
Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44% - randomwalker
http://monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.com/2015/05/tracking-protection-for-firefox-at-web.html
======
devsquid
Man, ads are great. They allow content to be targeted towards people that
could potentially not afford the content and towards people that might not
necessarily use the product normally. The world is already significantly
divided by wealth. Assuming someone poor even has access to a service like
Google, imagine if it was behind a paywall. Could they afford it? If not
imagine how much of a life advantage someone wealthier has over those would
can not afford it. Your idealistic 'superior' ad free world is as alienating
and as segregated as Silicon Valley is...

~~~
oconnore
The whole point of ads is to convince people to buy things that they may
otherwise not. That seems like the opposite of helping poor people. Also, if
you are struggling financially, ad supported "content" is probably not a major
concern in your life, and certainly not a solution to your problems.

~~~
greggman
"If I were starting life over again, I am inclined to think that I would go
into the advertising business in preference to almost any other. The general
raising of standards of modern civilization among all groups of people during
the past half-century would have been impossible without that spreading of the
knowledge of higher standards by means of advertising."

\- Franklin D. Roosevelt

~~~
mrob
That was a time before modern communications technology made it very easy for
knowledge of higher standards to spread naturally, and a time of much less
dangerous advertising. Advertisers today literally use brain scanners to
design adverts that manipulate people most effectively. See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing)
And advertisers have the ability to test and refine their ads far beyond what
advertisers of Roosevelt's time could do, using tracking that would be
considered stalker behaviour if an individual did it. If advertising reverted
to 1930s level there'd be much less need to defend yourself from it.

------
chippy
"To enable Tracking Protection in Firefox 35 and later, visit about:config and
set privacy.trackingprotection.enabled to true"

Edits -

This quote from the article is interesting, especially considering Google the
worlds biggest advertising industry company also has a browser.

"That Firefox is first and foremost a user-agent, not an industry-agent"

~~~
derefr
The thing I don't understand: why not just make the "Do Not Track" switch set
this, as well as sending the eponymous header? The user has stated an intent
to not be tracked... so help them accomplish that!

(In the same sense, I'm surprised that "incognito browsing" windows don't
implicitly download a Tor "component" and route through it, the same way DRMed
<video> elements implicitly download the Adobe DRM component.)

~~~
LukeShu
The GNU IceCat web browser (derivative of Firefox) does that with Tor.

------
kibwen
It's interesting to think of this as a nuclear option for Firefox. The only
incentive they have not to turn it on immediately is that it could poison
relationships with site owners such that they stop testing their sites on
Firefox or outright block Firefox users, but if Firefox market share ever
diminished to the point where site owners were _already_ neglecting Firefox
then I see no reason why Mozilla wouldn't damn the torpedoes, start aping
Chrome's UA, and turn this on by default. It would be a compelling value
proposition at the expense of a lot of mysteriously broken sites (though I
wonder how many of those sites would be just as broken for Chrome users
running AdBlock). It's also literally the only feature that Chrome can never,
ever, ever, ever gain, due to obliterating Google's revenue model (which,
actually, makes it intriguing to entertain the notion of Microsoft and Apple
following suit for precisely this reason).

~~~
MichaelGG
Mozilla could also implement shims, to make sites continue to work. So if a
site breaks because it makes a call to a tracking library but that's now
throwing an error, just provide that same tracking library's functions, but
obviously they won't do anything.

This would at least fix sites that aren't going out of their way to break
things.

~~~
pdkl95
While the shim idea is interesting, I suspect we could get a lot of privacy
_and_ working websites by hard-caching anything that even remotely looks like
jquery and all the other well-known js libraries. (and do the same thing for
fonts).

It's trivial to implement - just ship a list of hashes for every published js
library on all the popular CDNs (+ anywhere else that comes to midn), and if a
HTTP request returns a file that matches one of those hashes, put that URL on
a hard cache list. (it would be worht experimenting if wildcarding all query
strings is feasible)

The only UI change needed would be a menu option to flush the cache for any
files associated with current page, so the user can simply reload any website
that hasn't figured out how to version their js files.

This method wouldn't fix everything, of course, but it would cover a lot.
Additionally, it's easy to use, no copyright is violated (the user still
downloads any cached file at least once - firefox would only ship hashes). and
it would be trivial to extend in the future.

