![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/h1ChnLuBHr.png)
No, I’m pretty sure this doesn’t trip GDPR because it’s not collecting any additional personal data.
No, I’m pretty sure this doesn’t trip GDPR because it’s not collecting any additional personal data.
It’s LetsEncrypt. If you don’t trust them the open web has bigger problems than Firefox’s new setting.
Then you keep blocking ads and nothing changes for you.
The backlash here is wild and completely uninformed. This is only good for consumers, the ads that this will affect are already tracking you in more onerous ways.
Given that it collects no additional user data, and the API in question is a new standard that will require sites to opt in, I think making it an opt-out is sensible. I guess they could make a popup about it, but I really think this concern is baseless FUD from people who haven’t read the details.
No. This is a privacy-protecting option that gathers no additional information about you or your hardware.
The other link posted in reply is overblown fear-mongering from Mozilla’s single biggest hater because they bought an ad company.
I mean, I definitely think it’s not ideal and there’s room for improvement and social pressure for Mozilla to change its priorities, but I also don’t think it’s any reason to abandon the project. The reality is that a modern web browser is too massive of a project for a non-commercial entity to reasonably develop and keep updated, and Mozilla is the only such entity that’s even remotely got its heart in the right place.
Still the best browser to support, still the best hope of defending open web standards from Google. Call me when they implement the ads in an onerous way.
Remakes can be awesome – the recent System Shock remake is an excellent example of doing it right. The problem, as it always is, is capitalism and greed, which lead to lazy money-grabbing remakes of games that didn’t need it. Many games that get remakes should have just gotten patches – Dark Souls is a prime example of this. The remake barely looked better than the original and changed things about the gameplay, not necessarily for the better.
This is wildly not my experience. You can turn off motion blur in the vast majority of games… What’s your hardware?
Works great for me on Windows 10 with the latest version of FF… Seems to be some problem with your particular configuration.
I do use ublock origin and the full suite of built in FF privacy enhancements, and I generally have my user agent spoofed as Chrome, but I’d be surprised if the latter made a difference.
Yeah, that’s totally what “an affront to” means. And if you’re seriously arguing that someone with a 9-figure net worth needs compensation to keep producing art, I don’t know what to say to you. I’m not moving any goalposts, I’ve said multiple times that you should support independent creators if you can afford to. Brad Pitt is not an “independent creator”, he’s a fixture in the movie industry who gets paid millions of dollars upfront. Your priorities are gross.
Oh, you believe in intellectual property. I don’t, and I find the concept an affront to human creativity.
Brad Pitt doesn’t need donations. Anyone who does generally has avenues – very often Patreons, yes.
… no, you literally are not. For that to be the case, you would have to already be planning to purchase the good, and then decide to pirate it instead. Even if that is the case (which in the vast majority of cases it is not), it still requires absurd mental gymnastics to reframe not paying someone money as stealing money from that person. You haven’t signed a contract. The entire concept of a “lost sale” is a lie. If someone pirating a movie is a lost sale, so is someone deciding not to see that movie because the ticket is too expensive, or the reviews are too bad. This is why I said it’s internalized corporate propaganda, because it places the onus for fairly compensating artists on the audience instead of the industry.
Additionally, the economics of almost every media distribution solution in existence means that purchasing a piece of media puts only a miniscule fraction of that price into the hands of the artist. Which is why I mentioned direct donation: giving a music artist you like $10 directly is a better way to support them than paying for Spotify Premium or even buying their discography on CD.
I actually think the ethics of media piracy are even less debatable than those of stealing food. If you’re stealing food, you are depriving someone of it. If you copy a song or a movie or a game, literally no one loses anything.
To be clear, I absolutely support people stealing food to survive, especially from stores and double especially from large corporations.
GitHub (since the Microsoft acquisition) is good to users because that’s their MO, it’s called Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, and the whole point is to centralize users and projects and make them dependent on the Microsoft ecosystem.
Of course now there’s also the whole issue of Copilot, which means any code you put on GitHub could very well show up piecemeal in someone’s AI-generated code. If it wasn’t for that novel avenue of monetization, you can bet your ass GitHub would have already made the free user experience a lot shittier.
Even then, if you don’t have the desire or means to pay for it, it’s not a “lost sale”. If you’re well off, yes, please support indie creators, but even a pirated indie title can lead to more sales of that title through word of mouth.
Oh, sorry, I meant software or media piracy, not, like, actual piracy.
Please, explain to me why piracy is in any way morally or ethically wrong?
Piracy isn’t stealing, that’s just internalized corporate propaganda. No one should feel guilty about piracy, if anything be proud! Not only are you contributing to the preservation of media in an increasingly disposable age, but it also frees up your disposable income so you can actually donate it directly to independent content creators instead of sending it into the coffers of a faceless multinational.
Lmao no this is Mozilla giving you a cup.