473
submitted 1 week ago by golden_zealot@lemmy.ml to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 week ago

My problem with this in spite of the dire situation they face if Google is forced to cut funding by anti-trust court rulings (or not even forced but they make paying off Mozilla a moot point so they stop) is that they become an ad company. Ads become tied to their CEO compensation, to the salaries of the people who develop it.

They claim they're making a better kind of ad network, a privacy respecting kind. The problem is the ad industry doesn't want less data, they want more. There are no looming laws that would force the ad industry to adopt a more privacy respecting alternative or die and without that the ad industry is going to shun this and it'll be a failure and then they'll have a failed ad network that they can either discard entirely or adapt to industry standards of privacy invasion and abuse and continue to exist and then they'll make another "hard choices" post about having to do that.

And I can see it now. This experiment will fail and after some pressure from the ad industry and some devil-on-shoulder whispering Mozilla will begrudgingly start to enshittify. Their ad network will become less privacy respecting by tiny little steps, by salami-slicing or boiling the frog, the whole privacy-preserving measurement thing will be thrown out BUT they'll still claim they respect you more than Google and will at first perhaps but that will erode. Maybe they'll just implode at some point after that which given Google is being found a monopoly works just fine for Google and the rest of big tech who want a more centralized, locked down browser company that wants to help implement DRM that can't be circumvented, that wants to help lock down everything on the web to restrict users freedoms to choose what is displayed or if they can save it or record it or copy it to say nothing of blocking ads.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] cybermass@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago

Does this mean they are gonna brick ublock origin and force me to Google's 3.0 shit? (I forgot the name of it)

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 week ago

I wonder if this has anything to do with the Google ad monopoly case?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] notous@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Time to switch to other fork

[-] qlya@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago
[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago

Burn the phoenix again.

[-] P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 16 points 1 week ago

Squidward on the floor saying "Future, future"

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago

Technically correct: literally no one does fit the criteria for not everyone.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week 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.

[-] refalo@programming.dev 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

69% of the world population doesn't use ad blockers. Google made their billions from people clicking on ads.

Not only are we technical folks (only 5% of the population not their target audience, it seems most people don't care enough about ads to ever try to stop them... at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

The original developer has a great blog, and has commented on this

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I will go against the tide here and welcome this change. The web is powered by advertising and tracking. It will happen whether Mozilla is part of it or not. In that case, I would much rather have a website using a Mozilla advertising service that is more ethical and respects the user more than the ones from big tech. It's a lesser of two evils and I support this. I would of course rather have no ads at all but we don't live in a fairy tale world and evil companies exist. And like most ads currently in Firefox, I fully trust we will be able to disable them easily, just like we can right now.

I think this is a good thing that Mozilla is finally trying to distance itself from Google's money because it ensures that maintaining the nonprofit is more sustainable

[-] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 week ago

If Mozilla starts being aggressive to ad blocking, I'll agree with the common opinion on this post. But for now I'm more less neutral. If the choice is Mozilla dies or they do some ad stuff, I'd rather the latter. Whether the current and former people running Mozilla have made the right decisions or not to get to this point is kind of irrelevant, because people do not want Mozilla to disappear (even if they claim otherwise) because Mozilla is still a major driver of privacy-oriented work in w3c and web in general.

Aside from that... The only real way to stop ads and tracking, or at least prevent selling and sharing of data outside of the 1st party collector, is a legal path. Whether Anonym/Mozilla is as private as they are claiming, their intent is at least what a realistic legal solution to web tracking would condone that would continue to allow for revenue via ads. There is no way ads will ever go away in a capitalist economy, so it'll need to do something, blocked or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DreitonLullaby@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago
[-] nameisnotimportant@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Thanks but

We are targeting a first Alpha release for early adopters in 2026.

We need an alternative before that

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
473 points (97.2% liked)

Firefox

17303 readers
6 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS