Was strict the default? I’d assume the standard would be the default.

I’d imagine if you were using strict you want the sites to break because you absolutely do not want fingerprinting. That kindof restriction usually comes with the breaking being expected.

Uhhh…that’s not a meme, as the other guy said it’s virtue signalling. I don’t even know why you would fallback on it being a meme since people generally agreed with what you said.

If anything I think that makes you sound like an ass but that’s just me.

I mean yeah, but Spez we know for a fact actually did something.

Okay

But in this entire discussion we haven’t even tied him or his homophobia to the feature change this article is discussing.

I mean, it’s more like I wanted to see more discussion about brave. It’s not even like it’s talking about things the CEO specifically did to the browser, it’s just talking about the CEO.

And yeah I’m complaining about different threads in a post, when 3 comments are about the browser and like 15 are about the CEO.

If you have something to say negative about brave from this feature, that’s cool, but I’m not seeing it.

I’m…honestly surprised you can be on lemmy when you damn products over singular people. Just cause I know there’s people who have tried to dissuade others from lemmy over the developers. And in that case the people involved are even closer to the code than a CEO would be.

I mean it’s derailed the entire thread so pretty much nobody is talking about the removed feature anymore.

Wait why are you on the privacy community when you don’t care about the parts that are specifically related to privacy?

I mean, you can grandstand all you want while you have no platforms to safely do it on. Pretty sure having working products for privacy is more important to activism than one guy being an asshole.

I’m sure there isn’t, but it feels like that kind of wording should be reportable to someone

They reworded it to make it seem like it was the adblocker’s fault you were losing friend posts, speaking as if the ads were a second thought

When adblockers don’t actually target posts, meaning facebook would have to be the ones doing it.

The number of people involved in the decisions of companies: many of which do not have any actual reason to care about the livelihood, reputation, or ethics of said company…should make it fairly clear that you cannot assume or perceive a company in the same way you do a person.

Most of that’s just lobbying PR anyway to give companies more leverage against…well…people

Redemption implies there was a character to redeem.

It’s a business, and it’s business is intricately locked into goals that match what Web Integrity API stood for. It may be gone now but everyone needs to watch twice as hard. They’ll just try to ease people into the idea more carefully.

That’s…basically what I said.

I might be wrong, but I think GDPR means in this scenario if you won’t pay, you aren’t consenting to the ads. Meta by GDPR standards should be blocking you, not forcing ads on you.

They can’t create a implicit permission for it.

Can only hope most products choose to leave the UK rather than go with this.

So to summarize, it’s not really a precedent or anything. The judge tried to give it as much chance as possible but they just brought a bad case that wasn’t really worth the trouble.

There was a post on this yesterday.

They are moderating something, the issue with the article was it’s not user’s bookmarks. It’s some app-specific feature called collections.

edit: it’s the same post…it’s a bit weird linking a direct link to a lemee.ee post when they get federated here anyway…

I mean, just mark as spam?

It hurts them more if a bunch of people mark them as spam and it becomes a trend doesn’t it? Just seems like a design issue on their part.

I always figured that companies generally wanted to avoid that.

Well, as long as we can agree that the case in the OP is not a good example of telemetry being used…

1. There isn’t actually a reason for data collection. We know this because prior to this the telemetry wasn’t present. So the things we need the drivers to do don’t actually require them.

2. Well, yeah. A lot of people were talking about switching from Fedora past few weeks.

I really doubt that, but I guess we’ll see.

Okay, so here’s why it’s not irrelevant:

IE5 is still IE. Microsoft has an obligation to make it look good (so dumb users don’t bunk newer versions in with it) and browers have the same issue (Well i’m using the internet explorer so why isn’t it working?)

This same perception (which I can absolutely assure you as someone who has supported older users does happen) Is not a perception that happens with different products altogether. If you’re using Netscape, they’d just tell you to use IE. If you’re using Firefox, they’d just tell you it was made with “Google” in mind.

Using an example where the two products are in fact different versions of the same product is a significant difference.

But still in regards to the argument about revenue, the gaming market is constantly showing that companies will definitely implement DRM under the assumption that it is providing them revenue, even if they lose customers because of it.

I mean…have you seen the gaming market on DRM? People point to arguments and research that it doesn’t even work and it still gets implemented in the AAA games…Firefox is going to need a lot more than outrage to build a share that threatens that.

…the example is some companies supported Internet Explorer 5 when it had a market share of 5%

…so what was Netscape Navigator’s marketshare at the time?

You aren’t providing reasonable criticism to the argument. It’s completely unrealistic and ignoring how we got here to begin with.

He’s right to respond emotional when you just make a completely unrealistic argument.

That kindof argument is just naïve bordering obnoxious. It’s like an ostrich putting their head into the ground.

It’s going to spread, more sites will use that DRM, and even if you decide you can keep off of them on principle, most people won’t.

If it were remotely going to end up that way we wouldn’t have chrome being able to do this to begin with

Moving to firefox would still be rolling over and taking it though. If they don’t comply, you just don’t have permission to view the web page. It’s not like they’re going to go around that in any way.

Unless you find an alternative to the website itself you’re out of options.

The only ways of “not taking it” that I would see are either you find a way to ignore the DRM and view the site anyway, or you make the site drop the implementation, neither of which switching to Firefox does.

Isn’t the issue that the website will go through with this and firefox has to either comply or just not be able to view the webpage?

Chrome has enough of the marketshare that websites probably don’t have to be concerned with whether firefox can support them or not.

This doesn’t make sense to me given it sounds like there was a pending case with facebook about privacy concerns. Someone has to bring that up in protest…