zlacker

>>ReadCa+(OP)
I think the way the dialog is designed says enough. There's "Get Mozilla VPN" and "not now".

No "stop showing me ads", "disable recommendations", "show privacy settings", instead, just "not now". This illusion of choice is a very common dark pattern that helps people feel like postponing ads was their choice (and their idea) rather than making them feel upset that ads have snuck into their browser in the first place. Websites run by trash marketeers like Reddit and Twitter do the same thing.

I wonder how long it'll take before I will just switch to some Chrome fork. This whole "privacy first" shtick is nice but if I need to turn off as many settings in Firefox to make my browser pleasant to use as I do privacy settings in Chrome, I don't see the advantage.

Last time I checked brave they were still pushing their shady crypto stuff and the UI was kind of meh. I wonder if I should reevaluate it with the ongoing erosion of Firefox as a browser.

>>jeroen+4f
> I think the way the dialog is designed says enough. There's "Get Mozilla VPN" and "not now".

Wasn't there a campaign that "no means no", and explicitly not "no means keep asking until you get the answer you were hoping for out of fatigue"?

Oh right. #metoo

>>pierat+6j
Online ads are a scourge, but it seems really unfair to compare this to #metoo beyond the most superficial aspects.

>>verand+3m
It is not unfair, it’s the crux of “consent”. Consent does not mean “keep pestering until they give in”. When technology does not respect user consent by presenting them a false dichotomy of “yes or later”, that is bad. Not all ads do this, but many dark patterns do, it’s even built into the OS like in iOS and Windows.