Probably the people—accurately—pointing out that Mozilla has also adopted Manifest V3 along with Google. Google is doing it to curtail (“kill”) ad blockers. Mozilla is also now in the advertising game, and secretly began a telemetry program which is opt-out only. And, given how we shouldn’t trust orgs with financial motive, very well could opt you back in with future updates exactly as Microsoft does.
Plus, their current CEO has a history, and Mozilla as a whole faces dicey times ahead if their Daddy Google is forced to stop buying exclusivity deals by the U.S. government.
One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways. Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement.
Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.
They aren’t killing Mv2 but they implemented there own ad system in Firefox that was silently turned on. That is on top of all the other anti privacy stuff like telemetry, Firefox suggest and Pocket.
They are only good for privacy when compared to Chrome. Compared to Librewolf and similar they are abysmal
All that is irrelevant to what I just said, and what you originally said, but for the record, I’m not mad about it. Firefox is implementing ads in a privacy-friendly way and, now that they’re basically the only browser engine in the world that isn’t Chromium and their Google money is drying up, they’re going to have to earn revenue somehow. No way in hell they’re going to live off donations, and if they start charging for the browser, their entire userbase – and with it their ability to influence W3C standards – will disappear faster than you can blink. If they do that by selling privacy respecting ads, I’m all for it.
Man I was gonna say. As soon as noticed it I told everyone to switch to at least Waterfox if they are getting new devices or need recommendations.
I’m personally gonna wait for the Mullvad Browser to get tested some more because that one is said to be much better when it comes to privacy than a lot of others.
I use Vivaldi rn because of the customization option and the privacy is aight but obv not more than can be expected from chromium based browsers.
Also another hint to take your hands off opera or even worse, opera gx if you have that. Not worth it. Data collectors, not very fast anymore and customization I would always recommend Vivaldi or at least another base chromium variant.
Don’t make me laugh. You seriously think after buying an ad firm that “privacy preserving attribution” is not a euphemism? And I’m not the only one that sees it that way:
Why don’t you stop being to blue-eyed? Mozilla isn’t the privacy preserving browser. Hasn’t for a long time. Its major reason for existence is to be a functional “alternative” to Chrome that isn’t built on top of it.
I don’t care about advertisers. I will not put up with targeted advertising out of principle. This is a “feature” I’d expect out of Google not Mozilla although these days it isn’t a shock.
If anything, you are the one spreading BS. However, I think we are all entitled to our own opinions. Calling someone else’s opinion on a topic BS is arrogant at best and hurtful at worst. Ultimately there are no right answers
It is not targeted advertising. There is an entire writeup about it that you haven’t read (obviously). You clearly have no idea how it works.
Advertising tracking, but less creepy
First, we need to go over Firefox’s Privacy-Preserving Attribution, or PPA for short. Marketing attribution is the process for tracking how many sales, conversions, or other goals originate from a given advertising campaign. For example, when Nike releases a new pair of shoes, it creates multiple ad campaigns to market those shoes on TV, Instagram, and so on. Attribution is how Nike tracks how many shoes were purchased from a given advertisement.
The most popular way to track attribution right now is with individual tracking. For example, you might click on a web ad for the Nike shoes, and a cookie is stored in your web browser. If you buy the shoes, Nike’s store might check that cookie, so it knows which ad was responsible for convincing you to buy shoes. There are many other ways for attribution to work, but most of them use individual tracking like cookies, which allows other information to be collected with the marketing data. For example, Nike’s marketing people might want to know which ad you clicked on and your estimated age, so they know which demographics are buying the most shoes.
Mozilla’s PPA aims to build an attribution system without the creepy individual tracking. Sites can ask Firefox to monitor attribution for advertisements, and then later ask for a report, which is only provided in an anonymized collection “combined with many similar reports by the aggregation service.” For example, instead of Nike getting something like, “Billy Bob, aged 29, was one of 728 people in June who completed a purchase from the Instagram ad,” Nike would get something more like, “47% of the people who clicked the Instagram ad in June completed a purchase.”
There are other privacy and security measures in Privacy-Preserving Attribution, and Mozilla’s support page and Andrew Moore’s blog post explain it in more detail. PPA seems like a decent idea to track the effectiveness of ads without compromising user privacy in any meaningful way.
Did Mozilla signal any intention to phase out V2 though? It makes sense for them to support both, as a lot of extensions (that don’t rely on V2 features that are missing from V3) are going to be built for V3 now and if Mozilla wants to keep their extension store full. If they didn’t offer both versions, extensions developers might disregard Firefox as a platform because of its low usage share numbers if they had to maintain two different architectures.
Firefox market share is growing. I expect any content blocker worth its salt will support Mv2 and potentially Mv2 only like Ublock Origin is considering.
Right side is obvious, but what is that about Mozilla?
Probably the people—accurately—pointing out that Mozilla has also adopted Manifest V3 along with Google. Google is doing it to curtail (“kill”) ad blockers. Mozilla is also now in the advertising game, and secretly began a telemetry program which is opt-out only. And, given how we shouldn’t trust orgs with financial motive, very well could opt you back in with future updates exactly as Microsoft does.
