There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

tlou3please ,

I think this tips it over the edge for me to switch to Firefox

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

I hope so! It’s a wonderful side of the Internet to be on

FiniteBanjo ,

I prefer waterfox. Hard to trust Mozilla Corpos.

ours ,

As long as it’s not Chromium, I’m happy people aren’t just handing over the keys to the Internet to Google.

corsicanguppy ,

I miss Mozilla the product.

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

Why are we posting 2 year old articles as though they are new?

troybot ,

Looks like the article was updated today. I’m guessing this was originally covering an announcement for a future rollout and now it’s finally happening?

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

Maybe. Confusing decision on the part of Mozilla though, if so. I was checking to see if they mentioned which version this update happened in, but couldn’t find it. Then I noticed the original post date. Weird.

AdrianTheFrog ,
@AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

this article has not been edited, is from 2022, and says the feature was rolled out in June.

unemployedclaquer ,

I guess it says updated, but hey. PR for Firefox is cool, until the imminent enshittification.

sandbox ,

The moment that Firefox goes too far, it’ll immediately be forked and 75% of the user base would leave within a few months. Their user base is almost entirely privacy-conscious, technologically savvy people.

unemployedclaquer ,

I agree, but something will have to change because chrome will swallow ALL that. Just today some back-end problem was messing up all my stuff, and co-workers were asking, " did you try a different browser? " botch no I did not try Netscape

sandbox ,

Not sure what you mean - I don’t think most of the people still using Firefox are going to switch to a Chromium based browser any time soon, I can’t speak for everyone of course but it feels like Firefox users tend to have an ideological objection to Google having a monopoly on web browsers.

It’s always worth trying a different browser when you have issues on websites - there are a lot of things that can be different beyond the layout and javascript engines - cookies, configuration, addons, etc. Yesterday I noticed a big difference between Chromium and Firefox in that even if you hard-refresh on a HTTP/2 connection, Chromium reuses a kept-alive connection, and firefox doesn’t — I would totally argue that Firefox’s implementation is more correct, but Chrome’s implementation will lead to a better experience for users hard-refreshing.

roguetrick ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6b930c45-2e73-41e8-a15c-0d23ed7c673f.gif

intensely_human ,

Aren’t cookies already limited to the site at which they were created??

What the fuck? You mean to tell me sites have been sharing cookies?

I thought all browsers only delivered cookies back to the same site.

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

The problem is that a website is generally not served from one domain.

Put a Facebook like button on your website, it’s loaded directly from Facebook servers. Now they can put a cookie on your computer with an identifier.

Now every site you visit with a Facebook like button, they know it was you. They can watch you as you move around the web.

Google does this at a larger scale. Every site with Google ads on it. Every site using Google analytics. Every site that embeds a Google map. They can stick a cookie in and know you were there.

intensely_human ,

Is that because the like button is an iframe?

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

It doesn’t have to be. Your browser sends the cookies for a domain with every request to that domain. So you have a website example.com, that embeds a Facebook like button from Facebook.com.

When your browser downloads the page, it requests the different pieces of the page. It requests the main page from example.com, your browser sends any example.com cookies with the request.

Your browser needs the javascript, it sends the cookie in the request to get the JavaScript file. It needs the like button, it sends a request off to Facebook.com and sends the Facebook.com cookies with it.

Note that the request to example.com doesn’t send the cookies for Facebook.com, and the request to Facebook.com doesn’t send the cookie for example.com to Facebook. However, it does tell Facebook.com that the request for the like button came from example.com.

Facebook puts an identifier in the cookie, and any request to Facebook sends that cookie and the site it was loaded on.

So you log in to Facebook, it puts an identifier in your cookies. Now whenever you go to other sites with a Facebook like button (or the Facebook analytics stuff), Facebook links that with your profile.

Not logged in? Facebook sets an identifier to track you anyway, and links it up when you make an account or log in.

Nightsoul ,

Thank you for the explanation!

MonkderVierte ,

Put a Facebook like button on your website, it’s loaded directly from Facebook servers. Now they can put a cookie on your computer with an identifier.

Which is not allowed by GDPR btw, because they do that even if you don’t click them. There are plenty guides online, how to create your own, not tracking facebook like button.

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

How does GDPR fit in to Google Analytics and personalised ads?

I would have thought it went something like: random identifier: not linked to personal info, just a collection of browsing history for an unidentified person, not under GDPR as not personal info.

Link to account: let them request deletion (or more specifically, delinking the info from your account is what Facebook lets you do), GDPR compliant.

Both Google and Facebook run analytics software that tracks users. I presume letting people request deletion once it’s personally linked to them is probably what let’s them do it? But I don’t live in a GDPR country, so I don’t know a whole lot about it.

MonkderVierte ,

No, it should’ve been opt-in. But loophole with “vital interest” and politics being slow and surface-level like politics.

FuryMaker ,

Is this also how they know which ads to feed you?

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

Yes, it’s the reason for the tracking. To sell more targeted ads.

If you’re up for reading some shennanigans, check out the book Mindf*ck. It’s about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, written by a whistleblower, and details election manipulation using data collected from Facebook and other public or purchased data.

unemployedclaquer ,

NO.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_cookies

Maybe it’s not allowed in your local jurisdiction? But it’s been a problem since forever.

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

Is this different from blocking 3rd party cookies?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •