4 ms·

> We believe that the advertising ecosystem needs to do better – we believe that our work in our advertising experiments has shown that it can be done better.

> We believe that the advertising ecosystem needs to do better – we believe that our work in our advertising experiments has shown that it can be done better. It's a shame that a lot of people I've talked to aren't aware of the significance of how Mozilla designed the sponsored tiles. Google and Facebook harvest mine all of your personal data in order to surface ads that are tailored to you. Mozilla, on the other hand, sent no data back to the server - all the decision-making was done client-side, which meant that Mozilla didn't have to collect any information about the user. I'm not a fan of the advertising model in general for other reasons, but I wish more advertisers accomplished their goal without violating users' privacy and hoarding their data.

JohnTHaller 11y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted here. Exploring non-invasive advertising techniques is a valid monetization strategy, especially when it's optional.
i80and 11y ago
This is a VERY important point. I won't cry over tiles going away, but if indeed all the magic happened client side, then that's a perfectly ethical way of going about advertising.
epoch1970 11y ago
I think that's the sort of distinction that most people just don't care about. They aren't against ads because of how their personal data may be collected or used, especially when this happens without their knowledge. They're against ads because ads are often visually disruptive, especially when they're unwanted and useless. So Mozilla catered to a concern that most people don't have, without addressing the real problem that most people have with ads.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It was straightforward to turn the sponsored tiles off, which seems to directly address what you are saying.
  - epoch1970 11y ago
    That misses the point. People don't want to have to turn off ads. They don't want them there in the first place.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      People want lots of things though. They usually end up with compromises. (I totally agree with the banality of my above point, but I don't see where else the conversation is going to go from here)
      - err4nt 11y ago
        Show me where Firefox users were begging to have ads. Is there a mailing list, discussion group, or support forum where peope asked for this feature? Im pretty sure nearly zero users hoped it would be there when it didnt exist yet.
symlinkk 11y ago
> all the decision-making was done client-side, which meant that Mozilla didn't have to collect any information about the user This should have been made way more apparent! Even then, most people would hate it because of the visual clutter.
hackuser 11y ago
I agree, and would go further to say this is a big step backward in a critical area: Providing ads and similar services while maintaining end-user control. What other products out there do anything like it? How sad.
Manishearth 11y ago
At Portland last year this was part of the keynote speeches. The idea was to have a non-spying non-intrusive advertising model which can be disabled easily. Many of us were hopeful about this; if you have more successful ad programs of this kind, perhaps advertising on the web can get nicer. I guess the experiment failed, but I hope they keep trying things in this space.

JohnTHaller 11y ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted here. Exploring non-invasive advertising techniques is a valid monetization strategy, especially when it's optional.

i80and 11y ago

This is a VERY important point. I won't cry over tiles going away, but if indeed all the magic happened client side, then that's a perfectly ethical way of going about advertising.

epoch1970 11y ago

I think that's the sort of distinction that most people just don't care about. They aren't against ads because of how their personal data may be collected or used, especially when this happens without their knowledge. They're against ads because ads are often visually disruptive, especially when they're unwanted and useless. So Mozilla catered to a concern that most people don't have, without addressing the real problem that most people have with ads.

maxerickson 11y ago
It was straightforward to turn the sponsored tiles off, which seems to directly address what you are saying.
- epoch1970 11y ago
  That misses the point. People don't want to have to turn off ads. They don't want them there in the first place.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    People want lots of things though. They usually end up with compromises. (I totally agree with the banality of my above point, but I don't see where else the conversation is going to go from here)
    - err4nt 11y ago
      Show me where Firefox users were begging to have ads. Is there a mailing list, discussion group, or support forum where peope asked for this feature? Im pretty sure nearly zero users hoped it would be there when it didnt exist yet.

symlinkk 11y ago

> all the decision-making was done client-side, which meant that Mozilla didn't have to collect any information about the user This should have been made way more apparent! Even then, most people would hate it because of the visual clutter.

hackuser 11y ago

I agree, and would go further to say this is a big step backward in a critical area: Providing ads and similar services while maintaining end-user control. What other products out there do anything like it? How sad.

Manishearth 11y ago

At Portland last year this was part of the keynote speeches. The idea was to have a non-spying non-intrusive advertising model which can be disabled easily. Many of us were hopeful about this; if you have more successful ad programs of this kind, perhaps advertising on the web can get nicer. I guess the experiment failed, but I hope they keep trying things in this space.