Yeah, you argument about pragmatism resonates with me. If all tracking was turned off over night that will break a lot of streams of revenue that many businesses/sites online rely on. Those businesses has grown because it has been possible and profitable to track you every step online. That does not mean that system needs to be preserved, or replaced with something similar. Markets adapt, we don’t have to help this business find new ways to make money.

And also, cross-site tracking is not necessary to do advertising, it just make is more cost efficient. I don’t accept the argument that they need my behavior data to have a working business.

Ads in newspapers have worked historically without the tracking. (Newspapers a hard time now though competing with the more profitable online ad business)

Also cookies have other functions aside from tracking your behavior, while this new feature only benefits ad/product analysis, with no direct benefit to the user of the browser. It’s essentially giving away information about my behavior, albeit without telling them who I am. (Indirectly users might benefit from having more ad-supported services online)

But sure, Mozilla is free to do what they want. I still like and use Firefox.

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.

It’s great that she sets the record straight but I didn’t see anything in the article about her saying she was treated well. And I wouldn’t say being held hostage is ever being treated well. I would like to know how she was treated though, as it can’t be easy to “take care” of a hostage in the very dire situation right now in all of Gaza, even if you wanted to.

None of that is to say Israel is in the right, my opinion is quite the opposite.

I was just gonna say, has to Flux

Yes

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, perhaps not as standard as I thought!

They’ll be happy to know the metric system also has miles.

10 km = 1 mile (metric mile)

It’s also very likely that Kamala Harris has voted for men in the past, meaning she would have transitioned to man by now negating the risk of male voters turning into women.

They’re probably waiting for this tech to be required by law and make a lot of cash on the patent.

You’re right, and went back to read again and I totally misread the original article on Pivot to Asia as being more positive to china, which it wasn’t. I apologize for that, and thanks for still keeping up the conversation. I owe you to at least have a look at your last reference.

Just trying to keep up with what message you’re trying to convey. First you said it started during the Obama administration, then you agreed it was later, during the trump administration.

I don’t have time to check even more sources you reference. Feel free to mention why your last source is relevant to our discussion and I might give it a glance. Or at least why it worth a read.

So, based on your source, it’s Trump policy rather than Obama policy?

That sounds like the opposite. In the article they mention changing the policy in 2017. Is that what you mean?

I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech. (Not saying you aren’t)

The definition is tricky and if such law should exist it should have a good margin from being used for arbitrary “I was offended” type of offenses.

I don’t think prison, as you suggested, is a reasonable consequence either.