sabreW4K3

I believe you made an innocent mistake when you confused the term 'landed' with the term 'shipped'. Since then, we're just wasting time while you dance around admitting you're wrong to protect your ego on the Internet.

It very much is the point. Whether we like it or not, fingerprinting is one of the dark practices that measures like this are designed to prevent. Where advertising publishers, take information that should be innocuous and use that to identify you, across a myriad of sites, thus identifying your browsing habits and what is trending and most importantly what you're spending on. To say that's not the point is ridiculous, because that's the very point. That's why Firefox has to bring in cookie isolation, without your explicit consent BTW, along with ETP and a bunch of the other things I mentioned above. And what did the advertising industry and the likes of Meta do? Find new ways to track you and identify you. Luckily, while Firefox was playing whack-a-mole, a proposal was put forward to the W3C. It says, hey if web publishers of the advertising kind can receive some specified data, can you be happy with that? After a lot of negotiation, they settled on a compromise and agreed to shun all that didn't agree, on the advertising side. There was just one last step, the proof-of-concept! Mozilla said, we're independent, we care about our users and we have enough users to provide a decent sample, let's lead the charge on this and improve the Internet, but they should've hinged the progress of the entire world wide web on your consent, when you're not even willing to understand what the question is.

Oh well, have a good day.

You're ignoring the fact that fingerprinting exists and I don't get why.

It's a weird conversation rabbit hole I've been dragged down, where I said something that factually correct, you refuted it

But it hasn't landed in a Firefox release yet.

And then there's been a bunch of back and forth where I'm like, someone is wrong on the Internet and you're like, "I'm Vincent, Vincent's are never wrong and besides, why would it matter anyway?" or something along those lines.

But I've provided evidence of Mozilla using the term in their official publications. To suggest it's mine would be to suggest I coined it.

Your browser already submits information about you by virtue of existing.

What this does is put the mechanisms to ring fence that in place. The same way that the Enhanced Tracking Protection does.

Kinda like how even if you've had an STI test recently, you should still use a condom when sleeping with strangers.

Regarding the opt-in versus opt-out stuff. That's a dead fish. People go with what the default is. By default ETP is on. By default, autoplay is off. By default, HTTPS only mode is always on.

These are all things that happened without my explicit consent and they've all made the Internet a better place for normal people, not like me and you, but normal people who rely on the best defaults possible.

My definition or Mozilla's?

Mozilla said, "hey, in the chance you see an advert on the Internet, this will anonymise the data sent to the ad publishers for you automatically" and you said, "how dare you"!

But if I switch to direct IP access, the favicon is displayed.

It's just Docker containers. If you tell me where to look, I can try and find the relevant info

I appreciate the thought.