~~~
Qantourisc
Wouldn't lying be a better option to protect from finger printing ? Like:
"what font's do you have" and just return a generic list ?

~~~
pdkl95
There isn't much to fingerprint when you cache a font or javascript library
approximately forever. Of course it is a huge data leak to ever let the remote
server enumerate fonts, but my ideas is attempting to accommodate the idea
that interesting fonts _can_ be used, while the only extra network traffic
should be the font down load on first request.

I acknowledge that it isn't perfect. Someone who is really determined could
(and will) send HTML with unique URLs for every javasscript/css/whatever,
effectively making a cache useless. That takes proactive effort on their part,
though, and in the meantime there is a lot of low-hanging-fruit.

For example, currently Google can track those of use that ban google-analytics
at the router when we load any non-Google page that requests jquery fron
Google's CDN. Limiting that to "about one" load to fill the cache would be
easy and help in the short term..

------
kozukumi
For those wondering what Firefox tracking protection is -
[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-
fir...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-firefox)

From my, very quick, tests it appears to work quite well as a poor man's
adblocker as well. Nice!

~~~
kibwen
Just last week I opted in to Firefox's multiprocess branch, and one of my
biggest complaints is that this breaks pretty much every extension. I eagerly
welcome this if it can replace Ghostery.

~~~
chimeracoder
Out of curiosity, which extensions are broken for you?

I've been running multiprocess Firefox as well, and every extension that I use
regularly still works. The only exception was Vimperator, so I had to write my
own extension to give Vim keybindings[0], since none of the others support
e10s.

I'm curious which extensions have given you trouble, since Ghostery, NoScript,
and uBlock all work for me (at least for the most part).

 _EDIT_ : I forgot that some extensions may need to be disabled/re-enabled the
very first time after enabling e10s[1].

[0]
[https://github.com/ChimeraCoder/electrovim](https://github.com/ChimeraCoder/electrovim)

[1]
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=947030](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=947030)

~~~
sp332
[http://arewee10syet.com/](http://arewee10syet.com/) Ad blockers, password
managers, and download helpers seem to be the most commonly broken.

~~~
tho9Ohx1eo
ublock origin and umatrix work fine.

------
higherpurpose
> _Advertising does not make content free. It merely externalizes the costs in
> a way that incentivizes malicious or incompetent players to build things
> like Superfish, infect 1 in 20 machines with ad injection malware, and
> create sites that require unsafe plugins and take twice as many resources to
> load, quite expensive in terms of bandwidth, power, and stability._

That's a good point. Reminds me of "coal energy is cheap"...except for the
millions of people it's killing or the billions of dollars paid in healthcare
costs. And that's without mentioning coal is usually heavily subsidized by
taxpayer money.

In the same way advertising that's more and more focused on monitoring
everything you do or _say_ online (thanks to all the companies that don't want
to enable end-to-end encryption in their IM's - Google, Microsoft, etc) is
causing a lot of harm as well.

~~~
manigandham
What harm is targeting causing?

Users constantly complain that ads are not relevant, so it's either/or...

~~~
marcosdumay
Objective harm, I don't know of any. But there's a long list of people out
there with a relation of everything I brought on the last few years... Still,
they mean me no harm... today... and the data is useless for attacking me...
today.

Anyway, now I can think about some harm. Since they got their data, ads have
become less relevant (yes, those people are extremely incompetent). But that
isn't much of a trouble.

~~~
manigandham
Social networks like Facebook keep far more information than any ad network.
Most networks usually purge data beyond 30-60 days because it is no longer
relevant for targeting. And Facebook doesn't have to scrape any info since
people supply it willing.

My point: Privacy issues are somewhat pointed at the wrong institutions who
really aren't a threat.

~~~
marcosdumay
Having something worse around does not make ad networks better.

Yes, Facebook is a bigger problem. State level universal surveillance is even
bigger. Fighting any one of the three is worthwhile.

