Again you just don’t like my answer. Yet you have nothing to say about it being factually incorrect.

You too.

Please explain how I came off as insulting? Nowhere in my statement was it meant to come off as insulting. If you are referring to the quote “am I the bad guy” I was talking about mozilla and trying to use the principle skinner meme in text format. It was a joke. It wasn’t directed at you. My entire point is to not trust companies. There is no good company. Mozilla was doing good things but the fact of the matter is they put in an unnessescary feature and enabled it by default. Giving users control of settings they want right out of the gate is pro privacy, when you start choosing what you think is best for the user. That is anti-privacy.

To you that is “kinda lame” but you then explain it away by saying “at least it isn’t as bad as other browsers that make you jump through hoops!” That is where we fundamentally disagree. Bad is still bad for me, and my line is unmovable. Whereas for you there is a line you are willing to move. You asked me why it was inherently anti-privacy and I explained that any company willing to enable a slimy feature by default like this is on the path to become anti-privacy/already is. what you confuse for hostility was me informing you on my posiition.

This isn’t some conspiracy theory, way to be reductive. Companies always require growth and profit. If you think this is a conspiracy theory I have no idea how we even continue this conversation. Mozilla doesn’t give two shits about you or I. Google started off as a company with the slogan “do no evil” look at how that is going. Do you trust that Google still is doing no evil because they had a slogan? No, you don’t trust Google because they have built up this anti-privacy reputation. That started with a simple search engine.

Mozilla is testing the waters in what they can get away with. I was trying to provide alternatives for people who like Firefox but don’t know where to go. I am actually trying to provide solutions rather than explain away a companies behavior as you seem to be doing (And you called us the shills which is ironic). If you don’t like this and are worried about the implications there are other options.

Jesus Christ and you called me assumptive. Did I say anywhere to burn the creators of the Mozilla CORPORATION at the stake? No. Did I say anywhere that I hate mozilla? No. Did I say anywhere that the creators of the Mozilla Foundation are “nefarious villains” ? No. Did I say anywhere about mozilla being ignorant and clueless? No. They know exactly what they are doing and that is the problem. I think that companies are emotionless entities that seek profit over well being.

Also where was this “wild rage” you talk about. TBH your reply is more insulting than my response. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

Please tell me why this feature needed to be on by default? The absolute necessary reason this feature had to be turned on for every user. Why the user couldn’t turn it on themselves? Do you think the user is too stupid to know what is best for themselves? If they came up with a pop up for you that says “this feature tracks you, do you want to enable it?” would you turn it on?

“not the far reaching ramifications it might lead to.” Oh I get it, you only care if it is harming you now (which it is). Not what these actions could lead to in the future. You are like a frog in a boiling pot of water. The thing is this shit is gradual. My argument is simply stating that this is the start of something you may not want to be a part of in the future.

In the blogpost you link they specifically say that this feature tracks you but not in the normal cookie way you are used to. Tracking is still tracking and it’s gross. Tracking is anti-privacy do you agree? Tracking should not be enabled by default. Period. Tracking as an out of the box feature and not something a user chooses to opt into is anti-privacy.

If you wanted a specific type of answer for your “invitation” then be more specific when you ask. You replied to me with that question, I gave you my answer and you didn’t like it.

Any company that is willing to enable options (such as advertising) without users permission/consent is anti privacy. While it may not be a big deal for you now, wait to see what else they try to explain away. You act as if ublock is just automatically installed for users, thus making this not a big deal. what about the thousands if not millions of users on default firefox? The fact that Mozilla did this without letting the user know it is on by default, is inherently anti privacy. Hell I would argue turning it on by default is inherently anti privacy. Especially when they try to explain it away on reddit when they faced backlash. “There has to be a reason our users are upset? Am I the bad guy? No it’s the users who are bad!” It is a reminder that no company is your friend. This is a test to see what they can and cannot get away with. A test to see if the users notice/if enough would really jump ship to create an impact on their product.

I jumped ship as soon as this feature was found. Fuck that.

Librewolf is fantastic, it’s FOSS Firefox. I have had absolutley no issues getting firefox extensions to work with librewolf.

Nah. Turning that feature on by default already set in stone for me their willingness to test the waters. If you don’t think auto-enabling anti-privacy features is a problem I don’t know what to tell you. It may be “small” right now, but just wait and see what else they will try to sneak in.

Use Librewolf and Mull instead.

Something something, broken clock something twice a day.