Mozilla wants you to love Firefox again

I am doubly pissed off:
Mozilla opts me into an analytics scheme without requiring my permission. That's bad.
Mozilla partners with fucking FACEBOOK to spring this shit on me? Now THAT takes the cake!
But... I would be pissed off if I used straight Firefox, and I don't: I use LibreWolf, and I have no doubt they'll strip this latest round of Mozilla nonsense from the LibreWolf browser.
I don't know... I have a love/hate relationship with Mozilla: on the one hand, they're pretty much the only thing that stands between the final overrun of the web by the Google monoculture and still having some kind of a choice what you use to hit the internet, and they make one of the only email clients worth its salt in Linux. On the other hand, every time they decide to do something, it's always a screw-up, and it's been like that for decades. Surely in their position, they should know what not to do to piss off everybody all the time, and yet... What a weird bunch.
- LibreWolf is great as long as they're able to pull out malicious advertising.
  I hope some of the completely independent projects start taking off. Chrome is cancer. Manifest V3 is metastasized cancer. Mozilla is basically taking up smoking.
  I miss the days when we had functioning software without telemetry whenever we wiggle a mouse and ads in every corner.
- I like to think the behind the scenes is just a decades long game of dare in Mozilla's leadership that slowly got out of control but they've all gotten too deep in it now to give up and just call it a tie.
- I've been mostly using Mullvad, and so far it worked pretty well out of the box. Few sites break, and for that I have LibreWolf, but other than that, I'm enjoying Mullvad more.

Mozilla wants us to love Firefox again? Ok, well, it's actually pretty simple: treat us like ~~customers~~ users, instead of products again. Make the product for us, not for the corpos. Strange how betrayal turns a friend into a foe, isn't it...
E: changed customers to users, as another user here suggested the difference between them. (thanks, fellow lemming!)
- Not customers, users, otherwise they'll start paywalling features
  
  Good point. Edited.
  
  Which (pr nightmare aside) I wouldn't be against. It's not gonna fly, people are accustomed to 'free' browsers to the point they'd balk at the idea. Even if they weren't most would take a free chromium based browser or Firefox fork over a paid alternative that doesn't give them anything extra. But browsers are massive pieces of tech, they need a lot of dev time, and the money needs to come from somewhere, just relying on volunteers won't cut it.
  Mozilla has been looking for sources of funding for years, sometimes in ways that are their own type of pr nightmare and sometimes in ways I'm not thrilled by, but I get their predicament. I wish there would be (more) state funding. EU, US. Whatever. Much like governments should invest in public transit we should invest in critical software infra.
  I also wish Google's other branches were divorced from their browser dev branch. The stranglehold on the web given to Google by chrome is a huge part of the problem.
- The problem is in our current society it's simply not possible for something to get very popular without being taken over by a corporation or government, who are usually driven by profits because we live in a capitalist world whether you like it or believe it or not.
  
  it's simply not possible for something to get very popular without being taken over by a corporation
  Please don't excuse unethical and exploitative behavior by pretending that it's unavoidable.
  There are examples of other funding models available; for example, what the Blender Foundation does. It turns out, if a FOSS effort focuses on their community, makes users feel involved and important, asks in good faith for contributions and suggestions, treats people with respect, maintains funding and organizational transparency, and has consistent ethical standards.. it can work out very well for them. No selling out required. No data harvesting required. No shady deals with Google required.
  
  In a capitalist world, it is possible (and prudent) to treat your customers like customers. Your line will still go up, and for longer. Yes, if you treat them like products, your line will go up faster, until it won't.
  E: if they made this ad network an opt-in with a proper explanation, many people would have opted in. Not everyone, but many would have. And their reputation would not have been sullied.
  
  I don't want to throw the word enshitiffication around, especially when I'm not sure if I can spell it, but the platforms that people jump ship to when that happens are probably especially vulnerable to people jumping ship again.
  I can't imagine Mozilla effectively marketing Firefox as anything but the bullshit free browser, and when they lose that, people will just move to the next actual bullshit free option.

The first part actually reads slightly optimistic.
Modern tabs management, web apps making a comeback, more money for the Browser instead of useless side projects, etc.
We still need to turn of tons of telemetry and user tracking, but its nice to see some movement.
Let's hope that this isn't just new CEO bla bla.
- They bought an ads company AFTER this person took the reins

Laura Chambers, who stepped into an interim CEO role at Mozilla in February, says the company is reinvesting in Firefox after letting it languish in recent years,
It's sort of amusing to me that Mozilla would let the Firefox browser languish. Is that not the raison d'etre of your entire organization? What are you doing with your time and effort if you are allowing your core product to languish? What would people say if Microsoft said "yeah, we've allowed windows to languish in recent years." What an insane notion.
- What would people say if Microsoft said "yeah, we've allowed windows to languish in recent years."
  Well, I think they did let it languish, if looking at it being enshittified in ~~recent~~ last ~10 years. Also, it's not their core product anymore. Almost nobody buys a windows license anymore, because piracy was already high, and they let you keep your license from the previous version so whether you had one or not, most probably now you have.
  I think Microsoft's core product has not been windows for a long time, but their cloud services, and maybe office and the other common business tools.
  
  There was a graphic here a while ago. What was it, about 4/5 are Azure and Office 365, Windows less than 1/5.
  
