• simple@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    4 months ago

    If this thing needs to be present, the option should be there to toggle on, not off.

    This is my takeaway in general. The idea of this sounds fine, but the fact that they opted everyone into this experiment is really stupid considering a huge chunk of people use Firefox are privacy-conscious and care deeply about this stuff.

    • LouNeko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well you close and lock the door. So you kind of do opt-in. It’s just muscle memory at that point.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Honestly?

      Yes, it is shitty. But if you at all care about privacy you should be monitoring your software anyway. You never know when a previously “good” companies will do something you disagree with

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes, it is shitty. But if you at all care about privacy you should be monitoring your software anyway.

        That’s only the case because privacy isn’t the default, and it should be. Privacy is something that’s been taken from us. I think people that don’t want to learn or care much about privacy are still entitled to it.

      • DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Pretty much, if you’re security conscious you’ll go and turn it off, if it keeps meta from lobbying against the mozzila foundation it seems like a happy middle ground.

        If/when they make it so you can’t turn it off anymore that will be a different story

    • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Isn’t privacy invasion (ie, cookies) already ON by default? What’s the difference?

      • simple@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not all cookies are harmful and some websites don’t work properly without cookies. Having cookies off by default also usually means user preferences wouldn’t be saved when you leave and return to a website.

      • nyan@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        4 months ago

        Cookies have non-infringing uses, like identifying you to Lemmy’s Web interface so that you can post from your account with the settings you’ve chosen for it. Problem is, even sites where they have a proper purpose don’t set them at the appropriate time (as part of the login process, or when you first add something to your shopping cart for ecommerce sites).

        Ad tracking has absolutely no uses that benefit the user, unless they’re the type of weirdo who actually clicks on ads voluntarily, which I’d guess is less than 1% of the population. Those people can use the opt-in toggle if they want.