4 ms·

I think this is a valid concern. While I clamor for privacy and advocate against ads whenever I can, most users would not not appreciate having to pay for doze

I think this is a valid concern. While I clamor for privacy and advocate against ads whenever I can, most users would not not appreciate having to pay for dozens of different services every month. Just imagine: 5 bucks a month for Facebook, 3 for Reddit, 10 for Google Search, 4 for Gmail, 15 for Youtube, 5-20 each for 5 different newspapers, ... But there are practical realities that make a significant increase in ad block usage unlikely: * A lot of browsing has shifted to mobile. Mobile browsers don't have extensions, except for FF and a few Chromium derivatives, which almost no-one uses. That's a big chunk of impressions right there. * Google is probably not happy about losing a double digit percentage of impressions on desktop. They are trying to hamstring ad blocking in Chrome by removing request interception APIs. * A lot of websites have mobile web versions, but aggressively push you towards using the app instead, where ads can't be blocked and profiling is much easier. (FB, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, ...) * Plenty of sites are using adblock detectors. Probably only those that really need the revenue to survive.

vlod 7y ago
>Mobile browsers don't have extensions, except for FF, which almost no-one uses. I use FF on mobile and love it. I find mobile web pages with ads unbearable. I intentionally disable Chrome on my Android phone as some apps disregard my default browser preference (Google news). I generally prefer web pages (on mobile) rather than apps so I can turn off ads. I don't really see the attraction of apps, especially when they have ads as well. Yeah.. maybe I'm an outlier. :/
- jraph 7y ago
  You are. But gently spread the word so you become less of an outlier. :-)
- hunter2_ 7y ago
  > some apps disregard my default browser preference And how about all the apps that use a built-in webview every time you click a link (Gmail, Hangouts, rif, etc. etc.) rather than even calling a full browser. At least they typically have an "open in browser" option but that gets tedious, and they sometimes have a setting (buried deep) to always do so.
  - k1t 7y ago
    For me, this behavior is controlled through the browser. Firefox calls it "Custom Tabs" on the General settings page. Firefox preview calls it "Open links in apps". If that's on, you get the mini-browser in the app, otherwise links go immediately to the full browser. (Just tested with Gmail, YMMV)
    - hunter2_ 7y ago
      Oh wow, I just changed my default browser (on Android) from Chrome to Firefox and, with no further effort, Gmail (etc.) opens links in Firefox instead of the mini-browser thing. I always imagined the mini-browser as a part of the app that loaded irrespective of the default browser, but no. Cool!
- bambax 7y ago
  I too use FF on mobile, with uBlock, and I love it too. I don't understand how people put up with a browser without adblocking, on the tiny mobile screen. It's insane.
wpietri 7y ago
If people won't pay for things like Facebook, maybe they're not good? And therefore it's fine that they'll go away. However, for the smaller sites, something like Scroll would work fine. You pay them a fixed amount, which they distribute based on your usage: https://scroll.com/ https://scroll.com/
heavyset_go 7y ago
If this happens, it would open the market up to the Wikipedia model of hosting for social media, and to federation. I would welcome that. I wish more of the web was run by individuals and organizations that host content, develop software and create content for the love of a topic, or for the sheer act of doing so, and not just profit.
creato 7y ago
> They are trying to hamstring ad blocking in Chrome by removing request interception APIs. This one is bullshit. I don't run an adblocker today because I think it is insane to grant extensions the ability to observe and modify all of the content your browser ever renders. Chrome changing to a rule based system is both the only sane option (I might finally decide to use an adblocker that uses the new system), and it also is in line with how Safari enables extensions.
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  You're already trusting an entire browser, with all its transitive dependencies, a large portion of your OS, and probably also every single program you run with the same uid as your browser. But an extension requiring explicit permission to observe and modify all of the content your browser ever renders is unacceptable.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    It's sort of a separation of concerns. There's no fine-grained way to say "intercept this list of URLs and deny some of them" without allowing it to also view and modify the entire content of every web page.
anticodon 7y ago
Why would anyone pay for Facebook? I'm using facebook but I believe it has negative value. It's a bad habit like smoking. You understand that it is bad but it's not easy to quit. If they start charging money for fb access it will make it very easy to drop this bad habit and quit Facebook.
- bambax 7y ago
  I've never used Facebook so I don't know, but if smoking or drinking are an analogy, just raising the price doesn't make everyone quit.
  - anticodon 7y ago
    Cigarettes are becoming more expensive with every year and it made lots of people quit smoking. I don't have the willpower to stop browsing facebook and instagram from time to time. But next second they announce paid access, I'll stop using it. Although even without this, I find myself browsing Facebook and Instagram less frequently with every passing month. At this rate it would be rather painless to quit it altogether by the end of the year.

