Well, it's meant to disarm kneejerk accusations, demonstrating that I actually do understand the privacy concerns. Clearly, it didn't work.
there is absolutely NO reason
Um? Please slow down; you're speaking faster than you can handle.
So my grandmother is at fault for "getting raped" because she didn't have the technical chops to defend herself?
Yes, she is absolutely at fault. People seem to want individual benefits without individual responsibility. I do not discount that there are bad-faith actors on the internet who should absolutely not be trusted; I am only saying that grandmother should not expect that the domains she visits have her best interests at heart. IT professionals know (should know) this, and it is our fault that grandmother does not.
All of these but NoScript operate on a blacklist basis
No, uMatrix blocks all 3rd party elements by default. By allowing certain 3rd party domains to serve content, you can find the minimum number of domains and content thereof to serve the page to your satisfaction.
Going to a site gives it implied permission to collect some data about your visit, but that doesn't extend to 3rd party sites like Facebook.
I cannot agree. I understand the problems this causes, but loading HTML doesn't come with the assumption that you're only going to get content from Dale's Dildoes Dot Com.
The web is not as friendly as it used to be, and Google, primarily, is in a position to abuse this fact by acting as if 3rd party content is not a problem. It is a problem (citation: TFA), but problem is that sites are not trustworthy: they have abused 3rd party content, and lost the public trust.
Because you didn't ask the user.
That's...not how HTML works. The user asked for the data, and they're gonna get it, hard.
The issue is trust. No one should trust anyone else. In the Ad space, that's why they need 3rd-Party Everything in the first place.
Trust that you are going to get conned in public spaces. The conversation about Trust gets ignored by companies in a position to profit from your trust.
tl/dr: it is absolutely your fault for getting raped.
Most of the cookie add-ons used FF's built-in functionality; they just made it easier to interact with...
I'm a little pissed off at this.
Twitter is certainly obligated to apply the rules that they do have in an evenhanded manner.
"Obligated?" Is this the very first case of self-interested hypocrisy you've ever encountered?
In grown-up land, individuals (and corporate individuals, naturally) don't have to enforce their rules. Governments can be sued to act, but individuals don't have such an affirmative obligation; suits are filed the other way; that is, if Trump felt he was being censored unfairly, he might have a course of action, but YOU do not have such a remedy when YOU want a term-of-service applied to someone else.
After all quite a large number of the general population believed that the NSA was snooping on its own citizens, but there was no supporting evidence for it.
I'd say there was no direct evidence, but plenty of circumstantial evidence including historical disclosures of obseleted wiretapping programs. It was really a thought-experiment how deeply everything was being tracked, not the mere fact of the tracking.
I see what you did there...
...and it makes me want to talk about how creating a "Book of Law" propagated the "Rules Lawyers", how publishing a 'zine and charging mimeograph money was a better environment for creative play than selling a million copies and having it adopted as some kind of standard, and maybe how rules meant for fair war gaming between equivalent sides really have no place in a roleplaying game...
...but that's kind of depressing, so never mind.
In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them.