arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/05/firefox-will-show-sponsored-content-thats-personalized-but-private/ >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.
>By default, Firefox will track which recommended sites you visit, and how often each recommendation is shown. Considering how frequently ads are displayed will most likely be based on how many hits their searches of your browser history the terms for each ad get, this is basically Mozilla doing searches of your browser history. Also, considering how they're moving to this shit being enabled by default, how much longer until they go full Windows 10 and keep shoveling on shit that you need to opt out of and reverting some of your settings every update to wear people down? I really don't feel like needing to constantly keep up with the new ways the company that makes my browser is trying to spy on me.
I should note that this is going to be rolling out with Firefox 60 which will release on May 9th and will also become the new ESR version on the same day if it follows the same trend as the past 2 ESR releases, so if you want to secure yourself against this you have just under a week to do so. >TFW there are no good popular browsers and this will only get worse
>By default, Firefox will track which recommended sites you visit, and how often each recommendation is shown. It isn't being done directly, it's done by your browser doing searches on your history for the keywords/phrases they send you and then sending them the results in the form of how many hits each search got.
It's enabled by default, and as I said in the OP I really don't feel like needing to constantly keep up with the new ways the company that makes my browser is trying to spy on me, nor should needing do do so be necessary. I stopped using Windows for the same reason.
tfw internet is dead because nobody can be trusted to maintain a secure browser that isn't spyware
Michael Martinez
Alright, so can we make a list of other browsers that might be good? >Chrome Google spyware central >Chromium I remember there being problems with this but I can't remember what they were off hand and if they could be dismissed given the current state Firefox is in. I'm pretty sure it used a a lot more RAM too. >Iceweasel discontinued >Icecat Supposedly breaks most websites due to the included RMS approved non-free JS blocker. I kind of want to see this for myself though. >Pale Moon >Basilisk What's going on with these two? I've used Palemoon in the past and had some issues that I overlooked because of how much faster it was. Is Pale Moon being dropped and development moved to Basilisk? >Waterfox This one sounds decent so I'm going to try it. I have heard claims of it just being Firefox that ships with different default settings though so if that ends up being true I might not stay with it long. >Qutebrowser Is this still around? I remember it lacking features but using relatively little RAM, and I would have probably stuck with it if it had all the features I wanted. Did this actually go somewhere? >Brave This is a joke gone too far. It's the ex CEO of Mozilla making a browser with IE tier functionality due to lack of addons by forking of a browser that originally supported addons. Also, "acceptable ads". >Edge It could be made out of solid gold and suck your dick, but that still wouldn't make up for how you need Windows 10 to use it. >links/w3m/netsurf/dillo/other browsers that completely don't support CSS/JS These really aren't usable for general purpose uses no matter how much I'd like for them to be.
That article doesn't cover the most important part of this: how your browser sends data back to Mozilla about what sponsored articles are being displayed and how often they're being displayed.
David Morales
It's by default collect your fucking data, shill. No one argues whether it can be disabled or not.
Gavin Cruz
NOOOOOO I just switched back from Opera poofox was a mistake
So is there even a decent always up to date fork with all mozilla spyware and botnet disbaled? I remember waterfox soppose to be that but why the fuck is it always so behind in security updates then? doesn't sound like it's so hard to change some booleans and call it a fork
Camden Rodriguez
yes because mozilla needs to remove useful features to add useless bloat
Brayden Roberts
Doesn't debian offer a more foss version of firefox with their icecat browser?
Julian Hughes
Falkon is a wonderful browser
Christian Miller
>your browser sends data back to Mozilla about what sponsored articles are being displayed and how often they're being displayed Does it? I don't know.
Adrian Miller
Hmm. So just use one of the many firefox browser forks like waterfox, palemoon, etc. Its a free market
Levi Myers
>free market Not OP but you're retarded if you think this is how it works these days. Web standards have been bloated to the point where no individual or small group of people could reasonably implement a browser which covers even 50% of the most commonly used websites fast enough so that the technology isn't completely obsolete by the time it's finished. The situation is horrid. You're lucky mozilla and google provide their browsers (firefox and chromium) with source, if they didn't then you would be absolutely fucked. The web standards and the current state of the web is rigged towards the big players, no small project could possibly compete.
