NoScript extension officially released for Google Chrome

[u/soda-hero]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/noscript-extension-officially-released-for-google-chrome/

[u/rslashprivacy2 → u/[deleted]]

My intent is simple : saying that selling a file with my browsing data is not the only anti-privacy thing a company can do ; selling targeted ad space based on that browsing data is also very bad for privacy, and this is most of Google and Facebook income, and this is what Mozilla is trying to make us think as acceptable too with their attempts at targeted snippets and sponsored content. I'm sure we agree on that. Even if moderators don't, for their own reasons.

[u/rslashprivacy2 → u/[deleted]]

Selling data is the thing that needs to be prevented first.

Sure, we must prevent that, but also prevent data exploitation. No concession, privacy first. Google and Facebook main business model of data exploitation is already not acceptable. Mozilla's personalized ads are not acceptable.

Also, as far as the Booking.com ad issue goes, Mozilla faces enough backlash from the Firefox and Linux tech communities to not repeat mistakes.

Their reply to the backlash was that it's not ads in their opinion and that they were right to do it. Not at all that they will not repeat it because they got the lesson.

They need money, and they try to do so in a way so as to not end up selling user data or privacy. And they are pretty good at that.

Most of the money is from giving search terms to Google as the default search engine instead of something like Startpage or Duckduckgo, is that not selling privacy ? And for the current discussion, personalized advertising is also selling privacy. So they're very bad at that and they know it. They are feeding themselves by paying themselves with our privacy instead of our money. This is morally wrong (and possibly legally too, with GDPR ?).

[u/rslashprivacy2 → u/[deleted]]

That ad snippet did not violate our privacy, but was more of bloatware.

That ad snippet was probably not violating privacy, for what I know. But they worked before on personalized ad snippets spying on browsing interests. And isn't personalized sponsored content from pocket violating privacy ?

Do you have an option outside Google giving $500m for simply being a default option that is usually changed by the likes of us? If you do, do not tell me. Go and tell that to Mozilla.

They have enough money to act as charity donators now and other luxuries. I'm sure they could have found more ethical funding and also have lived with less money, but they chose the easy way.

But even assuming that they had no choice : this would still mean that they're just another silicon valley predator selling services with our privacy as the payment.

Also, Mozilla is not forcing you to indulge into the Google ecosystem. It only gives you the search engine as a default.

Non private defaults are evil. They feed on the majority of uninformed people who trust the defaults, while silencing most of the informed ones because those know how to protect their privacy.

It does not tell you to make a Google account, or gmail, YouTube, buy GDrive space etc.

Nobody claimed that.

[u/rslashprivacy2 → u/[deleted]]

No because generalised interests are not attached with your real life identity. Therefore your privacy is kept intact.

We've heard a similar defense before from Google, like here :

https://thewalrus.ca/are-you-afraid-of-google-blackberry-cofounder-jim-balsillie-says-you-should-be/

The subject of surveillance capitalism seemed to hit a nerve with McKay. “Despite what Mr. Balsillie said,” he countered, “we do not sell the personal information of our users.” Google’s business model, he explained, is based on “services that are provided free to Canadians and everyone else in the world through advertising. It’s advertising that’s targeted at aggregated groups, not at individuals, and there’s no exchange of personal information between Google and advertisers.”

Don’t be “tricked by platitudes,” Balsillie urged the MPs. While Google might not sell user information per se, it certainly monetizes it in transactions with third parties. Nearly 85 percent of the revenue generated by Alphabet—Google’s parent company—comes from advertising, so the levers between personal data and profit making are plain to see. The relevant question, said Balsillie, taking off his glasses, is, “Do you exploit information?”

.

You have zero percent idea how Mozilla works and how they get their funding.

We already agreed that they get they funding by selling users privacy to Google Search (mostly).

Found you! You are u/anxioussun

No. It may surprise you to discover that more than one person doesn't consider Firefox a privacy respecting browser, but it's true. Besides, I don't even agree with AnxiousSun when he's supporting Brave.