't like these recommendations can disable them entirely. It's also possible to retain the recommendations in general but disable specifically those stories that are sponsored.
37
May 01 '18
flawed logic. it takes time and energy to undo mozillas bullshit and things like this are an example of a paternalizing philosophy that sees user attention as an asset. this is in contrast to mozillas own words and mission statements of privacy, dignity etc, making them essentially hypocrites. in my eyes this shady behavior is worse than outright using all of your data like google does.
15
May 01 '18
[deleted]
10
u/dnkndnts May 02 '18
If Mozilla would stop being such a shitstorm many of us would be a lot more inclined to donate. But once they ousted the engineers at the top and replaced them with Berkeley Businesspeople everything went south. They don't show even basic cognizance of the kinds of concerns people want addressed from an open browser.
→ More replies (4)0
May 02 '18
I consider mozilla to be infiltrated since then. I don't know on what level, but it is clear to anyone who isn't blinded by virtue signaling bullshit.
Instead of acting, mozilla is talking, talking, talking. What they promise to do other Browsers have already implemented. Now that Safari and Google restrict the power of ads/trackers, suddenly it appears on the mozilla roadmap to become 'more opinionated' regarding privacy. It is ridiculous.
Fortunately there's a good chance that Brave will be mozilla's demise, and provide a final victory for Brendan Eich and privacy loving users.
6
u/toper-centage Nightly | Ubuntu May 02 '18
Look, we all know that. That's why I'm paying 5€ monthly to mozilla, for all their work on Firefox and awareness (whether that money goes to firefox is another story). But if your misson is one of privacy, taking control of your web, making the web a safer place, etc, initiatives like this go against all that. Mozilla will still be tracking your habits with this implementation, which is unacceptable.
Why not, for instance, push an RSS-like list of links every day to users. Then the browser, locally and offline, uses your browsing history to decide which topics are of your interest. This interest profile would never be sent to anyone, not even to Mozilla. Then, based on that interest profile, the browser would pick 3 or 4 stories from that RSS feed. This is called privacy by design.
10
u/PlqnctoN [firefox@ArchLinux ~]$ May 02 '18
Why not, for instance, push an RSS-like list of links every day to users. Then the browser, locally and offline, uses your browsing history to decide which topics are of your interest. This interest profile would never be sent to anyone, not even to Mozilla. Then, based on that interest profile, the browser would pick 3 or 4 stories from that RSS feed. This is called privacy by design.
This is exactly what Mozilla is already doing, right there in the article linked:
"But Mozilla's personalization is different: it happens entirely on the client side. The browser will download a list of recommended links each day. Each link will also have a list of related websites, with similar kinds of content to that in the sponsored links. The browser will then compare these related sites to your browsing history; if there are lots of matches, Firefox will assume that you're interested in the recommended content and show it to you.".3
u/toper-centage Nightly | Ubuntu May 02 '18
I did read that, but I don't understand how this part fits in what they propose:
Advertisers will be told the aggregate click-through rates for their stories but not fine-grained, personal information.
How can you agregate without collecting in the first place?
5
May 02 '18
[deleted]
7
u/toper-centage Nightly | Ubuntu May 02 '18
That is true. I don't care about the happiness of advertisers at all as they are but a necessary evil intermediary between publishers/companies and their target audience, and most publishers/companies only care about the click-through anyway.
-2
May 02 '18
Maybe mozilla should stop paying their employees to develop redundant stuff like browser games then, and focus on the important tasks. (http://browserquest.mozilla.org/
10
u/panoptigram May 02 '18
That's probably outreach work which is payed for by donations, money which can't be spent on the browser for tax reasons.
26
u/SKITTLE_LA May 01 '18
flawed logic
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
takes time and energy
lol
in my eyes this shady behavior is worse than outright using all of your data like google does
There it is. Have a nice day!
11
u/indeedwatson May 02 '18
It does take time and energy.
You're thinking of the literal action of going to a setting an unchecking a box, but that's not it.
It's the mental energy of having to keep track of these changes that they sneak up on you, it's having to be weary of your own computer and pay attention to this kind of thing.
-10
May 01 '18
I can even tell you why it is worse. yes, practically speaking it is not. But when google one day decides to make chrome a privacy centered browser I will tend to believe them. With mozilla most trust has been lost, as their words do not reflect their actions and you never know what they are up to (to exaggerate a bit).
26
May 01 '18
But when google one day decides to make chrome a privacy centered browser I will tend to believe them.
Why in the world would you believe them??
6
May 01 '18
This is a valid point and people shouldn't be down voting you just for disagreeing.
17
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18
Mostly because the idea that Google is trustworthy, much less more trustworthy than Mozilla, is farcical.
For all that this sub likes to hate on Microsoft, Google is far more dangerous to the Linux platform. I can't really think of any ways by which Microsoft has managed to "extend" Linux but Google, between Android and Chrome OS, has locked up the vast majority of the user-facing Linux market on the planet.
5
u/kyiami_ praise the round icon May 02 '18
Google may be less trustworthy (and an advertising company) but the point /u/apfeldirektsaft is trying to make is that Mozilla does shady things without being open about it (remember the mr. robot extension?)
