35 ms·

And ads in the address bar search results. https://twitter.com/CohanRobinson/status/1364172683118866433 https://twitter.com/CohanRobinson/status/13641726831188

by corobo 6y ago

And ads in the address bar search results. https://twitter.com/CohanRobinson/status/1364172683118866433 https://twitter.com/CohanRobinson/status/1364172683118866433 E: saved you a click on my own link. In about:config you can disable this by setting the following to false browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsored browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsoredTopSites

foofoo4u 6y ago
I make monthly donations to Mozilla to support their cause. I will stop my donations and migrate to a different browser if they continue down this path.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
  - stunt 6y ago
    You can disable it. It isn't actually ads, it's sponsored link and the sponsor isn't tracking you (at least not until you click..) browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsored browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsoredTopSites
    - djbebs 6y ago
      Thats called an ad. Mozilla is receiving money to show me something, thats what ad agencies do.
- gcthomas 6y ago
  We get the browser for free and these are just ads, not trackers - they are not stealing our data like Chrome, FB, and the rest. I have nothing against straight ads.
  - SubiculumCode 6y ago
    I agree. But I use those links for quick links to site I visit a lot. THis gets in my way
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Unfortunately, "ads" has become a synonym for many people to tracking and privacy and invasive elements, when like most things it encompasses a whole spectrum from minimal and informative (the name of the restaurant on the outside of the building)to manipulative and annoying. People feelings about one particularly negative segment of a spectrum often overflow into other examples and taint their feeling. It's just how people are. I also have nothing against straight ads. Who knows how Mozilla will implement this though, and whether it will be more annoying than useful. I have some suspicions, but I'll reserve judgement until I've experienced them, since I sometimes have a hard time predicting correctly (as I suspect many people do) because the topic is somewhat emotionally charged.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    > I have nothing against straight ads. Why? It's almost always noise nobody wants to see. Advertising hurts usability by definition. Putting ads in the address bar of all places is actually hostile to users: people who are used to finding bookmarks that way will end up opening sponsored links instead due to muscle memory.
    - curiousgal 6y ago
      Why not? The bills have to be paid. Wouldn't you rather they monetize their product in a responsible way than join the others? We live in the real world after all.
      - matheusmoreira 6y ago
        The responsible way to monetize something is to charge for it. Advertising makes it normal to have "free" products and people become slaves to it. Can't say or do anything they don't like lest they kill your income.
- ngokevin 6y ago
  I don't think donations go towards browser development. Goes more towards general Internet advocacy, social justice campaigns, and salaries of employees of the Foundation who don't work on Firefox.
- TheRealPomax 6y ago
  You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy. What do you want them to do, invent money out of thin air? And it's still Firefox: if you're upset enough to consider "migration to a different browser", why not instead get upset enough to just look up the pref that turns them off? Because that's the whole point of Firefox: you're still in control of your browser, and almost everything is yours to set to your liking, even if it's not in the normal options UI. Don't want those ads? Hit up about:config, turn them off, problem solved? And in the mean time, Mozilla still needs your help, because breaking today's Chrome dominance by offering a better product (not just a competing one. People don't switch if the offering is more of the same) is orders of magnitudes more difficult than when they broke IE's dominance many decades ago.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy. What do you want them to do, invent money out of thin air? If Facebook made 32.03 per user last year, I think it's fair to say that Mozilla will probably do even better if they offer an ad-free subscription option for e.g. 36/y across their entire suite of services. It's not weird to expect Mozilla to do their best to try and remain solvent.
    - monsieurbanana 6y ago
      I'm afraid I'm understanding this correctly: Near 100% of Mozilla users would agree to get the $36/year subscription?
      - eganist 6y ago
        > I'm afraid I'm understanding this correctly: > Near 100% of Mozilla users would agree to get the $36/year subscription? No, not at all. And I'm surprised at how many downvotes this is getting, but the basic concept is that at $36/y, each person paying that amount will assuredly be donating more to Mozilla than Mozilla would be making from ads on that user. I couldn't find any numbers on what Mozilla makes from ads, but I'd be surprised if it approached what Facebook makes per user.
agilob 6y ago
I can't reproduce that. How do I reproduce that?
- corobo 6y ago
