4 ms·

That's not the kind of innovation that users want, nor is it the kind that they truly benefit from. In general, users don't want any ads at all showing in thei

by epoch1970 11y ago

That's not the kind of innovation that users want, nor is it the kind that they truly benefit from. In general, users don't want any ads at all showing in their browser. They don't want them as part of web pages, they don't want them embedded in videos, and they surely don't want them as part of the browser itself! This should have been obvious given the popularity of various ad-blocking extensions for Firefox. Going against the obvious wishes of a product's users is something that's deserving of criticism.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rockdoe 11y ago
Users want to have their cake and eat it too. Following the users wishes when they're self-destructive is bad, and you should feel bad. Ads are enormously important for a lot of quality content out there to exist. Destroying them now, without good alternatives, is destructive to the web.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Call the desire to rid the web of ads "destructive" if you please, but don't call those wishes "self-destructive" from the user's perspective. It is completely within the user's prerogative to filter whatever content they wish to filter before it hits their eyeballs. Why should anyone feel bad about choosing what they want to look at it? For a sort of analogy, the presence of pay-to-read newspapers hasn't precluded the presence of free-to-read newspapers (New York Times vs. Metro [1]), nor has free-to-read papers killed off pay-to-read newspapers, which are generally higher quality. Savvy digital content providers will find a way to still make money, even if it's not ads as they exist today. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_International
  - rockdoe 11y ago
    It's self-destructive because users who don't block ads are keeping sites alive for the users that do block them. If all the users block the ads, the site will need to scramble for a new income model, and for some the new model might not work out. Seems like a perfect example of self-destructive/tragedy-of-the-commons behavior to me.
    - xj9 11y ago
      This is a perfect example of a changing market driving out incumbents that have been unable to adapt. The internet is probably better off without them.
      - ecnahc515 11y ago
        There are plenty of websites which exist that have two options for revenue, either take ads, or make people pay to view your content. Some websites are purely driven by the users' content, and there isn't a real revenue model, so that's what your left with, either the users pay, or someone else does. Bills gotta be paid, but when push comes to shove, users don't pay the bills for a lot of this type of content, so ad's are the only option left. There is no middle ground. It's not as easy as "your website offers so little that it shouldn't exist", it's simply "users block ads, and they don't want to pay for access", so there's really no great options here. However, ad's don't have to be pure evil. Sure they might be not be preferred, but we can totally create an environment in which we have non-intrusive, non-privacy invading advertisements, it's just a matter of figuring it out.
        danieldk 11y ago
        Sure they might be not be preferred, but we can totally create an environment in which we have non-intrusive, non-privacy invading advertisements, it's just a matter of figuring it out. The ad industry had enough time to figure this out and went from bad to terrible - from popups to distribution of trojans (due to a lack of quality control). It's not surprising that people are fed up with advertisements. Any loss of income is the publisher's own fault, because they allowed ads to get completely out of hand. Bills gotta be paid, but when push comes to shove, users don't pay the bills for a lot of this type of content, so ad's are the only option left. There is no middle ground. I am surprised by the lack of imagination on a news site for startups ;). There are all kinds of possibilities that haven't really been explored. Music was considered to be a lost cause 5 or 10 years ago when CD had collapsed and everyone and their dog was using Bittorrent or other peer to peer networks. Now there is a quickly growing ecosystem of streaming music services.
bobajeff 11y ago
As a user I really don't care about ads. Unless, of course, they are those annoying hover ads or auto-playing video ads or they slow down the browser.
- oconnore 11y ago
  So far, informally, every person I've seen write something like this works in marketing, works for a company that makes revenue from advertising, or is somehow monetarily incentivized to have a web where "users" widely agree to view ads. Obviously, there's no causation (perhaps those people naturally gravitate towards fruitful work that doesn't bother them), but it seems to be a pretty reliable (read: so far 100%) correlation. Are you the combo breaker?
  - bobajeff 11y ago
    No, I don't do any of that stuff. So I guess I'm the combo breaker. I'm never offended by the presence of ads themselves. Maybe it's because I grew up with them? Maybe I'm just more comfortable with ignoring them?
    - oconnore 11y ago
      Well then, I'll have to adjust my assumptions. Thanks.
9mit3t2m9h9a 11y ago
I wanted to see what they would promote — and still was disappointed, as there was no option to show _only_ the promoted links (I prefer to access history by typing a part of the site name into the address bar). I do block anything that I notice if it looks like a tracker, but I am ready to believe that Mozilla's description of client-side ad selection was correct.
Certhas 11y ago
Sure. And at one point people just wanted IE compatibility for their webpages to load. If you accept that targeted ads are a part of the web eco system, then its absolutely within the remit of Mozillas mission to explore how to serve targeted ads while respecting privacy.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rockdoe 11y ago