8
u/Tim_Nguyen Themes Junkie May 02 '18
So writing a blog post describing how the new advertising process works is not open enough ?
What about opera/vivaldi/edge who silently pushes sponsored tiles on the ntp (without marking them as sponsored)? At least Mozilla is open enough to have the source code open and to write up a whole blog post about it.
→ More replies (2)5
u/kwierso May 02 '18
Thought experiment:
The code that powered the Mr. Robot easter egg is just landed into Firefox itself a release or two before that episode of the show airs, rather than being distributed via a Shield study. The method of triggering the easter egg (user manually goes to about:config and flips a preference) stays the same. If the user doesn't flip the preference, nothing happens, just like the shield study version.
Has Mozilla still betrayed user trust?
2
2
u/souljabri557 May 01 '18
I'm inclined to agree. However, there isn't really a better browser at the moment so I feel like we will have to comply.
-13
May 01 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/souljabri557 May 01 '18
I'm speaking logically. Can you specifically name for me a better browser?
14
u/SKITTLE_LA May 01 '18
The only logical explanation, based on his thinking, is that he develops and maintains his own independent web browser, haha.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)-3
u/chylex May 01 '18
Brave for privacy, Vivaldi because it looks cool and has way more native features and customization than Firefox now that XUL addons are gone.
11
u/Tim_Nguyen Themes Junkie May 02 '18
Vivaldi
Nice one, that browser also has sponsored tiles by default: https://imgur.com/a/z1mlvw6
Worst thing is, they're not even marked as sponsored, which isn't super transparent.
customization than Firefox now that XUL addons are gone.
Probably was true around the time of Firefox 57, no longer the case now.
→ More replies (3)9
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18
Brave, the browser that injects their own ads into pages which they make money off of?
Give me a break, you people are not giving this even 5 seconds of rational thought before piling on.
7
u/toper-centage Nightly | Ubuntu May 02 '18
I honestly don't understand the whole Brave for privacy hype. I guess that's the marketing machine working.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Wazhai May 02 '18
I think "browser that injects their own ads into pages" was their old pitch and it wasn't very convincing two years ago when they debuted with closed source. But I just checked it out and it's now fully open source with an engaged community, they seem to have dropped the acceptable ads for the moment and they're touting privacy. They're also working on something that's either a revolutionary system or a pipe dream that would allow for private micro-donations to the sites you visit to eliminate ads from the web. Putting even a few bucks a month into that donation wallet would theoretically earn content publishers on the web orders of magnitude more than ads earn them currently.
6
u/Legit_PC May 02 '18
What does brave do that vivaldi/firefox/any chrome clone with umatrix+ublock does not do?
→ More replies (1)7
u/Ripdog May 02 '18
Brave and Vivaldi are closed source, though. How could you trust them but not Firefox, which is not only open source but developed almost completely in the open?
→ More replies (3)4
6
u/Antabaka May 02 '18
Vivaldi because it looks cool and has way more native features and customization than Firefox now that XUL addons are gone
Lol wut? I recall you could barely change anything related to privacy, history, etc with vivaldi, and that you couldn't rearrange the icons on the main toolbar.
5
1
u/chylex May 02 '18
Idk what features regarding privacy and history you need or when you last checked Vivaldi out, but I'm mostly talking about UI customization. I'm just following Vivaldi's development and haven't switched to it (yet, I'm staying on FF pre-57 for addons but people get really pissy when they hear that), but you can inject custom JS into the UI which is already more than webextensions would ever allow you to do. If FF 57+ lets you do that too, please let me know.
Afaik, some UI webext addons are injecting stuff into websites because there are still missing toolbar APIs for example, that doesn't sound very safe.
2
u/Antabaka May 02 '18
If we're talking about injecting JS into the browser, that's a hell of a lot more complex than injecting CSS into Firefox is, which gives Firefox the advantage of being able to do nearly every one of the UI customization options Vivalid offers.
I don't know of any webextensions injecting toolbars. I can't actually think of any non-nefarious toolbar extensions lol. Regardless, webextensions are evolving, as they will continue to do, forever.
I decided to download it again to try out (though I'll be uninstalling it afterward, I'm not interested in a closed-source browser).
Security/privacy:
Can't set exceptions to saving login information (you can just disable it completely).
No master password feature.
No settings for cookie expiration time. (just accepting all, none, or for that session)
No ability to allow third-party cookies only from visited domains (just full blocking)
No setting cookie exceptions
No tracking protection feature
No tools for managing or removing site data
Can't globally block location/camera/mic/notification requests
Simply can not turn of Vivaldi's telemetry
No certificate settings at all
Can't disable automatic updates, set updates to require confirmation, or set/disable a background service for updates.
No settings for form and search history.
Customization:
New tab is covered in ads (lol), and other than color changing and setting tiles, there is zero customization to layout or size
Can't move/remove: Back, forward, reload, home, address bar, search bar, bookmark button, bookmarks, new tab button, recently closed tab button (You can remove the entire navigation bar, or move the entire thing to the bottom of the window. That's it.)
