Perhaps a bit more explanation is needed considering the downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=32118663&goto=item%3Fi...

This is an arms race firefox would lose. I think if anything, firefox trying to race it is now negatively affecting anyone that were able to manually remove tracking id themselves (or use a browser extension)

Ad-blocking, like content piracy, are activities that are ignored and can flourish in the fringes. Once they go mainstream and become threats to profit margins, considerable resources will be brought to bear to fight them.

So the ultimate question is: how do we make sales executives look like a threat to profit margins?

The only way I can think of is to make profits above a certain level unprofitable by taxing them at a high rate with ratcheting without bracketing (i.e. any amount up to $X billion taxed at 10%, but anything greater than $X + $0.01 will be taxed at 60% for the entire amount, resulting in a tax graph that is discontinuous for profit vs. tax). Profits can be tinkered with, so perhaps do that with revenue instead. Then, for companies of a certain size will have no need for sales executives, and will be punished by Wall Street for exceeding optimal sales targets.

This will make whole internet fragmented, why serve customers beyond revenue target, so best products will be available only to most profitable customers.

One could say the car industry is also "fragmented": but we have up-market OEMs and Toyota/Honda.

Isn’t this already the common theme in capitalism?

It is enough for Firefox to make the trackers have to be more invasive.

I don't have to defeat you if I can make you look bad enough to all the observers.

What nonsense. The negative effects are due to Facebook, not because Firefox took defensive actions.

Don't blame the victim, blame the abuser

First we had toggleable cookie and JS settings.

Sites blocked functioning without cookies or JS.

Then we had adblockers.

Sites blocked functionality with adblockers installed.

Then we had Do Not Track.

Sites LOLWUTFU

Then we had GDPR.

Sites: Multi-thousand-word EULAs, TOU, "Accept" vs. "Pound Sand" options, multi-hundred click "choice" dialogues, "your privacy is very important to us (to invade and violate)", and mass geoblocking.

Then we had UTM and FBPID URL tracking parameter stripping.

Sites: Encode tracking data directly into URL as a hash.

Firefox's action isn't simply meant to solve the problem. It's there to highlight the repeated and escallated violation and negation of express personal intent and preference.

No means no.