• theherk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I feel like I’m reading a different article than everyone else. The comments made me think the article would be adding advertisements, but it seems to be trying to find a way forward to facilitate advertisements while maintaining privacy.

    Without technical details I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I know lemmy is largely “Mozilla bad”, but I’m just not sure the comments are in line with the proposal.

    • Bongles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yes, that’s the same thing every time Firefox is mentioned here. It’s like people here WANT to be angry.

    • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I originally was one of the “FUCK FIREFOX IS FUCKED” people. However, after taking a deep breath and actually reading, yes, you are correct. There is no indication that they’re blocking adblockers or taking away firefox customization. I think they’re both looking for alternative revenue streams and trying to make the advertising business less intrusive. That being said, their communication is absolute dogshit and they deserve a lot of the shit they get. But I am not yet panicking. Firefox remains the best choice for blocking ads.

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        There is no indication that they’re blocking adblockers or taking away firefox customization.

        Yet.

        We don’t know that after they are deeper and deeper into the advertising industry, that they don’t just go ahead and do it.

        Remember how Google wasn’t always evil? Money changes companies (and people). Advertising money could very well change Mozilla. Plus, remember, these statements are them telling you the public version, things that they are claiming will happen. Often times what goes on behind the scenes is very different.

        I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be concerned by this.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The problem for me is that I’m tired of ads at all, so while I do think that having an ad system that is less abusive than the current one is a step in the right direction, I still don’t want to see any unsolicited ads and this feels like the initial steps to try to make it more palatable to eventually try to force users to accept ads back into their lives.

        • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Yea that’s likely what it is. Hopefully I can remain in the 1% of people who go out of their way to block ads. As long as I can do that I’ll welcome the industry as a whole being more privacy friendly (if that’s even possible)

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Yeah, that might be the best case scenario. Have ad blocking but add in some technical hurdles so that not enough people do it for it to be worth stamping out.

            Though that makes me wonder if this will be effective at all because the technical hurdle to get Mozilla’s new ad system is only slightly less than the technical hurdle to install ublock origin. I’m guessing advertisers will either ignore it entirely and continue with what they are doing (because the data means profit for them) or maybe put some portion of their bandwidth towards it while continuing to do what they are doing with other providers.

            • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 hours ago

              It’s really hard to tell how Mozilla is acting doing because 99.99% of the posts/comments on Lemmy/Reddit is just FUD. I’m sire it skews people’s perception.

              • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Yeah, Lemmy isn’t getting the same kind of propaganda as other social media, but it does appear to be present here on some topics.

                Like normal conservative propaganda gets drowned out since the userbase has a large portion of people who are here because we’re tired of corporate bullshit.

                But it means we’re probably more susceptible to propaganda that accuses corporations of corporate bullshit, whether the accusation has merit or not.

      • glaber@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Talk is cheap, get contributing! Donate, translate or code. That way we’ll have a proper way out of Mozilla sooner

      • Kuro@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Maybe this pushes the development a little bit. Would be a good opportunity to ask for funding and other means of help.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Eh, they’ve been speedrunning this for years, this is just the most efficient way to get to the end goal of complete ruin.

      I have a few alternative ideas, but I honestly don’t think they’re interested in hearing them.

    • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Is this a response to the fact that they may not get paid for having Google as their default search engine? If so, I worry about a bunch of Linux distributions. It’s ironic that a company’s toxic virtual monopoly was paying for so much open software.

      • LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Mozilla’s PPA was developed in collaboration with Facebook. While we don’t usually think of that company as advertisement centric, they are, just moreso within their own walled garden of a social network.

        parading around as pro-privacy frauds.

        Here’s a frighteningly accurate prediction from The Register, written back in January:

        …Baker notes: “We need to be faster in prototyping, launching, learning, and iterating … This requires rich data, and so we will be moving in that direction, but in a very Mozilla way.”

        Surely not slurping telemetry?

        According to the report, the “Mozilla way” is all about privacy, encryption, and keeping customer data safe. Hopefully, it will also be about innovation rather than scattering AI fairy dust over its product line.

      • ramblingsteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I hope so. I hope there could be a future where Mozilla is purged of these people and returned to being just a browser. Not everything has to be a “platform” with a business model for MBA’s to feast on.

  • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Because of propaganda, people find it easier to imagine the end of the world before the end of capitalism. Just the same, theres lots of commenters here that could imagine the end of the internet before they imagine the end of advertising on the internet.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Oh you mean one of the only two reasons I use this fucking thing? Ad blocking and privacy?

    You’re shitting on both. That’s like… Idk, Craftsman making tools out of plastic and removing the lifetime warranty… Wtf do I even need you for then?

    • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Same! Check the telemetry line in about:config that still has a value in it though (I forget what it is, just that it had one)

  • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    This feels like the turning point for Firefox that we all feared would come. They’ve now switched to outright gas lighting their users. They’re trying to convince us that if they take a stab at doing ads the right way, that we can have a web filled with tolerable ads that work for both the user and the business.

    Ads and user data collection are the worst part of the internet. Nothing has ever gotten better because of them. And there’s already far too much focus in this area. Mozilla just wants to be another exploiter so that they can have a piece of the stolen value pie.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    rockbottom: NOBODY wants to see the ads you throw in our faces. doesnt matter that, as you claim, those ad views pay you for your content. there is no good way to make those ads palatable.

  • erenkoylu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It is time to fork Firefox. Mozilla has bern hijacked by people who don’t care about its vision.

        • bishbosh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Sure, but as you pointed out maintaining a browser is hard. I don’t know that any genuine fork or new browser is on the horizon, and the day to day of using firefox is fine by me, so a fork that strips there nonsense might be plenty for me.

  • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I don’t see how they think it’s a good move. I’m not speaking about people being upset. Most of the Firefox users are either people having at least some tech knowledge or people which use it because of a person with some tech knowledge.

    And most of these people use an ad-blocker, know how to install a fork and so on. So, from the beginning, I don’t know who think it’s a good idea other than to kill Firefox.

  • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    And, for the foreseeable future at least, advertising is a key commercial engine of the internet, and the most efficient way to ensure the majority of content remains free and accessible to as many people as possible.

    I’m afraid they aren’t wrong. The majority of people aren’t going to pay for access to random blogs etc. So we’d end up with only the big players having usable sites.

    People kick off about ads but rarely suggest an alternative to funding the internet.

    Back in the day ads were targeted based on the website’s target audience not the user’s personal data. It works fine but is less effective. Don’t see why they couldn’t go that way.

    • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      If your product doesn’t generate enough revenue to turn a profit, you don’t have a viable business

    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I don’t believe a web browser should be designed specifically for one business model, period.

      There are plenty of free sites. Truly free, with no ads.

      There are plenty of paid sites, supported by subscribers.

      There are plenty of sites funded by educational institutions, nonprofits, or similar.

      There used to be plenty of sites that were supported by non-invasive ads.

      I don’t give a damn if everyone uses Facebook and Google. That doesn’t mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.

      • refalo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        That doesn’t mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.

        From what I have seen, it does… if you want to have a popular site that stays running well, and don’t charge your users for access.

    • Pulptastic@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      More effective is a massive understatement. Now they can precisely measure effectiveness and adjust their strategy in real time to maximize output. They have increased effective effectiveness several fold. The cat is out of the bag, even if we try to roll this back the googles of the world know the data is there and can’t not harvest it. Our best strategy has to combine regulation and monopoly busting, break these companies into smaller ones that have less power to comb through big data.

      For a good read on this, check out The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuniga.

    • erenkoylu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Internet was fine in the early 2000s before the rise of social media platforms resulted in surveillance advertisement complex.

      It was a different place, but worked ok.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Sounds like you’re forgetting about the dot com bubble. The internet wasn’t fine abck then because nobody really had a sustainable business model.

        • LWD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The dot com bubble made the Internet explode, sure, but corporate sites weren’t the entire internet back then. There were far more niche sites, web rings, forums, etc…

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Surveillance advertisement was already around.

        Social Media platforms simply capitalized on it.

        And users sucked it up for “convenience”.