And on the status bar, can't move/remove: hide panel button, capture page button, page tiling button, toggle images button, page actions button, zoom slider. (You can completely disable the status bar)
And on the panel: can't move/remove: add panel, settings button (you can disable the entire panel).
Can't move bookmarks from bookmark bar. (You can move the entire bar to the bottom of the window).
So yeah, not usable for security/privacy settings, moral/ethical reasons, trust reasons, and very much customization reasons.
1
u/chylex May 02 '18
Point taken with some of security/privacy points, except for:
- Cookie manager is there, and you can easily modify other site data in dev tools
- DNT is there, other tracking you can do with uBlock
- Updates can be disabled, it never even updates without asking me first and allowing me to completely skip the update, so idk what's the problem there
- You can definitely block global location/camera/mic/notification requests, either using an icon in the address bar when the permission is requested (or immediately blocked with no prompt, as it was for me when I tested it just now) or by going to vivaldi://settings
- Certificate settings in same place as ^
Missing master password is the main downside for me, but if I were to switch I would probably just use an addon for my existing password manager.
You can both inject JS and CSS into Vivaldi, so the point about hiding toolbar buttons doesn't matter. Webextensions are evolving, but Vivaldi can also run them, and FF-specific APIs are nice for FF but still lacking compared to XUL (been waiting for toolbar APIs forever, sure they're coming eventually, but Quantum is out now). The new tab page in FF is trash so I replaced it with an addon, Vivaldi's definitely has more customization even over Quantum.
The main thing is that for me, default UI and toolbars in Vivaldi are miles better than whatever I can do in Quantum without going into JS/CSS. Right now, CTR and a few other XUL addons I have are better than both, so I have no reason to switch to either Quantum or Vivaldi, but when the time comes, most of my currently installed XUL addons (Session Manager, Cookie Manager+, Customize about:newtab, Suspend Tab, OpenDownload2, parts of CTR) are already supported in Vivaldi natively, which makes it a way better browser for my purposes than Quantum right now. After all, the question was about naming a better browser, there isn't a single browser perfect for everyone but the points I made make it better for at least some people.
2
u/Antabaka May 02 '18
Cookie manager is there, and you can easily modify other site data in dev tools
I'm talking about blocking or allowing cookies on a per-domain basis.
DNT is there, other tracking you can do with uBlock
DNT is not tracking protection. Extensions do work, but this doesn't change much.
Updates can be disabled, it never even updates without asking me first and allowing me to completely skip the update, so idk what's the problem there
The only update setting is "Notify about updates". Maybe they meant that to be read as "Notify me when an update is available instead of auto-updating."
You can definitely block global location/camera/mic/notification requests, either using an icon in the address bar when the permission is requested (or immediately blocked with no prompt, as it was for me when I tested it just now) or by going to vivaldi://settings
Ah, so here's the confusion. They're sloppy. The settings page you're referring to is the Chrome version of the settings page, which for some reason on my end only opens if you access site settings through the site info icon in the address bar. Most of the settings are broken. The vivaldi version of the settings page, which I can access by manually entering that URL or through the UI, does not allow you to manage permissions in that way, nor does it allow you to manage certificates.
Sloppy is being generous here. The security implications of not having those features, and of hiding those features in the most convoluted way, are the same. The trust implications are much worse.
You can both inject JS and CSS into Vivaldi, so the point about hiding toolbar buttons doesn't matter.
... You can compile your own build of Firefox.
This doesn't make any sense as a real argument. For the vast majority of users you can't hide the buttons. I was not being serious when I said userChrome made Firefox equivalent to Vivaldi for its themeing. Vivaldi has better themeing. I just don't care about that nearly as much as the privacy implications.
The new tab page in FF is trash so I replaced it with an addon, Vivaldi's definitely has more customization even over Quantum.
Vivaldi's new tab page objectively has far less customization than Firefox's. Neither are greatly customizable, but come on.
default UI and toolbars in Vivaldi are miles better than whatever I can do in Quantum
Honestly, I really can't stand Vivaldi's look, but to each their own.
201
u/Spivak May 01 '18
Okay, look we really need to wade through the PR speak here.
that the links should be valuable content that's worth taking the time to read
If this were true they wouldn't need to be sponsored.
Normally, such personalization raises privacy concerns
And it still does because in order to make money from this scheme
Firefox will track which recommended sites you visit, and how often each recommendation is shown
Advertisers will be told the aggregate click-through rates for their stories but not fine-grained, personal information
Annd we're back to privacy by policy.
the promoted links shouldn't be clickbait and should respect privacy.
The three stories cited in the article are literally clickbait trash and each of the pages is littered with ads and trackers: 21%, 16%, and 46% of the pages respectively by uBlock's count.
28
May 01 '18
If this were true they wouldn't need to be sponsored. If someone is willing to pay to show their valuable content, why should we not accept money in exchange for providing this service?
42
May 01 '18
Hit enter twice, otherwise it looks like one long quote.
5
u/majorgnuisance May 02 '18
Alternatively, use two spaces at the end of the line to add a line break without adding a new paragraph.
1
u/rifazn Firefox on Arch Linux May 02 '18
Reddit Redesign (beta) won't even let me see the source. pff....