~~~
manigandham
I think you skipped the part that ad networks only keep about 30-60 days of
data. Keeping things forever doesn't help when targeting ads to user intent,
which changes pretty frequently. It's also anonymized and we don't have
personal information like names or addresses. You're also discounting the
value it brings to lots of consumers, marketers and website publishers alike
to have relevant messages.

I really dont understand this argument of privacy as if everyone was living
off the grid somewhere. What is the impetus here? And in context of web
publishers, if you dont want ads then you'd have to pay for content directly,
which is no more private and in fact reveals even more info.

The reason you use a credit card and not cash during real transactions is
because you care more about value and convenience than privacy, so why are ads
online such a target of all this?

~~~
marcosdumay
Look, I'm one of those few people that likes ads. I get how ads subsidizes
free things, but well, it doesn't really matter because I like good ads by
themselves.

Yet, I block ads on most sites because I don't like being tracked. The
argument is quite simple. I don't know you (ad network), and I don't want you
to watch everything I do. I'm pretty sure you won't do anything bad with that
data, but I don't like it anyway.

I'm quite ok with my bank knowing what I spend money on, because I do know
them, I have a choice on what bank to use, and because the service they
provide me does require that data. None of that is exactly true for ads.

------
hrjet
As a user of NoScript + Firefox and as a developer of a browser with an
express goal of "privacy by default"[1], I am thrilled to see this getting
more attention. The more people use privacy features, the more will _website
developers_ ensure that their products degrade gracefully when, for example,
third-party scripts are disabled. Which will enable even more users to migrate
towards a "privacy by default" configuration. And hopefully, this will be a
positive feedback cycle.

1:
[https://gngr.info/doc/introduction.html](https://gngr.info/doc/introduction.html)

~~~
ploxiln
I use ublock with firefox. I worry the opposite will happen:

When a website doesn't work, you can look at the specific blocked domains and
types of content and selectively unblock for the current domain, or you can be
lazy and just turn off ublock for the current domain.

I worry that if tracking/ad blockers become very popular, then websites that
don't work will be _rewarded_ with all the tracking/ad blocking being turned
off by most people.

I used to just use flashblock for click-to-play. I like the simplicity of that
- it attacks the biggest problem in a totally generic way, and if the main
content is flash, you can almost always just click on it.

~~~
the8472
for powerusers µMatrix may be a better choice than µBlock, it allows you to
selectively allow/disallow specific content types from 3rd party domains.

E.g. this thread's article requests a lot more than what it needs to be
readable:

[http://i.imgur.com/wPML2lM.png](http://i.imgur.com/wPML2lM.png)

------
bobajeff
I would love for Mozilla to find other means of funding online content besides
advertising. In either case I'd love to see them take a hard stance on privacy
and against tracking.

They should block trackers that have no effect on website features and
restrict and monitor the ones that do effect features.

...and this is another reason Mozilla needs to have their own search engine.
They could have much greater influence on these this things if they had the
ability to punish bad behaving websites.

~~~
rossjudson
What is this "content" you speak of, that must be funded through advertising?
I checked the internet, and have been able to find very little worthwhile ad-
supported content.

~~~
paulryanrogers
You must be very selective. I'm curious how you'd feel if it turned out most
of Ycombinator's successful ventures depended upon advertising; thereby
supporting this very site and community.

~~~
sukilot
DropBox? AirBnB?

------
ozh
The following post has some facts:
[https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/11/12/quantifying-...](https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/11/12/quantifying-
the-effects-of-firefoxs-tracking-protection/)

------
tenfingers
This is no news to anybody that ever tried an ad blocker, a proxy/content
filter or even a generic hosts file. The difference is very noticeable. In
fact, it's the main reason I run such filters. The difference is not only in
traffic saved/lower latency, but also much lower cpu usage.

However, this it would be a bit hypocritical for Mozilla (and probably the
reason why the filter is off by default). Firefox is not much better than
Chrome when it comes to phoning home and privacy invading features. Heck, on
mobile it's even worse.

What about disabling by default "beacon.enabled" for a start? Contrarily to
massive ad blocking, nobody would notice. Err, maybe these ad networks would?
Oops.