vlod 7y ago

>Mobile browsers don't have extensions, except for FF, which almost no-one uses. I use FF on mobile and love it. I find mobile web pages with ads unbearable. I intentionally disable Chrome on my Android phone as some apps disregard my default browser preference (Google news). I generally prefer web pages (on mobile) rather than apps so I can turn off ads. I don't really see the attraction of apps, especially when they have ads as well. Yeah.. maybe I'm an outlier. :/

jraph 7y ago
You are. But gently spread the word so you become less of an outlier. :-)
hunter2_ 7y ago
> some apps disregard my default browser preference And how about all the apps that use a built-in webview every time you click a link (Gmail, Hangouts, rif, etc. etc.) rather than even calling a full browser. At least they typically have an "open in browser" option but that gets tedious, and they sometimes have a setting (buried deep) to always do so.
- k1t 7y ago
  For me, this behavior is controlled through the browser. Firefox calls it "Custom Tabs" on the General settings page. Firefox preview calls it "Open links in apps". If that's on, you get the mini-browser in the app, otherwise links go immediately to the full browser. (Just tested with Gmail, YMMV)
  - hunter2_ 7y ago
    Oh wow, I just changed my default browser (on Android) from Chrome to Firefox and, with no further effort, Gmail (etc.) opens links in Firefox instead of the mini-browser thing. I always imagined the mini-browser as a part of the app that loaded irrespective of the default browser, but no. Cool!
bambax 7y ago
I too use FF on mobile, with uBlock, and I love it too. I don't understand how people put up with a browser without adblocking, on the tiny mobile screen. It's insane.

wpietri 7y ago

If people won't pay for things like Facebook, maybe they're not good? And therefore it's fine that they'll go away. However, for the smaller sites, something like Scroll would work fine. You pay them a fixed amount, which they distribute based on your usage: https://scroll.com/ https://scroll.com/

heavyset_go 7y ago

If this happens, it would open the market up to the Wikipedia model of hosting for social media, and to federation. I would welcome that. I wish more of the web was run by individuals and organizations that host content, develop software and create content for the love of a topic, or for the sheer act of doing so, and not just profit.

creato 7y ago

> They are trying to hamstring ad blocking in Chrome by removing request interception APIs. This one is bullshit. I don't run an adblocker today because I think it is insane to grant extensions the ability to observe and modify all of the content your browser ever renders. Chrome changing to a rule based system is both the only sane option (I might finally decide to use an adblocker that uses the new system), and it also is in line with how Safari enables extensions.

naniwaduni 7y ago
You're already trusting an entire browser, with all its transitive dependencies, a large portion of your OS, and probably also every single program you run with the same uid as your browser. But an extension requiring explicit permission to observe and modify all of the content your browser ever renders is unacceptable.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  It's sort of a separation of concerns. There's no fine-grained way to say "intercept this list of URLs and deny some of them" without allowing it to also view and modify the entire content of every web page.

anticodon 7y ago

Why would anyone pay for Facebook? I'm using facebook but I believe it has negative value. It's a bad habit like smoking. You understand that it is bad but it's not easy to quit. If they start charging money for fb access it will make it very easy to drop this bad habit and quit Facebook.

bambax 7y ago
I've never used Facebook so I don't know, but if smoking or drinking are an analogy, just raising the price doesn't make everyone quit.
- anticodon 7y ago
  Cigarettes are becoming more expensive with every year and it made lots of people quit smoking. I don't have the willpower to stop browsing facebook and instagram from time to time. But next second they announce paid access, I'll stop using it. Although even without this, I find myself browsing Facebook and Instagram less frequently with every passing month. At this rate it would be rather painless to quit it altogether by the end of the year.