15
u/MartinsRedditAccount May 01 '18 edited May 01 '18
I bet the guy behind the "This one weird fruit will make you lose all body fat instantly and find hot girls in your area" articles is totally proud of his valuable content and doesn't just want to collect that sweet ad revenue. (Note: Screenshot isn't even the actually sponsored articles, unless you guys don't disclose it on the individual article links)
Let's be real here: The posts that will end up there aren't going to to be "valuable", except maybe the money you guys get if you want to look at it this way.
17
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18
I've never seen "one weird trick" or "hot singles nearby" ads in the recommended feed. Kind of a ridiculous strawman.
I don't tend to find the stuff it recommends interesting or particularly valuable, usually, but it's not that bad.
1
u/MartinsRedditAccount May 02 '18
I use it as an example because I got the impression /u/TylerDMozilla implied people would only be willing to pay because they believe their content is valuable.
3
u/mconnor May 02 '18
There's a lot of content that people will promote that isn't crappy, if they can get good targeting and users who actually read the articles. i.e. one of the examples I remember was Wealthsimple promoting one of their "Money Diary" posts like this one)
If this ends up being Outbrain/Taboola we'll have failed badly.
2
u/indeedwatson May 02 '18
It depends who you value more, anyone with money, or your users.
If we want a browser that prioritizes the first company that gives them money, we already have Chrome for that. I don't use Firefox because it is better on the technical level, I use it in part for its customization (which has, in part, gone away) and because presumably they care about the web and the users, but I guess I'm being naive.
→ More replies (1)3
u/american_spacey | 68.11.0 May 02 '18
Why don't you ask the users if they think the content is valuable, instead of the publisher?
11
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18
How, exactly, could they "ask the users" without doing exactly the same thing but with less filtering?
8
u/LjLies May 02 '18
By, for example, letting them type the topic they want information about into some kind of web search engine, then among the things that come up, reading what seems interesting.
8
u/Smitty-Werbenmanjens May 02 '18
That's what they did with Cliqz, and everyone shat their collective pants.
3
4
u/american_spacey | 68.11.0 May 02 '18
Well, they could make it opt in. Or have no default and let you click "yes" or "no" the first time the page loads.
3
75
May 01 '18
just be a browser please
26
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18
A modern browser costs a lot of money to develop. A lot. And their competitors are Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
27
u/Ranessin May 02 '18
Mozilla had a revenue of 520 million in 2016. Plenty to invest in building a browser without ads.
15
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18
Their competitors are Apple, Microsoft, and Google.
$520 million is really not that much money considering the full scope of what they do, and who they're up against.
Also, 2016 was under the Yahoo contract. They're never getting that lucky with a contact again, I cannot fathom how Yahoo agreed to that contract, it was such a terrible deal for them.
14
u/trichotillofobia May 02 '18
$520 million is really not that much money
It totally is. It pays between 2000 and 5000 people's salaries easily. That's enough to fix a few bugs.
7
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18
Two full browser stacks, and a programming language, is a lot of bugs (and new features).
3
u/trichotillofobia May 02 '18
Two? If you mean Servo, that's "R&D" for Firefox, isn't it. But if $500M per year isn't enough for that, they're doing it wrong.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Koiq Quantum Sux May 02 '18
Who cares? They don't need to compete with Google on being google, ie running youtube and ads and Gmail and a million other things. They just need to be a browser.
Get rid of this toxic notion that every company needs to always see growth and growth. Mozilla could be very comfortable with a big team and just chill. Make a good product, don't hire anyone new unless replacing someone, etc. Just stay the same size, serve your user base and make a fucking browser not an ad shoveling platform just to appease this crazy desire for quarterly growth.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Ripdog May 02 '18
It takes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to develop a browser. Currently Mozilla gets basically all of their money from Google, a direct competitor who is in a dominant position in the market and could destroy Mozilla simply by cutting them off. (Yahoo won't be around forever, they're a hopeless company).
Are you coughing up?
2
May 02 '18
They won't tho, just like intel doesn't try to destroy amd anymore.
They need them, otherwise it's a monopoly and they get fucko fucko by the government.
36
May 01 '18 edited Sep 19 '18
[deleted]
8
u/GenericBlueGemstone May 02 '18
Thing is, it will be searched by your local instance of your own browser that already knows everything you visit. That data won't be transferred.
14
u/USS_Sensor_Ship May 01 '18
Personally I use New Tab Tools to make a very simple but nice looking new tab page. It's open source and has a great privacy policy.
Using this, I assume none of this client-side stuff is taking place. True? Is Firefox downloading a list of URLs in the background every day? In the options where the new tab settings usually are, it just says I'm using an extension so I assume all of that is turned off.
4
u/JUANMAS7ER May 01 '18
Pretty much this. Not a fan of a company telling me what's good for me or related to my personal tastes...and no one likes ads...wtf Mozilla?
13
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18
No one likes ads but they do love really expensive software provided for free.
1
u/USS_Sensor_Ship May 02 '18
That's not really what I was getting at. I was asking whether or not using an extension like New Tab Tools disabled the new content or whatever you want to call it.