Plus, their current CEO has a history, and Mozilla as a whole faces dicey times ahead if their Daddy Google is forced to stop buying exclusivity deals by the U.S. government.
So take your pick I guess.
Per Mozilla’s blog post about adopting Manifest V3, they are, unlike Chrome, not removing the API that lets uBlock Origin work:
Let’s not spread half truths please.
They aren’t killing Mv2 but they implemented there own ad system in Firefox that was silently turned on. That is on top of all the other anti privacy stuff like telemetry, Firefox suggest and Pocket.
They are only good for privacy when compared to Chrome. Compared to Librewolf and similar they are abysmal
Librewolf is firefox, just modified
All that is irrelevant to what I just said, and what you originally said, but for the record, I’m not mad about it. Firefox is implementing ads in a privacy-friendly way and, now that they’re basically the only browser engine in the world that isn’t Chromium and their Google money is drying up, they’re going to have to earn revenue somehow. No way in hell they’re going to live off donations, and if they start charging for the browser, their entire userbase – and with it their ability to influence W3C standards – will disappear faster than you can blink. If they do that by selling privacy respecting ads, I’m all for it.
The problem is that it is opt out with no warning popup.
So they are implementing Manifest v3 but only the parts worth implementing. Thank you Mozzilla 🙏
Mozilla also introduced opt-out tracking in their browser. Get LibreWolf folks…
Man I was gonna say. As soon as noticed it I told everyone to switch to at least Waterfox if they are getting new devices or need recommendations.
I’m personally gonna wait for the Mullvad Browser to get tested some more because that one is said to be much better when it comes to privacy than a lot of others.
I use Vivaldi rn because of the customization option and the privacy is aight but obv not more than can be expected from chromium based browsers.
Also another hint to take your hands off opera or even worse, opera gx if you have that. Not worth it. Data collectors, not very fast anymore and customization I would always recommend Vivaldi or at least another base chromium variant.
Vivaldi is mostly proprietary so I wouldn’t trust it
It isn’t tracking, ffs. It is anti tracking if anything, designed to help advertisers get what they want without getting ahold of any of your data.
Stop spreading bullshit!
Don’t make me laugh. You seriously think after buying an ad firm that “privacy preserving attribution” is not a euphemism? And I’m not the only one that sees it that way:
Why don’t you stop being to blue-eyed? Mozilla isn’t the privacy preserving browser. Hasn’t for a long time. Its major reason for existence is to be a functional “alternative” to Chrome that isn’t built on top of it.
I don’t care about advertisers. I will not put up with targeted advertising out of principle. This is a “feature” I’d expect out of Google not Mozilla although these days it isn’t a shock.
If anything, you are the one spreading BS. However, I think we are all entitled to our own opinions. Calling someone else’s opinion on a topic BS is arrogant at best and hurtful at worst. Ultimately there are no right answers
It is not targeted advertising. There is an entire writeup about it that you haven’t read (obviously). You clearly have no idea how it works.
Advertising tracking, but less creepy
First, we need to go over Firefox’s Privacy-Preserving Attribution, or PPA for short. Marketing attribution is the process for tracking how many sales, conversions, or other goals originate from a given advertising campaign. For example, when Nike releases a new pair of shoes, it creates multiple ad campaigns to market those shoes on TV, Instagram, and so on. Attribution is how Nike tracks how many shoes were purchased from a given advertisement.
The most popular way to track attribution right now is with individual tracking. For example, you might click on a web ad for the Nike shoes, and a cookie is stored in your web browser. If you buy the shoes, Nike’s store might check that cookie, so it knows which ad was responsible for convincing you to buy shoes. There are many other ways for attribution to work, but most of them use individual tracking like cookies, which allows other information to be collected with the marketing data. For example, Nike’s marketing people might want to know which ad you clicked on and your estimated age, so they know which demographics are buying the most shoes.
Mozilla’s PPA aims to build an attribution system without the creepy individual tracking. Sites can ask Firefox to monitor attribution for advertisements, and then later ask for a report, which is only provided in an anonymized collection “combined with many similar reports by the aggregation service.” For example, instead of Nike getting something like, “Billy Bob, aged 29, was one of 728 people in June who completed a purchase from the Instagram ad,” Nike would get something more like, “47% of the people who clicked the Instagram ad in June completed a purchase.”
There are other privacy and security measures in Privacy-Preserving Attribution, and Mozilla’s support page and Andrew Moore’s blog post explain it in more detail. PPA seems like a decent idea to track the effectiveness of ads without compromising user privacy in any meaningful way.
https://www.spacebar.news/mozilla-firefox-privacy-preserving-attribution/
Now that you know better, please stop spreading bullshit.
Did Mozilla signal any intention to phase out V2 though? It makes sense for them to support both, as a lot of extensions (that don’t rely on V2 features that are missing from V3) are going to be built for V3 now and if Mozilla wants to keep their extension store full. If they didn’t offer both versions, extensions developers might disregard Firefox as a platform because of its low usage share numbers if they had to maintain two different architectures.
They said they would do both
Firefox market share is growing. I expect any content blocker worth its salt will support Mv2 and potentially Mv2 only like Ublock Origin is considering.
Sigh. Fine I’ll install LibreWold
*librewolf
Stop spreading fucking lies.