  Apparently it's an A/B test thing. I was a lucky winner. All I did was update (Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS) To confirm I disabled all plugins immediately to ensure it was bog standard Firefox (which is why I was so irritated at the time, proper threw off my day). Bonus it had the Amazon tracking code "admpdesktopuk-21", which if you do a search reveals a bunch of plugins that went rogue. E: apologies I can't track down the source where I saw it was an ab test
  - SubiculumCode 6y ago
    I am seeing it in my Windows firefox install.
  - ssddanbrown 6y ago
    Can confirm I get this in Firefox on Fedora 33.
SubiculumCode 6y ago
I like to support Mozilla and I know they need funds... But don't mess with my interface. This is a bad bad move.
faebi 6y ago
I would pay for an ad-free experience so they have a stable source of income.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Justsignedup 6y ago
  agreed. having ff funded by not google /ads will be huge
- hellschreiber 6y ago
  Donate to the Mozilla Foundation and then turn that stuff off.
  - jhasse 6y ago
    If only the Mozilla foundation would spend their money on Firefox only ...
    - Larrikin 6y ago
      I thought spending money on Firefox OS and rust projects was money well spent at the time. Wish it had continued
    - zerocrates 6y ago
      They don't spend donations on Firefox at all.
      - mosselman 6y ago
        Do you have a source for this?
        zerocrates 6y ago
        I was pretty sure they said it fairly plainly on their own site but what I could immediately find was more roundabout. You can see the things donations are used for here: https://foundation.mozilla.org https://foundation.mozilla.org For a more straightforward statement, try this HN post relaying one user's correspondence with the Mozilla Foundation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20895624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20895624
notyourwork 6y ago
Why is the default enabled? Defaults are supposed to be sane and this is anything but sane or desired.
- tux3 6y ago
  Presumably shipping ads ( or 'sponsored content') off by default would leave them with a low adoption rate... this is the sort of feature that people don't really request in their browsers. Fortunately, this probably doesn't do any extra tracking. Unfortunately, that means my distribution (Debian) probably isn't going to protect me from these sort of features now and in the future, as I don't think this breaks the DFSG. I wish I didn't have to be on the lookout for user-hostile change from an org like mozilla, one of the few big tech companies that tries to fight for users. I too would much rather pay for firefox development than see more ads in my browser :/
  - account42 6y ago
    > Presumably shipping ads ( or 'sponsored content') off by default would leave them with a low adoption rate... this is the sort of feature that people don't really request in their browsers. Geez almost like users don't want sponsored content in their address bar...
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  That is just a silly question. Of course nobody will go through the trouble of opening their settings just to enable ads. But if they are on by default many people (including me) won't mind them enough to bother turning them off again.
  - notyourwork 6y ago
    Its only silly if you look at it from one perspective. Looking at it from the customer's point of view, its quite reasonable. Looking at it from the business point of view, its justifiable experience degradation for cost of doing business. I don't think as a user its unreasonable for me to expect software vendors to do the right thing for me. Whether they do it or not is their choice, I'm still rightfully allowed to complain about it.
nabeelms 6y ago
Looks like they mentioned this here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy It's apparently being trialed to a limited subset of users.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- account42 6y ago
  AKA they want to see what kind of backslash they will have to weather before they roll this out.
kome 6y ago
Amazon and eBay search defaults are already there in any standard Firefox installation. Now, in this UX test, they are marking them as sponsored, making them more transparent not less.
avipars 6y ago
reminds me of brave
etiam 6y ago
Thanks for restoring order to my world view. I always face Firefox updates these days with trepidation about what fundamental interface functionality they're going to turn from perfectly adequate to shit this time. The present update seemed to break the pattern, but apparently things are going according to expectations after all. And so far it's a bug that has an off-switch. Best kind. Much obliged for the documentation.
labawi 6y ago
At this point, I dream of a competitor arriving. One that that would be supported by the community and actually care about competent users, like Firefox once was. AFAICT, Firefox (Mozilla Corporation) wants dumb users, an expanding platform they control and ad money. There is no way to donate for Firefox development, nor can you pay for support, nor specific development or feature requests. People would throw money at them, yet they try finding creative ways to monetize their users in an effort to "diversify sources of income". Meanwhile they continue to show they are in control of your browser - ignoring user preferences, hotpatching, A/B tests, dozens of requests without a single page open and no way to disable, numerous ways of advertising... I still consider Firefox the lesser evil, but the stage is ripe for an uprising.

