They are the collective main browser makers, including Mozilla. One thing Mozilla can (and does) do is insert site-specific workarounds (e.g. changing the User Agent), and/or work with the website to ensure compatibility.
Vincent
joined 2 years ago
GPC? It's different because there's already a jurisdiction that legally enforces it.
If you wish to ask websites to respect your privacy, you can use the “Tell websites not to sell or share my data” setting. This option is built on top of the Global Privacy Control (GPC). GPC is respected by increasing numbers of sites and enforced with legislation in some regions. To learn more about this, please read Global Privacy Control.
So those sites can look at that.
Presumably it's easier to lobby for something that's already legally enforced elsewhere. And sometimes lobbying is just unsuccessful.
With a reasonable alternative available, removing the additional fingerprinting vector seems like the best idea to avoid tracking. The few good actors can look at the Global Privacy Control instead, so there's literally no downside here.
Na het appverbod wordt het idd eens tijd voor een raar-aankijkverbod.
Man, so much attempt to stir up drama. Can they just talk about why they initially added the MIT license if they didn't intend to make it public, why they didn't make it public and open source, and what needs to happen to do that in a way and at a time that everyone is happy with, without having to do so with the eyes of the internet on them?
Time for Malta to step up!
Excuse me sir, this is the internet, please go back to your regular scheduled shitposting.
There are a fair bit of Mozilla engineers on Mastodon. They don't control stuff like rebrands, but at least they show that there are definitely still values in Mozilla. And in the end, they're the ones who do the work.
This is an excellent comeback.
As long as you mute it.