7 ms·

I really hope FF does not follow suit.

by a_imho 7y ago

wongarsu 7y ago
Blocking ads goes against Googles main revenue stream, but giving people the option to block ads follows directly with Mozilla's mission. I don't think there's any danger they follow Chrome in this.
- a_imho 7y ago
  I don't think there is anything about that in moz://a's manifesto, but maybe my interpretation is wrong. On the other hand, Google being their main source of revenue they are indirectly funded by ad money too. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    Principle 5 "Individuals must have the ability to shape the Internet and their own experiences on the Internet." can be read as "the user can modify how the client displays the page". More importantly: with the current status quo where both site operators and ad networks reject responsibility for security implications of their ads and ad networks show little regards for privacy, the only way I see to respect Principle 4 "Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional." is to block offending ad networks.
    - a_imho 7y ago
      Regardin principle 4 I don't quite agree, if that was the interpretation we would had something like ublock in core FF years ago. It is very clearly not a technical problem. As for principle 5 I do not hold my breath but hope you are right.
      - c0vfefe 7y ago
        I imagine that Firefox becoming Brave by blocking all ads would lose Mozilla their biggest source of revenue: Google paying them to have Google search as the default on FF.
- Scarbutt 7y ago
  Mozilla's main revenue stream is Google, and they could force Mozilla to disable ad-blocking. Mozilla has already being force from external pressure in the past, see DRM.
  - Semaphor 7y ago
    > [Google] could force Mozilla to disable ad-blocking. So you claim. I claim that this is wrong. > Mozilla has already being force from external pressure in the past, see DRM. Very different as the pressure was from not losing even more user who suddenly would be unable to use Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, etc. They fought the proposal but once it was established they had no real way of not including DRM blobs and stay a mainstream browser.
    - a_imho 7y ago
      In your opinion why Firefox does not ship with some kind of adblocker by default?
      - Semaphor 7y ago
        I don't know, but personally, I prefer extensions :)
        a_imho 7y ago
        I don't think there is a hard stance on bundles, after all moz://a integrated Pocket into Firefox just fine. Nevertheless, it could be due to personal opinions, but catering to your main commercial partner's business model is imo more plausible.
      - SturgeonsLaw 7y ago
        I would want, and expect, a cleanly installed browser with default settings to pull and display requested web pages in their entirety. As much as I am in favour of ad blocking, anything which modifies the content of a requested resource should be opt-in.
    - 7y ago
nullwasamistake 7y ago
Definitely not. Google has been trying to limit ad blocking forever, that's why mobile version of chrome doesn't support extensions.

I really hope FF does not follow suit.

by a_imho 7y ago

I really hope FF does not follow suit.

Blocking ads goes against Googles main revenue stream, but giving people the option to block ads follows directly with Mozilla's mission. I don't think there's any danger they follow Chrome in this.

a_imho 7y ago
I don't think there is anything about that in moz://a's manifesto, but maybe my interpretation is wrong. On the other hand, Google being their main source of revenue they are indirectly funded by ad money too. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
- wongarsu 7y ago
  Principle 5 "Individuals must have the ability to shape the Internet and their own experiences on the Internet." can be read as "the user can modify how the client displays the page". More importantly: with the current status quo where both site operators and ad networks reject responsibility for security implications of their ads and ad networks show little regards for privacy, the only way I see to respect Principle 4 "Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional." is to block offending ad networks.
  - a_imho 7y ago
    Regardin principle 4 I don't quite agree, if that was the interpretation we would had something like ublock in core FF years ago. It is very clearly not a technical problem. As for principle 5 I do not hold my breath but hope you are right.
    - c0vfefe 7y ago
      I imagine that Firefox becoming Brave by blocking all ads would lose Mozilla their biggest source of revenue: Google paying them to have Google search as the default on FF.
Scarbutt 7y ago
Mozilla's main revenue stream is Google, and they could force Mozilla to disable ad-blocking. Mozilla has already being force from external pressure in the past, see DRM.
- Semaphor 7y ago
  > [Google] could force Mozilla to disable ad-blocking. So you claim. I claim that this is wrong. > Mozilla has already being force from external pressure in the past, see DRM. Very different as the pressure was from not losing even more user who suddenly would be unable to use Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, etc. They fought the proposal but once it was established they had no real way of not including DRM blobs and stay a mainstream browser.
  - a_imho 7y ago
    In your opinion why Firefox does not ship with some kind of adblocker by default?
    - Semaphor 7y ago
      I don't know, but personally, I prefer extensions :)
      - a_imho 7y ago
        I don't think there is a hard stance on bundles, after all moz://a integrated Pocket into Firefox just fine. Nevertheless, it could be due to personal opinions, but catering to your main commercial partner's business model is imo more plausible.
    - SturgeonsLaw 7y ago
      I would want, and expect, a cleanly installed browser with default settings to pull and display requested web pages in their entirety. As much as I am in favour of ad blocking, anything which modifies the content of a requested resource should be opt-in.
  - 7y ago

nullwasamistake 7y ago

Definitely not. Google has been trying to limit ad blocking forever, that's why mobile version of chrome doesn't support extensions.