Website Advertising Preferences

[Benny Cemoli]

And here we go again with Mozilla Developers opting-in users for a setting that we might not want. In this case a "privacy-preserving ad measurement" system that is selected upon update to version 128.0



Why don't Mozilla Developers simply make users aware of these new items and ask users to opt-in instead of assuming that we all want to use their "privacy-preserving ad measurement" system and unilaterally opting us all in for its use and them making us opt-out if we don't wish to be a part of it.

Why do Mozilla Developers think this is appropriate especially since this feature is described as "experimental" and a "prototype" (whatever that means) in the documentation. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/pr ... ttribution. If it's experimental system then they need to ask for users to opt-in. Not force users to have to opt-out of these things.

I for one would not like to participate, thank you very much. And I don't like having to go through all of Firefox's settings to make sure Mozilla Developers haven't included something like this without my permission after each and every update. Getting as bad as Google, MS and Apple that's for sure.

[DanRaisch]

mozillaZine is an independent Mozilla community and advocacy site. We're not affiliated or endorsed by the Mozilla Corporation...

Which is just to say we're not the developers and have no say in what options are included in the program.

[therube]

Mozilla, call me Chrome, call me Brave (what did they call it, "acceptable ads" or some such).
So there you are, yet another ad machine.
But, of course, Mozilla's ads are "good ads". BS!

[Agent virtuel]

Hello

An article
https://www.camp-firefox.de/artikel/897 ... nutzer-ist

[therube]

(Well written article.)

[Grumpus]

. . . and more NOYB comment

[ditto_z]

another fake news about ppa from people never have understood what its purpose and how it works. sorry, this is pure bs.

ppa is a measurement, not more. it only counts which ads are shown in firefox for the participants of mozilla anonymous service behind. its only a counter, not more. no version, no this, no that. it does not tell mozilla what adblocker is used, it could also be blocked with pi or hosts file or other. measurement is bundled, gets some fuzzy noise and thats it.

mozilla described in 2022 very clear the purpose and working of ppa.

furthermore, ppa is auto-disabled when user has disabled telemetry in parts or all.

seriously...
i know why i avoid reading pages like the theregister as being yellowing press for nuts.

edit: the NOYB organisation is only assuming, not knowing. so it has not really some facts against ppa.
thehackernews drescribs it very ideal
https://thehackernews.com/2024/09/mozil ... t-for.html
but its conclusion is also wrong. my point of view.

[Grumpus]

Not fake but apparently a continuation of the discussion. Failing to ask or look is too dangerous and there will always be more than one view.
When looking at the different additions to Firefox over the years it seems to me more discussion could have helped. Newtabpage, a load of commercial or personal interests has always been suspect. No one has ever brought up questions about Privacy when notifying websites not to track or share date and info, isn't the act of notifying a minor form of information sharing.
It seems the most minor of operations on line these days expose users to any number of suspect issues.

[ditto_z]

i beg your sorry, i wont shoot the messenger.

i have found another thread on reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... complaint/

i agree that mozilla has a really bad communication sometimes, this included.
to read from mozilla
https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024 ... pa-update/

this article describes again the exact working of ppa. its very technical and a lot of users are not tech-savvy enough t understand it.

the lawyers of nyob are lawers at first, not more, some of them might tech-savvy. but those who called the eu judiciary, sorry, understanding from my view. and in case they will lose, and they will lose, nyob have no costs at all. so what? they will take it to court and have nothing to lose.

mozilla is (again) fighting wind mills, too sad. just my opinion to this, i never fully agreed to other decisions.

[Grumpus]

For most of Mozilla's changes there's been discussion going back decades.
The nice thing about Firefox, as practiced, is the ability to edit out, for the most part, the considered problem.
That's why the opt out, which after a few updates will either be made permanent or editable out, hopefully.
Consider it a blind sided survey, subject to imperious override.
The browser is one of only no others which still allows the removal of unwanted search engines.

[ditto_z]

removal is not needed, disabling or forcing this by GPO (or reghack) (json format) is possible.

Code: Select all

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Edge]
"ManagedSearchEngines"="[{\"allow_search_engine_discovery\":false},{\"is_default\":true,\"name\":\"DuckDuckGo\",\"keyword\":\"duckduckgo.com\",\"search_url\":\"https://duckduckgo.com/?q={searchTerms}\",\"suggest_url\":\"https://www.duckduckgo.com/qbox?query={searchTerms}\",\"image_search_url\":\"https://www.duckduckgo.com/images/detail/search?iss=sbiupload\"}]"

kudos not for me, i just took it. for those who can use GPO should use GPO. that code is for reghack.

edit: anyhow its not important, disabled means totally off. although still included. i dont see any sense working on firefox files and lose performance.

[Grumpus]

With Linux - it;s simpler to remove/edit them out from the extension.preferences file using a plain text editor
Might work with Windows as well, haven't used it for more than a decade.