>DUDE YOU CAN DISABLE IT THE BOTNET IS ONLY BAD IF YOU CAN'T DISABLE IT But this is unironically correct. Or do you have a problem with making money off of clueless idiots?
Henry Williams
I don't know of any cases where Mozilla has reverted an existing privacy setting in an update. Stop spreading FUD, you disable it once and it's gone forever. Crisis averted.
Noah Campbell
>The web standards and the current state of the web is rigged towards the (((big players))), no goy project could possibly compete
ftfy, and yes, you're right.
>t. Jew
Isaiah Lopez
AYYYYYYYYYYYYYY WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO W A T E R F O X HHEEEEERRREEEEE
How would I be fucked? You know what happened when major torrent sites like tpb and nyaa buckled? People came together to replace them because the need was strong enough. Now if browsers options were botnet only big corporations, you'd better believe people would be quick to step in and change that. Go ahead. Fucking axe them. I love to see change.
Tyler Morales
use vivaldi faggot
Bentley Barnes
I don't think you understand how bad the browser situation is today. What you're talking about did happen before and created the browser known today as Firefox, but that was when the web was much simpler. Google's Chromium browser contains 18.2 million lines of code, and Firefox contains 36.9 million (partially due to needing to maintain backwards compatibility currently, it'll likely go down when the next ESR version is released). For comparison, the Linux kernel currently contains 16.8 million lines of code (though most of that is drivers necessary for all the different systems that are supported IIRC) and the estimates for Windows 98 are between 13 million lines and 18 million lines of code, and I would argue that web browsers today are more complex than both of those. Do you even have any idea of where to start or how many man hours it would take to accomplish this? We're at the point where it would be more realistic to just abandon the modern web completely and make new sites that don't depend on all the shit from today and/or dedicated clients for popular sites than it would to try to make a new browser.
>but you can disable it Yeah, you can do the same with Windows 10. I think we all know how that went.
Jordan Parker
>Yeah, you can do the same with Windows 10. I think we all know how that went. You can't do it on Win10 without third-party tools, for which you never even know if they actually got it all or not.
Mozilla has every incentive to allow disabling it completely, which is why they do just that. No bullshit.
Nathan Perez
>Mozilla thinks this is interesting for meo Nice job. I now want to research Vatican churchbooks and take pics of kids I don't have.
>comparing a kernel to actual, usable software Every major OS has much more code than those browser figures you cited.
Cameron Scott
>Every major OS has much more code than those browser figures you cited. Except most of that comes in the form of tons of individual pieces of software that for the most part can be easily swapped or even removed, especially when dealing with community developed OSes, rather than as a single massive monolythic piece of software where all the parts have to tightly interact with each other.
You're thinking Iceweasel, but it has since been discontinued. Icecat (which is in fact, GNU Icecat, or as I have recently taken to calling it, GNU+Icecat) is the RMS approved version of Firefox that supposedly includes an automatic non-free JS blocker that breaks many sites.
Joseph Anderson
I would use Falkon if it had better controls for javascript permissions
Chase Carter
LibreJS is disabled by default on GNU IceCat because it doesn't work
Robert Brown
It hasn't landed on mobile, not even on Nightly, most stuff takes at least two major versions to land on Fennec Firefox contains Mozilla copyrighted branding that you can't redistribute
while better, it performs like ass on my ancient shittop, and also suffers horrible memory leaks on kde neon for some reason. firefox 3.6.28 was the pinnacle of browsers, and it even had a qt fork in thw works before it was killed off
Austin Ortiz
basically nothing compared to my umatrix whitelists
Carson Davis
>Firefox contains Mozilla copyrighted branding that you can't redistribute Trademarked branding. It's still free, but you can't violate the trademarks: >Icons files containing our trademarks are available under the following licenses: vector logo files under CC-BY 3.0 or later; bitmap logo files under MPL 2.