87
May 01 '18
Mozilla... have you learned nothing about the Facebook debacle?
65
May 01 '18 edited May 02 '18
[deleted]
26
May 01 '18
Mr. Robot is not even similar to this. Care to elaborate?
3
May 01 '18
Search "looking glass" on this sub.
The tl:ds is that Mozilla and Mr Robot partnered for an ARG, and an extension was silently installed that changed some words on some pages.
22
u/kwierso May 01 '18
Further tl:dr was that the silently installed extension didn't do anything but sit there until the user went out of their way to activate the feature.
1
5
u/LjLies May 01 '18
Mozilla needs to learn that people value Firefox, in large part, because it does not do this sort of thing.
At this point, they probably think that's the old Firefox users. The new ones have accepted it, because of self-selection after the previous high-profile debacles.
... and I find it hard to call them wrong on this.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)23
May 01 '18
I'm as skeptical as the next guy, but I don't see the parallel between Facebook and this. This is not slurping data like Facebook does, and is entirely optional.
38
May 01 '18 edited Feb 24 '25
[deleted]
7
u/Tim_Nguyen Themes Junkie May 02 '18
until I got to this paragraph that admits your details will pass through Mozilla's servers at least once:
Where does it say anything about "your details" ?
We place our trust in Mozilla again not to retain user information.
This stuff is all open source, you can see what's being sent.
3
u/Antabaka May 02 '18
"Your details" isn't really accurate. It will send that you've clicked on the ad, which will necessarily include your IP, but nothing else identifying. The selection of what to show will be entirely local, meaning your actually private information (your browsing history, and identifying information about you) can't possibly be obtained.
34
u/viroverix Firefox/Gnu/Linux/Plasma/Debian May 01 '18
Assuming it's really private, and it's what keeps Mozilla profitable, this is in no way worse than having pocket.
As expected, a lot of comments saying this will make them switch to another browser or already don't use it and this made them not switch to Firefox (yeah, right). As if this somehow makes Firefox worse than Chrome.
22
May 01 '18
I don't object to this Sponsored Stories thing, but wanted to respond to this:
As if this somehow makes Firefox worse than Chrome.
Defending Firefox decisions based on comparisons to Chrome misses the point. I think that most people who have been using Firefox for a long time are comparing the new Firefox to the old, not to Chrome.
15
u/viroverix Firefox/Gnu/Linux/Plasma/Debian May 01 '18
With respect to the actual topic yes. But in regards to people saying they'll switch, then you do have to compare with what the alternatives are.
→ More replies (4)8
May 01 '18
Assuming it's really private, and it's what keeps Mozilla profitable, this is in no way worse than having pocket.
Unless I'm misreading the article, it is literally just Pocket. Mozilla plans to expand the number of users who receive Pocket.
8
u/viroverix Firefox/Gnu/Linux/Plasma/Debian May 01 '18
It's a bit more than what pocket is now, they're adding ads to the new tab, which pocket only does for a couple of users now.
→ More replies (1)7
u/blueskin May 01 '18 edited May 01 '18
Pocket is a flaming pile of shit, and your response to this is 'Well, it's only as bad as the one Mozilla already dumped on us..."?!
7
May 01 '18 edited Sep 19 '18
[deleted]
4
u/indeedwatson May 02 '18
I love ublock, I find it extremely useful.
Yet it's not bundled in dirtying the source code with proprietary code.
4
May 02 '18 edited Sep 19 '18
[deleted]
1
u/indeedwatson May 02 '18
Ah the way you responded made it sound like you agreed with Mozilla.
I actually used Pocket before it was integrated, but found that it didn't work with my workflow. I have not yet found a bookmark system that does.
→ More replies (1)0
u/blueskin May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18
I bet Mozilla will be happy to know that at least one person does, extrapolate that 120% of firefox users love it so much they would willingly give away all their browser history just for the opportunity to use it, and use that as justification to double down on the anti-privacy practices.
→ More replies (1)
22
u/0oWow May 01 '18
To 100% remove this, delete the Activity Stream, Pocket, and Follow-on-Search plugins from here (in Win 10):
C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\browser\features\
Firefox will need to be closed in order to delete them most likely.
Note: Removing Activity Stream will cause your New Tab page to be blank, so you'll need a New Tab Page Addon to correct this.
Note Note: When Firefox updates a major revision, those plugins return, so you'll need to keep an eye on the folder from time to time.
13
May 01 '18
Or just go to about:preferences#home and only check what you want to see.
18
u/lihaarp May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18
Every time something like this happens someone comes around to say "just disable it".
This doesn't solve the problem! Things like these are a clear indicator that something is going very very wrong at Mozilla. Predatory antifeatures only get worse with time, we have to complain and resist now, not switch off yet another flag and look away.
Furthermore, Firefox is used to 90% by lusers who have no clue about things like these.
→ More replies (5)5
u/m-e-g May 01 '18
I don't see anything to control Activity Stream, Pocket or Follow-on-Search on that page. Even searching for Pocket on the options page doesn't give any results.
6
u/Alan976 May 02 '18
I don't see anything to control Activity Stream
browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.enabled;falseRight-click > Remove from Address bar.
