> They don't trust users to choose for themselves.
No, they don't trust advertisers and spyware companies (the two seem inseparable today) to choose for them. Google has a massive conflict of interest in being the web's largest advertising network owner and sometimes the web's largest spymaster, in addition to owning the web's most common browser.
> What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all?
Firefox has had a relatively consistent stance on that since 1990 something and always had warnings when downloading executable files and worked hard to make sure that malware can't just download executable files it wants when it wants. As someone who remembers the malware wars of the 1990s, it was a reason I switched to Firefox in the first place!
It still amazes me that Chrome just auto-downloads EXEs willy-nilly without warnings or user consent, because I still remember what it was like the last time a major browser did that by default.
> it's what devs want.
That's my point: devs as a collective are morons. Devs as a collective include a lot of people whose salaries pay them to build adware, spyware, malware, and worse. Devs as a collective lack a major ethics body or ethics reviews and so far no dev has had to stand trial for a clear violation of professional ethics.
That's why you put things behind a permission system. If a site requires a spy permission to view content.... then the user can decide if privacy matters in this case.
Fingerprinting someone who doesn't care is already trivial. Just ask for their email or sign on with google or Facebook. Or don't even bother and just listen through the Google alarm clock. Or find us with our Tiles.
Mozilla wants to kill all spyware, but what about services that would probably cost a lot of money without spyware?
Unless you outlaw those(In which case I'd probably have some angry letters to write) or provide a cheap alternative... the kind of people who click "accept" on location access prompts are already spied on 8 different ways.
It's kind of an uphill losing fight to protect people from something most people like.
No, they don't trust advertisers and spyware companies (the two seem inseparable today) to choose for them. Google has a massive conflict of interest in being the web's largest advertising network owner and sometimes the web's largest spymaster, in addition to owning the web's most common browser.
> What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all?
Firefox has had a relatively consistent stance on that since 1990 something and always had warnings when downloading executable files and worked hard to make sure that malware can't just download executable files it wants when it wants. As someone who remembers the malware wars of the 1990s, it was a reason I switched to Firefox in the first place!
It still amazes me that Chrome just auto-downloads EXEs willy-nilly without warnings or user consent, because I still remember what it was like the last time a major browser did that by default.
> it's what devs want.
That's my point: devs as a collective are morons. Devs as a collective include a lot of people whose salaries pay them to build adware, spyware, malware, and worse. Devs as a collective lack a major ethics body or ethics reviews and so far no dev has had to stand trial for a clear violation of professional ethics.
Maybe the web shouldn't give devs what they want?