This has absolutely no bearing on FOSS status, which only depends on copyright.
Christian Smith
>abandon support for the modern web And nothing of value would be lost. That gets discussed every day as is, since the modern web is full of bloated garbage anyway. I was born in the 80s, I've watched most of this play out since the beginning. If there is a need for it, it'll be dealt with. Large companies cater to keep people contented and lazy, the moment they piss them off enough, they can lose their whole business model.
Ayden Long
>he actually wants the old, Flash-infested web back
Carson Butler
>he actually wants the modern pajeetscript web with 30+ ads and tracking loading in the background I can cherrypick too. There is nothing you can say to convince me. You live using the modern web every day, you know this isnt efficient.
Noah Reed
What's your alternative? Returning to complete Web 1.0 just isn't a remotely realistic option.
Jayden Turner
It doesn't have to be a complete web 1.0 conversion, just a compromise of the useful aspects of old and new. This was discussed while planning for possible data fastlanes, where paying more for bloated websites may save the current internet since it promotes more efficient minimalistic coding.
Josiah Stewart
Please don't fall for the anti-NN shilling, you seem like an intelligent user. There should be no changes to the structure of the Internet, just the content. The question is how.
Aiden Moore
>Firefox now has feature parity with Chrome >people think this is a bad thing
Gavin Clark
Took me a second. Quality shitpost.
Joshua Torres
I'm not falling for it. Are you listening? I've been around since the 80s, we didnt have those laws in place back then and shit was fine. I don't know what concerted effort will be tried today, since there are a lot of big businesses banking on it, but im not worried about it. Again, the sooner they try to make a change the better.
Isaac Sanchez
The 80s didn't have the web, period. It was created in the 90s. What are you talking about?
Luis Howard
Shit was fine in the 80s because the internet wasn't used by the general public in the 80s. Now ISPs have incentive to be manipulative, and the high cost of running an ISP incentives shortcuts and restrictions on the end user.
Net neutrality, at it's core, is simply the principle that ISPs should discriminate traffic based on content or destination any more than necessary to ensure service. The shit the FCC was pushing was full Title II classification, which is super overreaching and gives the government too much control. Most of the shitflinging over NN comes from people talking past eachother. You've got liberals on one side who understand what NN is, but don't understand that the FCC's "Net Neutrality" was actually a government ploy to control the internet. On the other side, you've got conservatives who think that the FCC's Title II bullshit was net neutrality.
Neither of these groups seem to understand that they're not even arguing about the same fucking thing. Or, if they do, they're too entrenched in their tribes to back down from their idiocy.
Joshua Perez
>ISPs should discriminate traffic shouldn't*
Charles Nelson
Ungoogled chromium
Jacob Nguyen
>the FCC's "Net Neutrality" was actually a government ploy to control the internet If it was, why didn't they even attempt to use it that way during the years before the repeal?
By the way, most conservatives don't give much of a shit about Title II per se, they simply want ISPs to have the power you're talking about because they're pro-business.
Wyatt Hughes
They didn't attempt to use it because it was a constant point of contention. When I said conservatives, I meant regular people, not politicians. Obviously if we're talking about the government, Republicans said they were "small government", but they wanted it gone so the ISPs could make more money and they could get their kickbacks. The Democrats were "pro-consumer" and "free speech" but they just wanted more control and ability to censor things.
Jason Garcia
You are aware that you can have web 2.0 features without JS. Jow Forums is web 2.0 and everything except the catalog works just fine without JS, and other imageboards even have catalogs that work without JS. Forums are web 2.0. Any website where you can post things through a method other than mailto forms is web 2.0. I really wish people would stop misusing "web 2.0" as another word for "things I don't like about the web".
David Brooks
Web 2.0 is a vague, useless buzzword so this entire conversation is semantic and valueless.
