Gregory's Server@mcc as far as I know, they refer to different approaches. I do not know all the details, but I think the Google approach is monopolistic, while the Mozilla/W3C attempts to keep something workable that is not confined to one ad network in control of the browser. But - not 100% sure. I am pretty sure that the Mozilla setting is not the same as what Chrome uses.
|
4 comments
 @mcc I understand, but then you take the position that you will not contribute to the way internet services (including the browser software) are paid for right now. That's a perfectly fine position; not sure how that will work out over the long run, should we all do that; i.e., if people can still produce these services. We will see.  @arjen Currently, I am paying for a number of my internet services. I have recurring donations to Mastodon and Cohost, and I am contributing to Tusky in the form of my time. I find *these* internet services much superior to the ad-supported ones. (I would consider donating to Mozilla, but after this incident— and considering Firefox plans integration with OpenAI, an organization I consider deeply unethical— I will certainly not be doing this. I *am* donating to Servo.) |
@arjen I don't think my concern about the technology is the chain of custody for the data. I don't want the data to be collected by my browser, and I don't want the people receiving the data to receive it. How hackable the part in between is is, uh, I guess important, but to my mind it is more important to eliminate the technology completely in every single form it exists in.