8 ms·

This is sort of unfortunate news to me, as I take this as a sign that they won't do adblocking by default. I think this is a mistake; users want ads to be block

by Touche 7y ago

This is sort of unfortunate news to me, as I take this as a sign that they won't do adblocking by default. I think this is a mistake; users want ads to be blocked. Especially on mobile, where it's more important from a perf perspective. Brave has ads blocked, Opera has ads blocked. If Firefox wants to follow the lead and be a privacy focused company like they say, then they need to block ads.

detritus 7y ago
I don't necessarily want ads blocked, especially on sites that I regularly enjoy that I don't pay for with money. I do want to block the underlying tracking/fingerprinting/profiling etc. This is why I'm very much against Brave - I don't really see why they have the right to edit or censor other people's revenue models and replace them with their own. That seems.. unethical.
- brians 7y ago
  They don’t. You, the end user, do. They’re selling you a tool to do that.
  - detritus 7y ago
    They provide an entire replacement economy from which they profit 5% of transactions, I don't see them as being innocent bystanders here.
    - Touche 7y ago
      "Innocent" implies there is an injustice / crime of some sort taking place, but there is not in this case.
      - detritus 7y ago
        I didn't mean to imply 'crime' but I'll accept 'injustice' in the context of the post I was responding to.
        Touche 7y ago
        What's the injustice?
- jetrink 7y ago
  It is the users who are censoring the pages by choosing to use an ad blocking browser. I don't think the fact that Brave is offering an alternative revenue stream taints their browser's ad blocking capabilities. It is a feature that is available on almost all other browsers, natively or through a plugin.
speg 7y ago
I may be in the minority, but I've never used an ad blocker. Content makers need to make a living and cutting off their ad revenue seems sleazy. That said, they may have gone too far with tracking and other excessive bloat that I might just start using one.
- smt88 7y ago
  "Other excessive bloat" often includes malware. Less seriously, it also includes autoplay video and scams. If ads were safe (i.e. text-only, no JavaScript, no video) and the publishers actually vetted the products, I wouldn't block them. I don't care that a physical NYT has ads. It's the algorithmic sale and distribution of ads that broke the model.
  - dwild 7y ago
    > often includes malware. Can you define often? It seems quite rare actually for a malware to be distributed online without user intervention, with the recent Firefox 0-day being one of theses cases and only touched a small proportion of people. The web is quite secure already and sure ads network is a good vector but so is Hacker News, Reddit and Facebook, which nobody cares about (have you ever not clicked on a link on any of theses platforms and looked at the URL first?). I seriously hate that argument of security, it's just wrong.
    - Tomte 7y ago
      When you visit a serious web site, like t-online.de or spiegel.de, with an up-to-date iPad and you're getting popups with porn or gambling offers that cannot be closed (they can, but reopen instantly), when you cannot use the back button anymore, and the only way to regain control of your browser is to either reboot the iPad (that's what many normal people do) or you force-close Safari... then you've caught malware from a big ad network that t-online.de or spiegel.de use. Happened regularly about a year or two ago, certainly more often than every month, haven't seen it since, though. > have you ever not clicked on a link on any of theses platforms and looked at the URL first? That's not what happens. > I seriously hate that argument of security, it's just wrong. Maybe you should contemplate the possibility that you're wrong.
sergiosgc 7y ago
Successful ad blocking would kill the advertisement revenue stream. This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. I like content, and I don't mind paying for it. I'd prefer to pay with money, not via ads. Give me that option. Further, I don't want a subscription. I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me.
- abainbridge 7y ago
  I agree, but the problem here is that not all pages are of equal value. The Guardian ought to be able to charge me more per page if it was written by one of their full time employees. I can't see how Mozilla will ever be able to figure out how to apportion the money, without just exposing my "balance" and the cost of visiting each page.
- faissaloo 7y ago
  >This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. Content that is funded by ads is often not content I particularly care about. If it matters enough people will be willing to fund it, if not, let it die.
  - dwild 7y ago
    Seriously? You never use StackOverflow? You never enjoyed anything on Youtube? You are definitely in a tiny minority if that's actually the case.
    - faissaloo 7y ago
      I don't mind ads on SO so much since they're not trying to get you to buy stuff. I might enjoy YouTube but it's definitely overrated as a platform.
- C4stor 7y ago
  Ads pay a lot more than that on quality websites such as the Scroll ones. 50c per thousand page is so low I can't see how you find it fair. We're talking lets say 1000h of work, and your fair price is 50c ?
tomp 7y ago
I take it as a sign they're exploring other options. If this takes off, I would expect them to more seriously consider including adblocking as a default.
CannisterFlux 7y ago
I use an ad-blocker on Firefox but I think if Firefox started blocking adverts by default it could find itself in a dangerous situation. A lot of sites would feel justified blocking Firefox in that case, which would do more damage to the already-shrinking user base. I know many sites have "turn off your ad-blocker" currently and I usually just leave at that point, but I could imagine a movement to more actively crush Firefox if it had ad-blocking baked in. Although maybe long term this will happen anyway, so Mozilla has nothing to lose. I mean Chrome will have its ad-tech-friendly blocking-lite, Firefox will be the only real ad-blocking available, and sites will start to make moves to directly discourage Firefox use ("I see you're using Firefox, switch to Chrome to view our crappy site").
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
nerdwaller 7y ago
This is just a data gathering link for Mozilla to validate some ideas for added revenue sources, they are also doing a VPN one. Clicking the button brings you to a survey where they seem to indicate the intent is to be ad free: > You clicked a button to possibly subscribe to Firefox Ad-Free Internet for $4.99

by Touche 7y ago

detritus 7y ago

I don't necessarily want ads blocked, especially on sites that I regularly enjoy that I don't pay for with money. I do want to block the underlying tracking/fingerprinting/profiling etc. This is why I'm very much against Brave - I don't really see why they have the right to edit or censor other people's revenue models and replace them with their own. That seems.. unethical.