Justin Morris
Looks like Mozilla Defense Force is working hard nowadays
Jordan Hill
>>TFW there are no good popular browsers and this will only get worse It has to be popular? Well damn why did no one tell me earlier otherwise I'd never have wasted my time on those stupid unpopular loser browsers
Jaxon Sanders
>They didn't attempt to use it because it was a constant point of contention. You could argue just about anything with this. It's a cover for conspiracy theorists.
Zachary Rodriguez
We already have one. There is a infographic floating around, go find that.
Jonathan Long
I don't know if you haven't noticed, but popular browsers are the ones with actually decent features (though that's coming at an increasing cost as of lately). Less popular browsers are either forks of popular browsers with a few small modifications and a new logo (mostly in an attempt to fix perceived problems with a popular browser, and forks such as Pale Moon sometimes can't keep up), or are severely lacking what many people would consider to be basic features on a desktop today (such as script controls).
Lincoln Bell
((())) >>aNN shilling >NN goes away >literally nothing changes it was a kike vs kike war to begin with you shill
Henry Bailey
>adblock+
Jaxson Jenkins
Runs like smooth delicious butter on my machine
Hudson Lewis
Fuck Firefox. They only get shittier and shittier and not even the Quantum browser is still as fast as Chromium.
Luke Nguyen
>>literally nothing changes... yet FTFY
Just wait. And not even that long, either.
Samuel Nelson
>tfw Firefox is still the better browser if only because everything else is either a botnet, or unsecure crap
Quantum is faster than all other browsers, your PC must be fucked up.
Landon Brown
>hurr just wait and see guiz, >guiz >guiz... the biggest joke is that you think any change will be because NN didn't pass you fucking sheep. either the change will be made and people will blame nn for extra points, or it will be made in the name of NN even though it does nothing but felate jewgle and co.
the net existed the way it was for decades without the 20xx NN bill.
Jeremiah Scott
Not that guy, but what was stopping them from abusing their privileges when we had NN? Net Neutrality didn't stop Comcast from enacting a monopoly where I live, it didn't stop them charging me top rates for 30mbps internet. It didn't help other companies get a startup when Comcast forced so many restrictions and government red tape.
We're screwed either way.
Nathaniel Thompson
It stopped from blocking and/or throttling SPECIFIC SITES, which is the only thing NN is about. Stop muddying the issue, ISPs are now free to do both of those terrible things.
Matthew Robinson
NN was useless if it could be so easily repealed.
Dominic Sullivan
I'm happy we at least have sjwfox. Sure the niggercattle are gonna be mined but at least the intelligent users can enjoy some freedom on the web
Jason Gutierrez
Proof?
Gavin Ortiz
It got repealed after all.
Elijah Price
That's not proof of anything but political ideology.
Tried pre-Quantum, soon went back every time. Tried Quantum upon release, switched right away.
Can't argue with results, user.
Gabriel Hall
>>TFW there are no good popular browsers and this will only get worse
Vivaldi, my nigga.
Wyatt Perry
>DUDE YOU CAN DISABLE IT THE BOTNET IS ONLY BAD IF YOU CAN'T DISABLE IT >implying a checkbox that does nothing actually disabled the botnet
Brandon Nguyen
>what is open source
Jace Baker
>implying anyone bothered to audit that sh*t the absolute state of neo-Jow Forums
Chase White
No browser is safe now. Might as well join in the botnet.
Bentley Butler
>Brave if you weren't tech illiterate you would have figured out how to install chrome addons in brave, because it's fucking based on chromium.
Julian Carter
>sh*t >neo-Jow Forums you can curse on the internet you know, newfriend.
Jose Morris
How low must you be to come up with that assertion?
Bentley Allen
Are you a dumbass OP? You already need to turn off telemetry in about:config since a long time ago.
Leo Collins
shut th* f*ck up b*fore i tell m*m
Eli Perez
This is why i switched to basilisk (and bleached the everlovingfuck out of the bits firefox was on or associated to) the moment my Xubuntu install finished :^)
