Lots of people mentioning collaboration / multiple users, yet all your replies seem to completely ignore this aspect. I’m guessing you might live alone and are struggling to imagine some very common use cases here.

Why not both?

I use syncthing for transferring files around my local network, and nextcloud for sharing files with others.

IMO these are related tools but designed with very separate use cases. Use the right tool for the job.

I’m not going to switch away from them just yet… But I am going to start using an address with my own domain. My only regret is not doing this from the beginning.

I’m currently using Unraid for pretty much every thing you listed, and I love it so much. I really appreciate being able to set up almost everything through the web interface. It makes my hobbies feel fun rather than just an extension of my day job.

That said, I bought the licence before they switched to a subscription model. So if I were starting over I might look into free alternatives.

You can still buy a lifetime subscription for Unraid, it’s just a lot more expensive.

You do if third party clients aren’t possible? You have control over what client the receiving end is using.

But apparently third party clients are possible, so it’s moot.

Of course, I fully agree! My point was just that you can eliminate the risk of poorly implemented cryptography at the endpoints. Obviously there’s a thousand and one other ways things could go wrong. But we do the best we can with security.

Anyway apparently third party clients are allowed after all? So it’s a moot point.

Excellent point! If I’m sending someone information that could get me killed if it were intercepted by the state, I’d sure as hell want some guarantees about how the other side is handling my data. Disallowing third party clients gives me at least one such guarantee.

Cool makes sense, thanks for the reply! And yeah, I don’t think I’m quite there yet.

Out of curiosity, what’s the benefit of splitting those?

It’s a template to help set all the security and privacy hardening features that Firefox already ships with but are disabled by default.

They didn’t sell your data before

Firefox has been funded by ads from the beginning, and has had sponsored tiles (aka ads) since around 2014 I think?

I personally think there’s a difference between selling ads and selling your data too. I’m going to go on a limb and say you see no distinction.

This was not about “making things better for people on the Internet,” it was about a few individuals enriching themselves.

Mozilla Corp is fully owned by a non profit, so there’s no owners getting rich off of any excess profits.

Saying ads are here to stay so you have to accept them or die, is an absurd false dichotomy

I’d love for nothing more than for there to be a viable alternative!

Because Firefox is funded by ads, whether it’s the PPA ads outlined in this post, or search referrals from Google. Default adblocking would kill the revenue stream. Maybe Firefox could continue on with volunteers and donations, but not anywhere near its current staffing level. Eventually the engine would fall further and further behind and fewer and fewer people would use it.

To clarify… Making a browser is relatively easy and there’s lots of successful projects that do so without significant revenue. But making a rendering engine is really fucking hard and requires a ton of money to maintain.

Let’s be real, there’s no way PPA is going to be as valuable as the data that can be gathered by state of the art ad tech. So the ad companies that adopt this will be making a compromise to do so. How is this tech making their lives easier?

Also they have no incentive to develop this tech, so why would they? It’s not like Mozilla is doing work for them that they would have done anyway. If anything they’re probably worried that the tech will take off and then legislation will follow to force them to use it.

Telling advertisers to fuck off works if your goal is to create a niche product tailored to people who care deeply about privacy already. But Mozilla is very much all about trying to make things better for everyone on the internet, regardless about their opinions (or lack thereof) on privacy and ads.

Mozilla has recognised that advertising isn’t going anywhere, so there’s two options:

1. Reject ads wholesale and become irrelevant.
2. Push for a better alternative that can improve privacy while still keeping the engine that drives the internet intact.

What other major player would ever push for privacy preserving attribution? Hint: no one. While I get that many people here want 0 ads (myself included), PPA is a great step in the right direction, and could have a huge positive impact if it’s shown to work and other companies start adopting it.

And guess what? You can still turn it off, or use adblockers. Unlike Chrome, Firefox won’t restrict you in that regard.

Oh that’s not at all what they implied. They implied you shouldn’t use the project based on the author’s opinions. That’s very different from implying the author isn’t entitled to their opinions.

Boycotting the software doesn’t infringe on the author’s rights to have a shitty opinion. It’s called consequences for being an asshole.

Did the OP say they couldn’t have different views? You must have replied to the wrong comment.

I don’t hate Apple in terms of privacy. I hate Apple for a myriad of other reasons. Mostly related to locked down ecosystems.