brians 7y ago
They don’t. You, the end user, do. They’re selling you a tool to do that.
- detritus 7y ago
  They provide an entire replacement economy from which they profit 5% of transactions, I don't see them as being innocent bystanders here.
  - Touche 7y ago
    "Innocent" implies there is an injustice / crime of some sort taking place, but there is not in this case.
    - detritus 7y ago
      I didn't mean to imply 'crime' but I'll accept 'injustice' in the context of the post I was responding to.
      - Touche 7y ago
        What's the injustice?
jetrink 7y ago
It is the users who are censoring the pages by choosing to use an ad blocking browser. I don't think the fact that Brave is offering an alternative revenue stream taints their browser's ad blocking capabilities. It is a feature that is available on almost all other browsers, natively or through a plugin.

speg 7y ago

I may be in the minority, but I've never used an ad blocker. Content makers need to make a living and cutting off their ad revenue seems sleazy. That said, they may have gone too far with tracking and other excessive bloat that I might just start using one.

smt88 7y ago
"Other excessive bloat" often includes malware. Less seriously, it also includes autoplay video and scams. If ads were safe (i.e. text-only, no JavaScript, no video) and the publishers actually vetted the products, I wouldn't block them. I don't care that a physical NYT has ads. It's the algorithmic sale and distribution of ads that broke the model.
- dwild 7y ago
  > often includes malware. Can you define often? It seems quite rare actually for a malware to be distributed online without user intervention, with the recent Firefox 0-day being one of theses cases and only touched a small proportion of people. The web is quite secure already and sure ads network is a good vector but so is Hacker News, Reddit and Facebook, which nobody cares about (have you ever not clicked on a link on any of theses platforms and looked at the URL first?). I seriously hate that argument of security, it's just wrong.
  - Tomte 7y ago
    When you visit a serious web site, like t-online.de or spiegel.de, with an up-to-date iPad and you're getting popups with porn or gambling offers that cannot be closed (they can, but reopen instantly), when you cannot use the back button anymore, and the only way to regain control of your browser is to either reboot the iPad (that's what many normal people do) or you force-close Safari... then you've caught malware from a big ad network that t-online.de or spiegel.de use. Happened regularly about a year or two ago, certainly more often than every month, haven't seen it since, though. > have you ever not clicked on a link on any of theses platforms and looked at the URL first? That's not what happens. > I seriously hate that argument of security, it's just wrong. Maybe you should contemplate the possibility that you're wrong.

sergiosgc 7y ago

Successful ad blocking would kill the advertisement revenue stream. This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. I like content, and I don't mind paying for it. I'd prefer to pay with money, not via ads. Give me that option. Further, I don't want a subscription. I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me.

abainbridge 7y ago
I agree, but the problem here is that not all pages are of equal value. The Guardian ought to be able to charge me more per page if it was written by one of their full time employees. I can't see how Mozilla will ever be able to figure out how to apportion the money, without just exposing my "balance" and the cost of visiting each page.
faissaloo 7y ago
>This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. Content that is funded by ads is often not content I particularly care about. If it matters enough people will be willing to fund it, if not, let it die.
- dwild 7y ago
  Seriously? You never use StackOverflow? You never enjoyed anything on Youtube? You are definitely in a tiny minority if that's actually the case.
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    I don't mind ads on SO so much since they're not trying to get you to buy stuff. I might enjoy YouTube but it's definitely overrated as a platform.
C4stor 7y ago
Ads pay a lot more than that on quality websites such as the Scroll ones. 50c per thousand page is so low I can't see how you find it fair. We're talking lets say 1000h of work, and your fair price is 50c ?

tomp 7y ago

I take it as a sign they're exploring other options. If this takes off, I would expect them to more seriously consider including adblocking as a default.

CannisterFlux 7y ago

I use an ad-blocker on Firefox but I think if Firefox started blocking adverts by default it could find itself in a dangerous situation. A lot of sites would feel justified blocking Firefox in that case, which would do more damage to the already-shrinking user base. I know many sites have "turn off your ad-blocker" currently and I usually just leave at that point, but I could imagine a movement to more actively crush Firefox if it had ad-blocking baked in. Although maybe long term this will happen anyway, so Mozilla has nothing to lose. I mean Chrome will have its ad-tech-friendly blocking-lite, Firefox will be the only real ad-blocking available, and sites will start to make moves to directly discourage Firefox use ("I see you're using Firefox, switch to Chrome to view our crappy site").

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

nerdwaller 7y ago

This is just a data gathering link for Mozilla to validate some ideas for added revenue sources, they are also doing a VPN one. Clicking the button brings you to a survey where they seem to indicate the intent is to be ad free: > You clicked a button to possibly subscribe to Firefox Ad-Free Internet for $4.99