6 ms·

I'm so confused here - I thought Apple added the ability to create content blockers to reduce revenue on the web so that more content providers resort to ADs an

by inglor 11y ago

I'm so confused here - I thought Apple added the ability to create content blockers to reduce revenue on the web so that more content providers resort to ADs and they get a bigger slice of the pie. Why would Mozilla help them in their goal? Wouldn't it mean less reliance on the web and less Firefox in the long run? What am I missing here?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
callahad 11y ago
Focus is a tracking blocker, not an ad blocker. Mozilla doesn't have a fundamental problem with display advertising on the web, but we do have a problem with the privacy intrusions associated with invisible trackers.
- newscracker 11y ago
  > Focus is a tracking blocker, not an ad blocker. Mozilla doesn't have a fundamental problem with display advertising on the web, but we do have a problem with the privacy intrusions associated with invisible trackers. This comment is not directed at you, but is a more general take from your statement. With the state of the web we've had for quite sometime, I think the distinction between advertising on the web and privacy intrusion doesn't exist (barring very few exceptions). Most advertising platforms specialize in and indulge in privacy intrusions. I know only of The Deck (deck network) that does not track users. And that's used only in a minuscule amount of sites that most non-tech people may not even encounter it. Additionally, advertising has also become very heavy (in terms of bandwidth), distracting (how many ads can you even show until it becomes irritating and impossible to get to the actual content?) and annoying (just stop it with the popup layers, prompts and auto-playing videos with or without sound). The entire user experience is completely ruined on many sites because of the insane amount of ads present. Nobody seems to care about this aspect at least until they get hit by ad-blockers. Not even large and popular tech sites do anything about user tracking (Ars, I'm looking at you and other popular sites). Even if they do care, some or many are unable to change things. The whole system is complex and corrupt. Fighting back with ad-blockers despite "collateral damage" is probably the best way forward since the ad industry is not really stopping and changing things effectively or quickly.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Tracking goes way beyond advertising. An ad-blocker won't block Twitter's "Tweet" or Facebook's "Like" buttons or any third party service that isn't directly involved in serving ads. If your concern is your privacy, then an ad-blocker doesn't help as much as you think it does. See: https://donottrack-doc.com/en/ https://donottrack-doc.com/en/
    - newscracker 11y ago
      I know the differences, but I haven't seen any popular ad-blockers that don't also block or allow blocking trackers because they all have various blacklists you can use (I'm referring to the ones like uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus).
      - bad_user 11y ago
        Where can I find such blacklists for uBlock / AdBlock Plus meant for trackers? Is there a page documenting them somewhere? I'd be interested.
        ethbro 11y ago
        I get the sense a lot of those are community-knowledge-only documented, so IRC (I would assume) might be the best place to start if you're interested.
        wooger 11y ago
        CLick on the uBlock Origin options tab and you will find a list of all the 3rd party filter lists in use ( & available by default). Most of these include a link to the source site.
        scott_karana 11y ago
        uBlock Origin, at least, offers many such lists in its third party filter's page[1]: Basic tracking list by Disconnect‎ EasyPrivacy‎ (forums.lanik.us) Fanboy’s Enhanced Tracking List‎ (forums.lanik.us) Anti-ThirdpartySocial (see warning inside list)‎ (forums.lanik.us) Fanboy’s Annoyance List‎ (forums.lanik.us) Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎ (forums.lanik.us) Malvertising filter list by Disconnect‎ Malware Domain List‎ (malwaredomainlist.com) Malware domains‎ (www.malwaredomains.com) Malware domains (long-lived)‎ (www.malwaredomains.com) Malware filter list by Disconnect‎ Spam404‎ (www.spam404.com) 1 chrome://ublock0/content/dashboard.html#3p-filters.html
lmm 11y ago
Mozilla is no longer an ideological organization, if it ever was one. This gets them media attention and may attract more donations, which will perpetuate the organization's existence.
- emilsedgh 11y ago
  Mozilla is no longer an ideological organization [Citation needed]
  - lmm 11y ago
    This is one example. Pocket is another.
- cronjobber 11y ago
  Maybe you meant "idealistic", which they aren't any more, instead of "ideological", which they have become, progressively.
belorn 11y ago
User will avoid the web if it provide poor user experience. What user want major battery drains, unwanted traffic cost, and all the drawbacks of malware-behavior that spies, steals, and acts hostile? The current system is unsustainable and advertisement through the web is slowly turning into the same fate as advertisement through email, and people and companies did not stop using email when spam started to get universally blocked.
pvg 11y ago
I thought Apple added the ability to create content blockers to reduce revenue on the web so that more content providers resort to ADs and they get a bigger slice of the pie. There's no non-tinfoil evidence of this. A much simpler explanation is that Apple did this because mobile browsing was becoming unusable. Nothing Apple does by tweaking their browser is going to get them a 'bigger slice of the pie' than the 40% of sweet profit on selling you a $600 phone. Unless the browser is so horrible you decide to buy a different phone.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Yes, it's hard to show off your superfast 64-bit chip performance and incredible LTE bandwidth when the browser is bogged down by loading several megabytes of JavaScript from 76 distinct origins. And the user experience isn't great when half the screen is ads. (Hyperbole, obviously, but.)