At every new Firefox release I do a tour of new settings/flags and it's
saddening how many times I have to switch something off.

~~~
rufugee
Can you elaborate further on the various ways Firefox phones home? I'd like to
take steps on my machine to disable if possible. Thanks.

~~~
roryokane
I don’t have Firefox open now, but I remember there are three such options in
Preferences > Advanced > the second tab from the left. I think two of them are
checked by default – they involve sending anonymous usage information. You can
uncheck the checkboxes to disable them.

On the second launch after a new install or new profile creation, Firefox
shows a notification bar about these settings with a button to quickly change
them. I don’t remember how long ago those settings were added, nor whether
they showed the notification bar for those updates.

------
CarloSanta4
I find the second part of the post especially interesting. Money makes the
world go round. Mozilla as we all isn't immnune to this. The problem however
is the huge amount of control the handfull of big global players have gained
and still gain. Small local businesses have no chance. Top pick at Google
wins. Trend scouting and more importantly trend creation get's customers.
Advertising works through our unconcious mind. We can't decide to ignore ads,
they will influence us. Also, Mozilla will or if the deals are signed has
already lost it's independence irreversibly.

See also this small thread about the new advertising through suggested tabs.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9586073](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9586073)

------
dakrisht
If you want to turn on (enable) tracking protection in FF, hit the following
link [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-
fir...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-firefox)

Or do this:

1\. in the address bar type _about:config_ , press return

2\. search for _privacy.trackingprotection.enabled_

3\. change the value to _true_

4\. all done

~~~
dm2
Thanks, this works on Mobile Firefox versions also!

------
alkonaut
In a not too distant future there will be a Mozilla browser with servo and a
no tracking option. I'll leave chrome after several years and never look back.

------
nugget
I'm surprised that Mozilla didn't enable this feature by default. They're
either serious about differentiating themselves on the privacy front, or not.
It's the every day users who need this protection, not the more advanced users
who probably already use an adblock extension.

~~~
Sanddancer
They're very cautiously dipping their toe in the water given the holy
shitstorm that happened a couple years ago when they announced they were going
to block third party cookies by default. I imagine that doing it this way
means they can show metrics that blocking in this way doesn't meaningfully
affect bottom lines.

~~~
silverwind
Still makes me wonder why Safari can block third party cookies by default,
while Mozilla can't.

~~~
mike_hearn
Safari doesn't. They advertise that they do but the policy is riddled with
heuristic exemptions added in as they tried to fix broken websites. This (IMO
dishonest) behaviour is what led to the Murdoch-driven blowup about Google and
ad tracking a few years ago - Google was using one of these workarounds when
the user had opted in to ad tracking and it ended up disabling more of the
safari cookie blocking logic than they expected. This undocumented behaviour
then became Google's fault somehow, although really Safari was just not doing
what it claimed it would do.

------
jfoster
Can anyone explain exactly what Firefox Tracking Protection does & doesn't do?
The label "tracking protection" makes me think it might block analytics tools
and retargeting/remarketing cookies, but this blog post seems to suggest that
it might block advertising altogether.

~~~
dm2
Yes, it does block advertisements.

They just have a blacklist of sites that they block, it's not much more
sophisticated than that from what I read. All of the localstorage, cookies,
and other tracking across domains goes away if you filter requests like that.
I'm sure they are doing more things, but they have to make sure it doesn't
break a large number of sites, and if a site is broken it seems like an "all
or nothing" allow/deny system, which is not ideal.

I use uMatrix and it defaults to blocking all 3rd party scripts unless they're
globally trusted or have been trusted in the past. This creates lots of
problems for many websites. Most new websites I visit I have to enable some
3rd party scripts, refresh, make sure there are not any critical javascript
errors in the console, then I can properly use the site. Normal users cannot
be expected to do this, they must have it work the first time or they will
freak out.

------
solve
Weird. If browsers can detect these trackers, could an alternative be to just
de-prioritize the trackers, so they load last and won't slow down page load
time (since I assume they're invisible anyway?)

~~~
mbrubeck
This should be doable for well-written trackers like Google Analytics that use
script tags with the "async" attribute. In fact, those are probably already
likely to load after the main content.