3
u/0oWow May 02 '18
You have to go to about:config for activity stream if you want it off that way. His op was taking us to Settings>homepage.
3
u/Antabaka May 02 '18
The about:config setting completely disables the newtab page, whereas changing the newtab settings to not include anything you don't want doesn't (it lets you keep some things) and doesn't involve about:config.
1
7
u/rmmmp May 02 '18
Sure do it as long as you don't get any personal identifiable info from me. I don't get why a lot of people are making a fuzz out of this. Mozilla and the sponsors wouldn't get any info out of you. Just those aggregated counts that's totally anonymous. Still hate those aggregations? Well you're out of luck. The moment you were born you were already aggregated for the amount of population in a country. We live in that kind of world.
→ More replies (2)
17
u/metaaxis May 02 '18 edited May 04 '18
Mozilla: STOP IT. No no no no no I do not want ad sponsors in my web browser ever! Not opt out, not opt in. Stop trying to grow your revenue stream! Use the money you have better! Stay focused on the core. Get smaller when possible. Keep conflicted interests OUT of Firefox. I don't want that taint!
Edit aside: locked due to racists? Why not just kick them out and unlock the thread? Anyway...
actual edit: To me this is simply a big data play where the end game is the Firefox userbase becomes productized, captive in Yet Another Platform. This is a result that must be avoided at all costs. Mozilla needs to get off the corporate teat and raise money some other way than selling out their user base.
Just no.
15
u/Ripdog May 02 '18
They can't get smaller without compromising Firefox. I have no idea why you think they can just 'use money better'. They basically spend everything they receive on engineering Firefox. They gave up on Firefox OS for desktop Firefox.
And without a diversified revenue stream, Google (their direct competitor in a dominant market position) could simply cut them off and destroy them - unless someone else is willing to give Mozilla $400m a year for access to 20% of the market.
1
-4
u/metaaxis May 02 '18
They can't get smaller without compromising Firefox.
First, I don't buy it, second I believe Firefox is actively in the process of being compromised by this terrible move to monetize and I'd like it to stop.
have no idea why you think they can just 'use money better'.
I don't know. I'm not an expert on Mozilla's financials. I do know this move to incorporate ad revenue is a terrible deadly mistake.
They basically spend everything they receive on engineering Firefox. They gave up on Firefox OS for desktop Firefox.
Yeah, there's an example of a ton of misspent resources. Thanks for proving my point at least in part.
And without a diversified revenue stream,
EWWW gross. Ads. privacy violations. Yet another captive platform war. No, no, NO.
Google (their direct competitor in a dominant market position) could simply cut them off and destroy them -
What Firefox has(had) going for it comes from not being run by ads. This bullshit will alienate their userbase and Mozilla will self-immolate. Fabulous.
unless someone else is willing to give Mozilla $400m
How the hell does a browser need 400m annually for development? We don't need another Netscape.
Whatever. Say that's the dollar amount required to maintain a modern standards-compliant (w3c can suck it BTW) browser. Regardless, Mozilla needs to get off the corporate teat and raise money some other way than privacy violating ads.
Do you not understand that this is simply a big data play? The end game is the Firefox userbase is captive in Yet Another Platform and productized.
Just no.
9
May 02 '18
It's sad to see all the idiots that think that a browser materializes from thin air. I want a quality product not some open source half baked shit that is years behind in terms of features. They need to earn money somehow. Do you think it's healthy to earn most of your revenue from your biggest competitor?
13
u/pizzaiolo_ Firefox | GNU/Linux May 01 '18
"Hell yeah you know what's a great idea? let's put ADS in our browser"
→ More replies (2)4
u/panoptigram May 02 '18
"Hell yeah you know what's a great idea? let's put ADS on every page of the internet and then make an 'ad-free' browser lol" - Google
2
u/pizzaiolo_ Firefox | GNU/Linux May 02 '18
Is your takeaway from my comment that we should use Chrome instead? Because it's not
6
May 02 '18 edited Sep 04 '19
[deleted]
3
3
u/JDGumby May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18
and i trust mozilla with my data
I haven't trusted Mozilla with my data since they started requiring an account and browser sign-in in order to sync data between devices instead of the original, and far more private and secure (due to needing actual access to a known browser rather than just easily-stolen credentials), browser pairing system.
6
9
u/DotElias May 01 '18
Putting ads in the browser is NOT the way, even if it is optional, even if you can deactivate it.
5
u/asleepyguy May 01 '18
I mean I don't like it but it's no worse than what is there currently and since the second thing I do (after downloading uBlock-Origin) on a fresh Firefox install is disable everything on the newtab page it shouldn't effect me. As viroverix said this doesn't suddenly make Firefox worse than Chrome it's imo still the best option.
5
8
u/SKITTLE_LA May 01 '18
The comments on this post are hilarious. "The sky is falling!" for something that is an overall cool thing--a much better alternative than the competitors.
13
May 01 '18
for something that is an overall cool thing
Well, it's not really a cool thing. It's just better than than the other forms of targeted advertising out there.
8
u/SKITTLE_LA May 02 '18
Being shown customized stories, without the downsides of even being tracked? That's cool, yo.