  Let me tell my management they no longer have to pay windows license for the ~10,000 user machines, and then the servers.
  While a single consumer can get away with it (and MS doesn't care because it means they're using Windows and likely using MS services, all while getting telemetry from the desktops), it's far from "nobody buys a windows license any more".
  Even SMB's will pay, because if they don't MS will hammer them financially. No SMB could stand up to what MS can do to them - $200 windows license is cheap insurance.
- They've got thunderbird which is as far as I know the only serious alternative to outlook.
  
  Kinda but Thunderbird is community driven, and spun out into an independent subsidiary.
  
  And I wouldn't call it serious, the performance is atrocious.
  It's so bad I went and installed outlook from 2016

The could learn from Librewolf

If I understand all this correctly, Mozilla teamed up with Meta to create a method that helps advertisers in a user privacy-friendly way. Aside from the initial trigger people have here reading the word "Meta" or by just the existence of ads, is there any problematic with this, without going really deep into tinfoil hat territory?
Also, am I understanding it correctly that the outrage is mainly because this feature is enabled by default? So again, a function that helps protecting your privacy, is enabled by default? Because, it seems most people just offended by only this fact alone.
But I'm maybe missing something here.
- Yeah, they failed to communicate it. Which people chose to interpret in the most uncharitable way. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's razor
  Misconceptions about Firefox's Privacy Preserving Ad Measurement – Andrew Moore
  Of course people who complain about this loudly are most likely people who block all ads and tracking anyway so it doesn't even affect them. My ideal would be the total ban of all advertising. Then let the free market sort it out lol.
- Because Mozilla promised us privacy, and “privacy-friendly” ad tracking is still worse privacy than not baking ad tracking into the browser in the first place.
  I don't think "privacy" works in a way you snap your fingers, and bam, you have privacy, without any progress or stations in your way. Especially in today's web. Also, it's not just on Mozilla. On the contrary. I feel like Mozilla is the only "bigger name" in this market who tries to navigate in this shitstormy sea that is the web now.
  Tho, it's just me, but it sounds much better if my browser handles all the tracking and data sharing business in a controlled manner with advertisers in a "privacy-friendly" way than no control overall (especially since it's Firefox and not Chrome/Edge), hoping only the other side would respect my preferences and requests.
  But in the end, as I read other comments here, the problem is just the default state of the checkbox, got it. Feels a bit silly - in this particular case - but I can understand it.
- Does not "help protecting privacy", that is marketing. It's a system for ads that track you in a more privacy-friendly way then other alternatives.
  Peoples are mostly angry at the fact that they just silently slipped this system in without asking for consent.
  
  Peoples are mostly angry at the fact that they just silently slipped this system in without asking for consent.
  But why? Does it expose more data? More sensitive data than before?
  What I don't get, but maybe because of the lack of information I have on the topic is that if it's better in terms of data privacy than before, or is it better if it's turned on than off, why is it such a great problem, if it's turned on by default? In this case, not turning it on would be something that one should be noted. Any technical, real-world reasons why not giving my consent to enable this feature gives reason to get mad, or is this really just about "not having a choice", regardless the outcome?

I never stopped.

- you can build it from source and use it rn
  
  have you tried it? it "works" but isn't usable rn imo

- most users won't realise the box is there
- It was a hidden, opt-out feature.
  But thanks for your denigrating comment. We now know the value of your thoughts.
  You should perhaps watch this: "Taking Control of Your Personal Data" by prof. Jennifer Golbeck, published by The Teaching Company, ISBN:978-1629978390, likely available at your local library as a DVD or streaming.
  I suspect you don't realize the extent of the tracking occurring today.
  
  Your comment is highly ironic given that the API in question is an effort to reduce the amount of personal data collected by advertisers.

All I need is mozilla on android to be able to load local html files.
It's the only reason I left.
It's the only reason I will return.
- It doesn't? I need to see this (not) in action. Will be back.
  
  I made a very simple HTML page to count the money for my work. I've tried everything and I ended up hosting it just to be able to access it from Firefox. It might work with Android, I don't know, but on this internet aids MIUI it's impossible. But MIUI is just some pimped Android so chances are it's the same.
  I managed to open it locally in chrome (spits), but the URL didn't even say the usual file path but some sus looking mi.com address, so I'll stick with just hosting it.

Did Fennec do all this privacy nonsense too?
- Yes, but there are forks that are more private and have saner defaults like Mull, however some privacy guides warn against using anything firefox-based on android at all due to lack of process isolation and I think a couple other things.
  https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/revise-statements-on-gecko-browsers-android-to-make-security-shortcomings-clear/17840
  Friendly reminder to define your own threat model and do what makes the most sense for you personally, as many privacy opinions in communities and guides like this might be seen as too extreme to some people... I'm just relaying information I have seen that probably most people haven't.
  
  Thanks for the insight. I deleted Fennec and migrated over to Mull.

Is it possible to turn off PPA on firefox/fennec mobile? (android)

“They made this technology for advertisers, specifically,” says Jonah Aragon, founder of the Privacy Guides website. “There’s no direct benefit to the user in creating this. It’s software that only serves a party other than the user.”
Ah, the Dunning-Kruger effect.
- Dunning-Kruger effect
  could you please explain further what you mean and what you're referring to?
  
  It refers to people that no a little about something and so assume they know a lot. To suggest that Mozilla PPA has no benefit to the average user is disingenuous at best or outright malicious malpractice with the intent of defamation.