For ads or trackers that are embedded as img or iframe elements, I think this
is also viable and could speed up page load time.

For ads or trackers that use inline scripts or non-"async" script tags to load
content, the web browser has to block while loading/running the script, or
risk breaking the page. Otherwise things like document.write() would have
incorrect results when the script runs later.

~~~
solve
So does this FF mode that blocks them entirely also risk breaking the pages?

~~~
mbrubeck
Yes, it does, though for slightly different reasons. Mainly, it can break
pages with first-party scripts that depend on blocked third-party scripts.
I've encountered and reported a few of these while testing the feature.

~~~
dm2
I wonder how difficult it would be to duplicate the Google Analytics object
with blank functions for just such scenarios.

Rather than "ga is undefined" the ga.whatever function would just return
without sending any data.

Do any third-party script blocking systems do this?

------
dedalus
But it seems likes the data set used was that of top 200 news sites. Its my
experience that media sites have around 60% of the http requests made to third
parties and hence the reduction you see in load time

~~~
dedalus
It will be interesting to run the same analysis on bank websites which
typically have the least amount of third party

------
arh68
Is this more or is it less effective than a large /etc/hosts blacklist? It
doesn't seem to be doing anything special like the Privacy Badger. The only
relevant sections in the paper I saw were

    
    
      We implement an API based on Google Safe Browsing, a 
      mechanism for efficient URL-based blocklist updates and 
      lookups [9]. We use a subset of approximately 1500 domains 
      from Disconnect’s privacy-oriented blocklist to identify 
      these unsafe origins [10]. We update the blocklist every 45 
      minutes to minimize the effects of incorrect blocklist 
      entries.
    
      Another open challenge is applying Tracking Protection only 
      to third-party content. We can avoiding cross-site tracking 
      by blocking content from high-volume sites such as 
      facebook.com without breaking them when visited directly. 
      Heuristics such as the Public Suffix List4 can help better 
      determine the set of domains that are considered first-
      party.
    

Would it hurt to copy their blacklist into /etc/hosts? I'd rather do it on the
OS-level so I can use any browser I want, anyways.

~~~
jmount
I "did the /etc/hosts" thing for a long time. But it seemed like some things
hung and tool longer sometimes. Overall /etc/hosts was a big improvement.
Where are the good lists and what is the current thing you map all the bad
hosts to (is it localhost, or something else?)?

~~~
sp332
It hangs because it waits to time out. It will fail faster if you set the IP
to something impossible instead of merely unavailable.

~~~
the8472
0.0.0.0 works well for that purpose since it's invalid as a remote address

------
stockholmsin
How does this compare to something like Privacy Badger[1]? I haven't done any
benchmarking, but if it causes similar slowdowns, it isn't bothersome and the
benefits are definitely worth it.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/privacybadger](https://www.eff.org/privacybadger)

~~~
chippy
I'd also like a comparison with ublock and/or ghostery. It appears that this
becomes enabled after the blocking plugins.

~~~
hobarrera
ublock is more about ads, and this is tracking.

While they usually come hand in hand, Facebook ads (eg: while on facebook)
don't add additional tracking.

~~~
gorhill
I specifically emphasize on the home page of the project [1]:

"uBlock Origin (or uBlock₀) is not an ad blocker; it's a general-purpose
blocker."

It will report _everything_ to the user -- including behind-the-scene network
requests [2].

\---

[1]
[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy)

[2] [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Behind-the-scene-
netw...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Behind-the-scene-network-
requests)

~~~
nextos
So this firefox feature is just a subset of what ublock does?

BTW, thanks for ublock.

~~~
nhf
If I remember correctly from the presentation (I was at W2SP where the
associated talk was given) there were unspecified performance benefits over
having this outsourced to the plugin architecture. I can't download the paper
right now for some reason, but I'm sure it's detailed in there.

------
fonosip
You can measure the page load times on this webapp
[http://ba.net/util/ping/any1.html](http://ba.net/util/ping/any1.html)

------
stblack
Firefox: my new favorite browser.

------
mellavora
I'm running noscript, ghostery, addblock, and a few others.

pages might load faster, but not every page loads. Ironically, the linked
article is one of them.

