[HN Gopher] Firefox: Dark pattern consent dialog invites users t...
___________________________________________________________________
Firefox: Dark pattern consent dialog invites users to share their
location
Author : perihelions
Score : 45 points
Date : 2021-10-08 21:32 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| intelMgmntEnema wrote:
| A 700+point related post from yesterday that was flagged as a
| dupe because another with 80 points had been posted previously:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783381
| perihelions wrote:
| I think it's interestingly different from that other HN thread
| (and its dupe). This story is about this consent dialog [0] --
| particularly the sneaky "not now" in the top corner -- that
| weren't mentioned at all in the (mozilla.org) article
| submission. I think most HN'ers aren't even aware of it (or at
| least I can't find any specific comments about it -- in fact I
| read multiple comments where I believe HN'ers _misunderstood_
| the dark pattern, thinking Firefox had automatically opted them
| in, when more likely they clicked the wrong option. (
| "Customize in settings", instead of "Not now")).
|
| [0] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/10/07/suggest.jpg
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Does a serious alternative to Firefox exist? I mean an
| alternative that is what Firefox purports to be? I'm ready to
| make the switch. Been with Mozilla since Pheonix, but the user
| hostility has become too much.
| kunagi7 wrote:
| Well... A few years ago I did the same journey, abandoning
| Firefox for something else. There's several stable and serious
| browsers out there.
|
| After looking for weeks I created a list of categories... And
| it depends on what are you willing to sacrifice:
|
| Just want a plain browser, without logins, synchronization,
| without ANY external connections etc:
|
| Ungoogled-chromium (Windows, Linux...) and Bromite (Android).
|
| Don't care about full web compatibility or speed but keep your
| privacy under control:
|
| Waterfox Classic and Palemoon (Windows and Linux).
|
| Don't care about Open Source vs Closed Source licensing (but
| still preserve some privacy):
|
| Vivaldi (the most customizable Chromium-based browser out there
| but the UI even after several improvements feels a bit slower
| than other browsers).
|
| Don't care about privacy... Then it's quite easy:
|
| Edge, Chrome, Opera.
|
| If you are into cryptocurrencies or need a nice browser with
| decent adblocking on iOS: Brave.
|
| I decided to use Vivaldi since I like to personalize the looks
| of my browser quite a lot.
|
| The best recommendation is to try everything for a while and
| settle with the one you feel most comfortable.
| nsonha wrote:
| All these forks will die because even firefox, a well
| organised OSS project is struggling
|
| That leaves Edge, Chrome, Opera and Vivaldi
|
| Because you even mentioned them, I don't think you understand
| the question. Let me rephrase it: who will develop, and have
| a sustainable business model for a new browser engine and
| break Chromium's monoculture, other than Firefox?
| kreeben wrote:
| >> firefox, a well organised OSS project
|
| I see no proof of this.
|
| >> is struggling
|
| Money-wise, no. Management-wise, hell-to-the-yes.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| _Every_ time I see Mozilla mentioned on HN, I get sad how
| badly they screwed things :(
| kayson wrote:
| I wish. Gecko is open source, so there's no technical reason
| another non-Chromium browser couldn't be created (which I think
| is important for the web ecosystem, avoiding browser
| monoculture, etc.). I suspect that no one has really done it
| because it would be a terrible uphill battle and there's no
| direct revenue to be had. Browser money comes from ad/search
| partnerships, which require a strong existing userbase, or just
| the userbase itself in the case of something like Chrome.
| shock wrote:
| I plan to give LibreWolf a try.
| [deleted]
| jjcon wrote:
| I know everyone hates this answer but if you look into what the
| Brave team is doing they have a lot of really interesting
| projects in the works. I've had a great experience with Brave.
| xx511134bz wrote:
| They also have a search engine that's good enough most of the
| time.
| throwaway661885 wrote:
| Please no
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28746873
|
| Edit - Also 'Ublock Origin' works best with Firefox
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26755252
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Brave being webkit, it's not an alternative.
| jjcon wrote:
| Brave is Blink not webkit - Blink has been developed by
| Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel and many others. It is
| the standard for web rendering just as linux is for web
| hosting. There is nothing wrong with open standards.
| bloopernova wrote:
| You could give Waterfox a try.
| intelMgmntEnema wrote:
| Personal opinion:
|
| There is an entire economy and ecosystem based on rewarding
| sinister web design. The complexity and resources involved in
| keeping pace with contemporary garbage while qualifying simply
| as a functional browser is too vast. So much that I suspect
| it's all downhill from here. I don't believe we'll ever see an
| all around user-friendly, privacy respecting, well designed,
| functional browser. I'd delight in being wrong here, but
| sincerely doubt it.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > There is an entire economy and ecosystem based on rewarding
| sinister web design. The complexity and resources involved in
| keeping pace with contemporary garbage while qualifying
| simply as a functional browser is too vast.
|
| Yeah, HTML standards have basically evolved into a kind of
| regulatory capture that protects Google's browser. Even
| Microsoft found them too difficult to implement and meet user
| expectations.
|
| > I don't believe we'll ever see an all around user-friendly,
| privacy respecting, well designed, functional browser. I'd
| delight in being wrong here, but sincerely doubt it.
|
| At least if we rely on market incentives. I suppose we might
| see one if it's regulated into existence (e.g. European
| regulators forcing Google, Microsoft, etc. to provide
| browsers that respect privacy and provide functional
| extension capability for ad blockers and the like).
| sudobash1 wrote:
| I'm not sure how long this message has been here, but Firefox
| does have this note on it's website[1]:
|
| > We haven't quite hit our mark. We've received feedback that
| it's difficult to figure out which Firefox experience you've got
| enabled. We are hard at work to address this and continue to
| improve the feature.
|
| [1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/navigate-web-faster-
| fir...
| perihelions wrote:
| The dark pattern in one image:
|
| https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/10/07/suggest.jpg
|
| I and I think many others chose "Customize in settings" -- but
| the actual opt-out is that hard-to-see, third button in small
| print. We didn't "get opted-in automatically" -- it's this dialog
| we "opted in" with.
| sudobash1 wrote:
| I would choose that button particularly because the "not now"
| button sounds like it would prompt us again in the future.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-08 23:01 UTC)