Users want to have their cake and eat it too. Following the users wishes when they're self-destructive is bad, and you should feel bad. Ads are enormously important for a lot of quality content out there to exist. Destroying them now, without good alternatives, is destructive to the web.

rmxt 11y ago
Call the desire to rid the web of ads "destructive" if you please, but don't call those wishes "self-destructive" from the user's perspective. It is completely within the user's prerogative to filter whatever content they wish to filter before it hits their eyeballs. Why should anyone feel bad about choosing what they want to look at it? For a sort of analogy, the presence of pay-to-read newspapers hasn't precluded the presence of free-to-read newspapers (New York Times vs. Metro [1]), nor has free-to-read papers killed off pay-to-read newspapers, which are generally higher quality. Savvy digital content providers will find a way to still make money, even if it's not ads as they exist today. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_International
- rockdoe 11y ago
  It's self-destructive because users who don't block ads are keeping sites alive for the users that do block them. If all the users block the ads, the site will need to scramble for a new income model, and for some the new model might not work out. Seems like a perfect example of self-destructive/tragedy-of-the-commons behavior to me.
  - xj9 11y ago
    This is a perfect example of a changing market driving out incumbents that have been unable to adapt. The internet is probably better off without them.
    - ecnahc515 11y ago
      There are plenty of websites which exist that have two options for revenue, either take ads, or make people pay to view your content. Some websites are purely driven by the users' content, and there isn't a real revenue model, so that's what your left with, either the users pay, or someone else does. Bills gotta be paid, but when push comes to shove, users don't pay the bills for a lot of this type of content, so ad's are the only option left. There is no middle ground. It's not as easy as "your website offers so little that it shouldn't exist", it's simply "users block ads, and they don't want to pay for access", so there's really no great options here. However, ad's don't have to be pure evil. Sure they might be not be preferred, but we can totally create an environment in which we have non-intrusive, non-privacy invading advertisements, it's just a matter of figuring it out.
      - danieldk 11y ago
        Sure they might be not be preferred, but we can totally create an environment in which we have non-intrusive, non-privacy invading advertisements, it's just a matter of figuring it out. The ad industry had enough time to figure this out and went from bad to terrible - from popups to distribution of trojans (due to a lack of quality control). It's not surprising that people are fed up with advertisements. Any loss of income is the publisher's own fault, because they allowed ads to get completely out of hand. Bills gotta be paid, but when push comes to shove, users don't pay the bills for a lot of this type of content, so ad's are the only option left. There is no middle ground. I am surprised by the lack of imagination on a news site for startups ;). There are all kinds of possibilities that haven't really been explored. Music was considered to be a lost cause 5 or 10 years ago when CD had collapsed and everyone and their dog was using Bittorrent or other peer to peer networks. Now there is a quickly growing ecosystem of streaming music services.

bobajeff 11y ago

As a user I really don't care about ads. Unless, of course, they are those annoying hover ads or auto-playing video ads or they slow down the browser.

oconnore 11y ago
So far, informally, every person I've seen write something like this works in marketing, works for a company that makes revenue from advertising, or is somehow monetarily incentivized to have a web where "users" widely agree to view ads. Obviously, there's no causation (perhaps those people naturally gravitate towards fruitful work that doesn't bother them), but it seems to be a pretty reliable (read: so far 100%) correlation. Are you the combo breaker?
- bobajeff 11y ago
  No, I don't do any of that stuff. So I guess I'm the combo breaker. I'm never offended by the presence of ads themselves. Maybe it's because I grew up with them? Maybe I'm just more comfortable with ignoring them?
  - oconnore 11y ago
    Well then, I'll have to adjust my assumptions. Thanks.

9mit3t2m9h9a 11y ago

I wanted to see what they would promote — and still was disappointed, as there was no option to show _only_ the promoted links (I prefer to access history by typing a part of the site name into the address bar). I do block anything that I notice if it looks like a tracker, but I am ready to believe that Mozilla's description of client-side ad selection was correct.

Certhas 11y ago

Sure. And at one point people just wanted IE compatibility for their webpages to load. If you accept that targeted ads are a part of the web eco system, then its absolutely within the remit of Mozillas mission to explore how to serve targeted ads while respecting privacy.