by corobo 6y ago

foofoo4u 6y ago

I make monthly donations to Mozilla to support their cause. I will stop my donations and migrate to a different browser if they continue down this path.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- stunt 6y ago
  You can disable it. It isn't actually ads, it's sponsored link and the sponsor isn't tracking you (at least not until you click..) browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsored browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsoredTopSites
  - djbebs 6y ago
    Thats called an ad. Mozilla is receiving money to show me something, thats what ad agencies do.
gcthomas 6y ago
We get the browser for free and these are just ads, not trackers - they are not stealing our data like Chrome, FB, and the rest. I have nothing against straight ads.
- SubiculumCode 6y ago
  I agree. But I use those links for quick links to site I visit a lot. THis gets in my way
- kbenson 6y ago
  Unfortunately, "ads" has become a synonym for many people to tracking and privacy and invasive elements, when like most things it encompasses a whole spectrum from minimal and informative (the name of the restaurant on the outside of the building)to manipulative and annoying. People feelings about one particularly negative segment of a spectrum often overflow into other examples and taint their feeling. It's just how people are. I also have nothing against straight ads. Who knows how Mozilla will implement this though, and whether it will be more annoying than useful. I have some suspicions, but I'll reserve judgement until I've experienced them, since I sometimes have a hard time predicting correctly (as I suspect many people do) because the topic is somewhat emotionally charged.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  > I have nothing against straight ads. Why? It's almost always noise nobody wants to see. Advertising hurts usability by definition. Putting ads in the address bar of all places is actually hostile to users: people who are used to finding bookmarks that way will end up opening sponsored links instead due to muscle memory.
  - curiousgal 6y ago
    Why not? The bills have to be paid. Wouldn't you rather they monetize their product in a responsible way than join the others? We live in the real world after all.
    - matheusmoreira 6y ago
      The responsible way to monetize something is to charge for it. Advertising makes it normal to have "free" products and people become slaves to it. Can't say or do anything they don't like lest they kill your income.
ngokevin 6y ago
I don't think donations go towards browser development. Goes more towards general Internet advocacy, social justice campaigns, and salaries of employees of the Foundation who don't work on Firefox.
TheRealPomax 6y ago
You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy. What do you want them to do, invent money out of thin air? And it's still Firefox: if you're upset enough to consider "migration to a different browser", why not instead get upset enough to just look up the pref that turns them off? Because that's the whole point of Firefox: you're still in control of your browser, and almost everything is yours to set to your liking, even if it's not in the normal options UI. Don't want those ads? Hit up about:config, turn them off, problem solved? And in the mean time, Mozilla still needs your help, because breaking today's Chrome dominance by offering a better product (not just a competing one. People don't switch if the offering is more of the same) is orders of magnitudes more difficult than when they broke IE's dominance many decades ago.
- eganist 6y ago
  > You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy. What do you want them to do, invent money out of thin air? If Facebook made 32.03 per user last year, I think it's fair to say that Mozilla will probably do even better if they offer an ad-free subscription option for e.g. 36/y across their entire suite of services. It's not weird to expect Mozilla to do their best to try and remain solvent.
  - monsieurbanana 6y ago
    I'm afraid I'm understanding this correctly: Near 100% of Mozilla users would agree to get the $36/year subscription?
    - eganist 6y ago
      > I'm afraid I'm understanding this correctly: > Near 100% of Mozilla users would agree to get the $36/year subscription? No, not at all. And I'm surprised at how many downvotes this is getting, but the basic concept is that at $36/y, each person paying that amount will assuredly be donating more to Mozilla than Mozilla would be making from ads on that user. I couldn't find any numbers on what Mozilla makes from ads, but I'd be surprised if it approached what Facebook makes per user.

agilob 6y ago

I can't reproduce that. How do I reproduce that?

corobo 6y ago
Apparently it's an A/B test thing. I was a lucky winner. All I did was update (Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS) To confirm I disabled all plugins immediately to ensure it was bog standard Firefox (which is why I was so irritated at the time, proper threw off my day). Bonus it had the Amazon tracking code "admpdesktopuk-21", which if you do a search reveals a bunch of plugins that went rogue. E: apologies I can't track down the source where I saw it was an ab test
- SubiculumCode 6y ago
  I am seeing it in my Windows firefox install.
- ssddanbrown 6y ago
  Can confirm I get this in Firefox on Fedora 33.