by inglor 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

callahad 11y ago

Focus is a tracking blocker, not an ad blocker. Mozilla doesn't have a fundamental problem with display advertising on the web, but we do have a problem with the privacy intrusions associated with invisible trackers.

newscracker 11y ago
> Focus is a tracking blocker, not an ad blocker. Mozilla doesn't have a fundamental problem with display advertising on the web, but we do have a problem with the privacy intrusions associated with invisible trackers. This comment is not directed at you, but is a more general take from your statement. With the state of the web we've had for quite sometime, I think the distinction between advertising on the web and privacy intrusion doesn't exist (barring very few exceptions). Most advertising platforms specialize in and indulge in privacy intrusions. I know only of The Deck (deck network) that does not track users. And that's used only in a minuscule amount of sites that most non-tech people may not even encounter it. Additionally, advertising has also become very heavy (in terms of bandwidth), distracting (how many ads can you even show until it becomes irritating and impossible to get to the actual content?) and annoying (just stop it with the popup layers, prompts and auto-playing videos with or without sound). The entire user experience is completely ruined on many sites because of the insane amount of ads present. Nobody seems to care about this aspect at least until they get hit by ad-blockers. Not even large and popular tech sites do anything about user tracking (Ars, I'm looking at you and other popular sites). Even if they do care, some or many are unable to change things. The whole system is complex and corrupt. Fighting back with ad-blockers despite "collateral damage" is probably the best way forward since the ad industry is not really stopping and changing things effectively or quickly.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Tracking goes way beyond advertising. An ad-blocker won't block Twitter's "Tweet" or Facebook's "Like" buttons or any third party service that isn't directly involved in serving ads. If your concern is your privacy, then an ad-blocker doesn't help as much as you think it does. See: https://donottrack-doc.com/en/ https://donottrack-doc.com/en/
  - newscracker 11y ago
    I know the differences, but I haven't seen any popular ad-blockers that don't also block or allow blocking trackers because they all have various blacklists you can use (I'm referring to the ones like uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus).
    - bad_user 11y ago
      Where can I find such blacklists for uBlock / AdBlock Plus meant for trackers? Is there a page documenting them somewhere? I'd be interested.
      - ethbro 11y ago
        I get the sense a lot of those are community-knowledge-only documented, so IRC (I would assume) might be the best place to start if you're interested.
      - wooger 11y ago
        CLick on the uBlock Origin options tab and you will find a list of all the 3rd party filter lists in use ( & available by default). Most of these include a link to the source site.
      - scott_karana 11y ago
        uBlock Origin, at least, offers many such lists in its third party filter's page[1]: Basic tracking list by Disconnect‎ EasyPrivacy‎ (forums.lanik.us) Fanboy’s Enhanced Tracking List‎ (forums.lanik.us) Anti-ThirdpartySocial (see warning inside list)‎ (forums.lanik.us) Fanboy’s Annoyance List‎ (forums.lanik.us) Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎ (forums.lanik.us) Malvertising filter list by Disconnect‎ Malware Domain List‎ (malwaredomainlist.com) Malware domains‎ (www.malwaredomains.com) Malware domains (long-lived)‎ (www.malwaredomains.com) Malware filter list by Disconnect‎ Spam404‎ (www.spam404.com) 1 chrome://ublock0/content/dashboard.html#3p-filters.html

lmm 11y ago

Mozilla is no longer an ideological organization, if it ever was one. This gets them media attention and may attract more donations, which will perpetuate the organization's existence.

emilsedgh 11y ago
Mozilla is no longer an ideological organization [Citation needed]
- lmm 11y ago
  This is one example. Pocket is another.
cronjobber 11y ago
Maybe you meant "idealistic", which they aren't any more, instead of "ideological", which they have become, progressively.

belorn 11y ago

User will avoid the web if it provide poor user experience. What user want major battery drains, unwanted traffic cost, and all the drawbacks of malware-behavior that spies, steals, and acts hostile? The current system is unsustainable and advertisement through the web is slowly turning into the same fate as advertisement through email, and people and companies did not stop using email when spam started to get universally blocked.

pvg 11y ago

I thought Apple added the ability to create content blockers to reduce revenue on the web so that more content providers resort to ADs and they get a bigger slice of the pie. There's no non-tinfoil evidence of this. A much simpler explanation is that Apple did this because mobile browsing was becoming unusable. Nothing Apple does by tweaking their browser is going to get them a 'bigger slice of the pie' than the 40% of sweet profit on selling you a $600 phone. Unless the browser is so horrible you decide to buy a different phone.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Yes, it's hard to show off your superfast 64-bit chip performance and incredible LTE bandwidth when the browser is bogged down by loading several megabytes of JavaScript from 76 distinct origins. And the user experience isn't great when half the screen is ads. (Hyperbole, obviously, but.)