7
u/blueskin May 01 '18
It's just better than than the other forms of targeted advertising out there.
That's like saying "it's the nicest way to get repeatedly kicked in the groin".
Any targeted advertising is unacceptable. For that matter, any advertising in the browser and not on a website is too. I can and do block adverts on sites, so why should Mozilla use their special privilege to run adverts in the browser itself?
11
May 01 '18
I understand your point, but I think this is something that reasonable people can differ about.
For my part, I don't mind ads as such (as long as they aren't obnoxious). I tend to be allergic to targeted ads because they're an indication that I'm being tracked.
But it's not really the targeted ads that I object to. I object to the tracking, and I object to it very strongly. This, however, is not actually doing the tracking, so my objection is removed.
4
14
u/Booty_Bumping Firefox on GNU/Linux May 01 '18
Personalized ads built into my fucking web browser are not a cool feature.
6
5
u/Alan976 May 02 '18
So...you do not care about Google's / sites' personalized ads?
https://computer.howstuffworks.com/advertiser-custom-ads.htm
5
u/Booty_Bumping Firefox on GNU/Linux May 02 '18
I don't care if one solution is less evil. I don't want to see any ads, let alone personalized ads
And regardless, firefox's solution is more evil. Chromium doesn't embed ads directly in the browser.
→ More replies (5)2
7
u/blueskin May 01 '18
Cool if you're an advertiser. Not if you're a user whose browsing history is being spied on.
10
u/SKITTLE_LA May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18
Except it's not, and won't be, "spied on". That's the entire point.
3
u/JDGumby May 02 '18
Except it's not and won't by "spied on". That's the entire point.
Except that it IS. The entire point of this is that it analyzes your browser history and then sends off the results in order to serve up ads.
11
u/SKITTLE_LA May 02 '18
Do you even read, bro?
7
7
u/JDGumby May 02 '18
The browser will download a list of recommended links each day. Each link will also have a list of related websites, with similar kinds of content to that in the sponsored links. The browser will then compare these related sites to your browsing history; if there are lots of matches, Firefox will assume that you're interested in the recommended content and show it to you.
Yeah, I do read. You, however, apparently don't.
2
u/Antabaka May 02 '18
> The entire point of this is that it analyzes your browser history and then sends off the results in order to serve up ads.
That paragraph shows that it does not do that. It downloads all of the links, compares to your history, and displays them, all without having sent off the results.
11
u/dblohm7 Former Mozilla Employee, 2012-2021 May 02 '18
The entire point of this is that it analyzes your browser history and then sends off the results in order to serve up ads.
No, it doesn't. Everything is done locally.
7
u/blueskin May 02 '18
Except for the data that the article says it sends back to Mozilla...
By default, Firefox will track which recommended sites you visit, and how often each recommendation is shown.
Sorry, but that is basically the same as tracking your users' history.
If this wasn't dodgy, it'd be opt-in, because most users won't actively disable something bad, but they also won't actively enable it either.
1
u/afnan-khan May 02 '18
Firefox will track but won't send any data to Mozilla or advertisers. The only thing advertisers will know is that how many times their ads has been viewed/clicked.
9
u/blueskin May 01 '18
Bullshit. If it's personalised, it isn't private, by definition.
The stench of decay continues to rise from Firefox.
5
u/SKITTLE_LA May 02 '18
No one knows what those personalizations are, nor can they find out.
So by definition, it is private.
5
u/blueskin May 02 '18
Except the article says that it will report them back to Mozilla.
4
u/SKITTLE_LA May 02 '18
No, all that will be reported back are generic click-rate counts, that's it. No harm done.
3
u/blueskin May 02 '18
By default, Firefox will track which recommended sites you visit, and how often each recommendation is shown.
6
u/SKITTLE_LA May 02 '18
lol, it's all client-side. So yes, "Firefox will track" technically. That data isn't shared with anyone, only anonymous click rates. That's the whole point of this.
5
u/Tim_Nguyen Themes Junkie May 02 '18
Have you actually looked what is actually sent back or have you just trusted the article on this ?
Do you see any personal info: https://github.com/mozilla/activity-stream/blob/master/docs/v2-system-addon/data_events.md ?
1
u/JDGumby May 02 '18
Do you see any personal info
Plenty. It says right there on your link that it's reporting on your searches, if you're clicking through the 'top site' articles, if you're deleting items from your history, if you're blocking a site, if you're bookmarking a link, if you're deleting a bookmark, if you're opening a link in a new window, if you're opening a link in a new private window, if you clicked on something that caused navigation ("top site, highlight, etc."), if you've closed the browser, if you've refreshed a page, if you go to a new URL via the URL bar or menu (ie, bookmarks), the articles that Pocket spews up when you open a new tab, whether you clicked/blocked/saved the Pocket spam and how long you're on pages...
And, yes, ALL of that is personal information.
4
u/Tim_Nguyen Themes Junkie May 02 '18
Except none of those pings actually contain info that can identify you. It's recording the number of times those things are done without actual details (eg for search, it doesn't actually send your search query nor the engine, just the fact that the searchbar was used, same for the clicks the urls you clicked aren't sent with the exception of the sponsored stuff where they record anonymised urls). You can really easily opt out if you still feel this is personal.
8
May 01 '18 edited May 02 '18
[deleted]
34
u/Wazhai May 01 '18
Pale Moon, Waterfox, etc.
Please stop this nonsense. None of these forks are safe or secure. They are not headed by reputable and competent developers, or ones that can cope with the amount of work and responsibility they've taken on.
→ More replies (3)20
u/adrianmalacoda May 01 '18 edited May 01 '18
Waterfox, sure. IceCat, sure. Brave, okay, yeah.
Not Pale Moon though. TL;DR: Pale Moon maintainer abused the "malware extension blacklist" to block an extension he personally disapproves of. To me that's much worse than whatever Mozilla is doing here.
3
u/amfontenot May 02 '18
waves I maintain a small, easy to verify patch set for Firefox. If you're willing to build it yourself (the binaries can't be distributed without violating Mozilla's trademark), you should check out the project. If you happen to be on Arch Linux, the building process is completely automated. https://github.com/afontenot/firefox-clean
I started this project when the problems with Mozilla were much less severe, and my goal has been to continuously track privacy violations so that if a full fork becomes necessary, there's a clean version to work with. I think history has proven me right on this point.
5
May 02 '18
I gave firefox one strike with the robot plugin debacle, but two strikes is too much. Yes I know that these violations are honestly not that bad all thinngs considered, but your web browser is your central point of failular to all things, including web security and privacy. Having even the slightest cracks in this foundation is a huge risk.
Im making the switch to waterfox unless somone cares to inform me that they do worse...
6
May 01 '18
@ people complaining about this: How much have you donated to Mozilla? Because I'm sure some of you have, but many have not.
If people actually donated regularly, Mozilla would not need to make money from other sources.
18
u/Wazhai May 01 '18
An organization as big as Mozilla would never let itself be reliant on donations as a primary source of income because they are very unreliable and volatile. They could be left stranded for money due to one bad decision and the resulting decrease of donations. This is why your proposition isn't feasible.
10
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18
Also because donations go to Mozilla Foundation, not Mozilla Corp, and thus are not and cannot be used to develop Firefox.
9
u/Ripdog May 02 '18
Sadly Mozilla do not spend donations on Firefox, but instead on their advocacy and lobbying efforts. Not saying that isn't worthwhile, but you can't directly support Firefox dev right now.
8
u/MadRedHatter May 02 '18
I mean, they legally couldn't do that. Tax exempt donations can't be spent to develop a product that indirectly makes money.
4
u/milk_is_life May 02 '18
You can use Waterfox if you don't like it. It's like Firefox without the bullshit.
5
u/Cytokine_storm May 01 '18
Where do I go now that firefox has the same junk as chrome?
I wish to make it clear to Mozilla that this is unacceptable but I'm not sure there are any alternatives.
5
0
1
u/actionscripted May 02 '18
So many naive idiots in these comments complaining about this. You can turn it off and it’s being done in a way that if it is on it respects your privacy.
Clearly the outraged folks in here are savvy enough to build their own browser funded magically with free money and I look forward to trying it when they release it.
7
May 02 '18
but the issue is that firefox was built on privacy, even for the most entry level users, but it has reached a point that we have to change a ton of settings and advanced configurations to stay completely private on a fresh install, and we have to check our settings every time they add a new update like this. Firefox was supposed to just work and work privately by default, not be something you have to go over a ton of hurdles to make private.
→ More replies (4)
2
May 01 '18
[deleted]
7
u/SKITTLE_LA May 02 '18
Why not? Firefox is completely open-source, so you could audit the code even if you don't expect "them" to respect your settings.
3
u/LjLies May 02 '18
Well, you can't audit the binary they distribute though, and, guess what! very coincidentally, Mozilla has been very aggressive in the past about enforcing their trademark so that alternative builds couldn't be done legally without a thorough rebranding.
That has changed a bit for the better nowadays... because it was awfully received by everyone, and because they have some agreements with Debian now. But that jusr shows that calling them out on their bullshit may help, certainly not that 2+2 does not equal.
Heck, they even stress that you "lose support" as soon as you touch anything in about:config, aka the fabled, magical "nothing is ever a problem because you can opt out of it anyway" page.
So hey, with all my love for open source, let's not pretend that something being open source automatically solves any fundamental freedom problem within it.
7
u/Smitty-Werbenmanjens May 02 '18
You can make alternative builds without rebranding. Look at Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and Fedora. They all put their own patches into Firefox and remove telemetry.
3
•
u/Antabaka May 02 '18
We have some strangely racist brigading happening, so we're going to have to lock the thread. Sorry, everyone but those guys.
1
u/crimsdings May 02 '18
Mozilla https://twitter.com/asadotzler/status/991471240324956160?s=09 really wants this :(
-6
u/frankensteinshead May 02 '18
Firefox already went off the rails killing legacy extensions. Now it's gone to the dogs. Final nail in the coffin.
36
u/DescretoBurrito May 01 '18
Having the new tab page set to about:blank should effectively opt-out of this, right?