------
throwaway425
I justed visited [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/) and browsed the source, and they still have the Google Analytics tracking
crap on their website. Strange for a company that claims to be "committed to
your privacy."

~~~
callahad
Mozilla has an enterprise agreement with Google that limits what data is
collected through GA and how it can be used. Quote:

    
    
        Our Google Analytics premium account is set to opt-out on all of 3rd party
        uses of the data and the only people who have access to the anonymous
        aggregated data is Mozilla Employees. This is not the normal Google
        Analytics setup that most people use on other websites.
    
        Also, to increase privacy we flipped the anonymize flag in the Google
        Analytics request [...] and don't do any cross-domain cookies within Google
        Analytics.
    

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122305#c8](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122305#c8)

~~~
throwaway425
If it's on Google's servers, then clearly Mozilla employees aren't the only
ones with access to it, and the anonymization he's referring to is mere IP
address anonymization, where the last octet of an IPv4 address is zeroed. The
viability of browser fingerprinting as demonstrated by the EFF's Panopticlick
shows cookies, cross-domain or otherwise, are no longer the only viable means
to persistently tracking users.

~~~
throwawayaway
Google obviously have systems in place to allow employee access for absolute
emergencies - but alarmed in case of unauthorised access.

in any case, the analytics data is anonymised and as such cannot be used to
identify you. google goes to huge lengths anonymising data to aggregate you as
a user into groups of millions for advertisers to bid on, you are simply not a
big enough fish for special treatment.

edit: an explanation for downvoting is customary.

~~~
dangrossman
I didn't downvote you, but...

> google goes to huge lengths anonymising data to aggregate you as a user into
> groups of millions for advertisers to bid on, you are simply not a big
> enough fish for special treatment

You're mixing different products and people here. That may be true of Google
Analytics data (I don't know either way), but it's not true for their
advertising services. Google purposely tracks individual people in a non-
anonymous way in order to sell remarketing products, to e.g. show a banner of
items currently in your Amazon shopping cart alongside an article you're
reading at CNN through their AdSense/DoubleClick platforms.

~~~
throwawayaway
is that not amazon sending cookies?

[http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=5160028011](http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=5160028011)

i don't how that is google tracking you individually. can you please
elaborate?

------
chmars
In desktop browsers (and some mobile browsers), you can use filters.

On a mobile OS level, however, you cannot: There is probably not a single
mobile app that does not connect to at least one ad, tracking etc. server. I
hope that at least Apple will offer solutions on an OS level.

------
tiatia
There is no place like 127.0.0.1
[http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm](http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm)

------
shockzzz
so, this is adblock?

------
heimatau
After 10 minutes of using this. Everything feels faster. Lovely. +1 ;)

------
ck2
Ghostery is your friend.

Despite ironically being owned by an advertising company.

------
core2
Any modification of content by browser, ISP or any third party should be
illegal.

~~~
quotemstr
Your view is incompatible with the idea that I should be able to run any
program I can write. Personal freedom ought to trump commercial interests.
Once your bits arrive at my computer, they're no longer yours. They're mine,
and I can mangle them however I want.

~~~
core2
I perfectly understand your position of freedom. However, you should
understand that the articles you read, are written by people. They have
families to support. If you as visitor are not willing to pay, who will pay
the salaries of all writers in the world?

The website is a trader, the visitor is a customer. The trader is agreeing to
sell the content to the customer if the customer pays the price - view ads (or
pay subscription). The visitor agrees with this and receives the content. If
the visitor (with the help of the third party tool - browser or extension)
disable ads, the visitor is violating the user agreement.

If this option "Disable Ads" is OK, and is accepted by all browsers, this mean
there will be nobody willing to write content, because ads are main source of
revenue of most of the websites.

I simply cannot understand how this could work.

For me, it's clear that Mozilla will negotiate with Google and other Ad
providers to receive some money to remove this feature.

~~~
riking
> The visitor agrees with this and receives the content.

I'm sorry, on most websites, if I come from HN or IRC or whatever, I don't
recall being forced to agree to shit before being able to read the content.
Unless your site is Quora.

