While the feature itself was not so useful, I do worry slightly about what the motivation for its removal might’ve been. People suggest that it’s to avoid literally 1 bit of fingerprint data but the lack of more significant action on that front seems to contradict that idea. I didn’t find any discussion of it in bugzilla, which used to be where you’d go to find out what the hell they’re thinking.
Did they think nobody would notice? Are they going back to the bad old habit of removing features just for the sake of removing features? Did the fact that so many of their users have that flag set interfere with their ad tracking ambitions?
Makes sense. It was an idealistic idea that was never going to work because it would rely on advertisers honoring a consumer’s request.
And honestly just made you stick out like a sore thumb fingerprinting wise. Probably for the best honestly.
Without the force of law, this was never going to work.
Perhaps if the EU had used the presence of absence of the Do Not Track header as their method of determining cookie consent, it could have ended up being useful both from a privacy standpoint and to have saved us from the scourge of annoying as fuck cookie banners they ended up causing. Ah well.
Unfortunate, but understandable :(
I wish we could rely on good faith with something like this, but it seems the only way is to block as much tracking as possible by force.The Global Privacy Control toggle is legally enforceable and is actually followed by sites when enabled. I often get a toast from the site that confirms this, and it may even auto select the most private option in the cookie banner.
Most firefox users have ublock origin and other tracker blockers which actually work.
That is disappointing
deleted by creator