SubiculumCode 6y ago

I like to support Mozilla and I know they need funds... But don't mess with my interface. This is a bad bad move.

faebi 6y ago

I would pay for an ad-free experience so they have a stable source of income.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Justsignedup 6y ago
agreed. having ff funded by not google /ads will be huge
hellschreiber 6y ago
Donate to the Mozilla Foundation and then turn that stuff off.
- jhasse 6y ago
  If only the Mozilla foundation would spend their money on Firefox only ...
  - Larrikin 6y ago
    I thought spending money on Firefox OS and rust projects was money well spent at the time. Wish it had continued
  - zerocrates 6y ago
    They don't spend donations on Firefox at all.
    - mosselman 6y ago
      Do you have a source for this?
      - zerocrates 6y ago
        I was pretty sure they said it fairly plainly on their own site but what I could immediately find was more roundabout. You can see the things donations are used for here: https://foundation.mozilla.org https://foundation.mozilla.org For a more straightforward statement, try this HN post relaying one user's correspondence with the Mozilla Foundation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20895624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20895624

notyourwork 6y ago

Why is the default enabled? Defaults are supposed to be sane and this is anything but sane or desired.

tux3 6y ago
Presumably shipping ads ( or 'sponsored content') off by default would leave them with a low adoption rate... this is the sort of feature that people don't really request in their browsers. Fortunately, this probably doesn't do any extra tracking. Unfortunately, that means my distribution (Debian) probably isn't going to protect me from these sort of features now and in the future, as I don't think this breaks the DFSG. I wish I didn't have to be on the lookout for user-hostile change from an org like mozilla, one of the few big tech companies that tries to fight for users. I too would much rather pay for firefox development than see more ads in my browser :/
- account42 6y ago
  > Presumably shipping ads ( or 'sponsored content') off by default would leave them with a low adoption rate... this is the sort of feature that people don't really request in their browsers. Geez almost like users don't want sponsored content in their address bar...
DangerousPie 6y ago
That is just a silly question. Of course nobody will go through the trouble of opening their settings just to enable ads. But if they are on by default many people (including me) won't mind them enough to bother turning them off again.
- notyourwork 6y ago
  Its only silly if you look at it from one perspective. Looking at it from the customer's point of view, its quite reasonable. Looking at it from the business point of view, its justifiable experience degradation for cost of doing business. I don't think as a user its unreasonable for me to expect software vendors to do the right thing for me. Whether they do it or not is their choice, I'm still rightfully allowed to complain about it.

nabeelms 6y ago

Looks like they mentioned this here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy It's apparently being trialed to a limited subset of users.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
account42 6y ago
AKA they want to see what kind of backslash they will have to weather before they roll this out.

kome 6y ago

Amazon and eBay search defaults are already there in any standard Firefox installation. Now, in this UX test, they are marking them as sponsored, making them more transparent not less.

avipars 6y ago

reminds me of brave

etiam 6y ago

Thanks for restoring order to my world view. I always face Firefox updates these days with trepidation about what fundamental interface functionality they're going to turn from perfectly adequate to shit this time. The present update seemed to break the pattern, but apparently things are going according to expectations after all. And so far it's a bug that has an off-switch. Best kind. Much obliged for the documentation.

labawi 6y ago

At this point, I dream of a competitor arriving. One that that would be supported by the community and actually care about competent users, like Firefox once was. AFAICT, Firefox (Mozilla Corporation) wants dumb users, an expanding platform they control and ad money. There is no way to donate for Firefox development, nor can you pay for support, nor specific development or feature requests. People would throw money at them, yet they try finding creative ways to monetize their users in an effort to "diversify sources of income". Meanwhile they continue to show they are in control of your browser - ignoring user preferences, hotpatching, A/B tests, dozens of requests without a single page open and no way to disable, numerous ways of advertising... I still consider Firefox the lesser evil, but the stage is ripe for an uprising.