7 ms·

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.
      - ramraj07 6y ago
        Sure, let's all build tree houses and live in them. If only problems can just be solved by willing the solution you want!
        matheusmoreira 6y ago
        That's exactly what everyone should do. Instead of letting them get away with it, we should block it all unconditionally and by default, forcing them to find another solution that's acceptable. Linux distributions in particular are in the perfect position to patch this out and improve user experience for all their users.
  - TheRealPomax 6y ago
    But it's also Firefox, just go into about:config and turn it off if you don't like it and presto?
- LegitShady 6y ago
  Personally my concern is more fundamental than that. If mozilla is moving towards expanding advertising in FF from the developer, then they're changing their incentive structure in a way that makes putting ads in front of my eyes against my wishes more and more beneficial to them. I can't see this as a good step forward. It only leads to places where they're incentivized to make the browser worse to make more money.
- sellyme 6y ago
  > I have nothing against straight ads. I do. They are actively hostile to the user experience. I will criticise any update to software that deliberately makes the user experience worse.
  - symlinkk 6y ago
    Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. No, donations are not cutting it.
    - tux3 6y ago
      Note, I've heard that Mozilla takes donations, but I don't think Firefox does. Personally I don't mind at all if Mozilla wants to display ads in Treeherder or in their corporate offices, I wouldn't even feel like I want to pay to remove those :) My point being, I don't expect firefox donations would amount to very many millions, but it's important to note that today the option doesn't really even exist.
    - sellyme 6y ago
      > Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. Don't. If that means not doing further development, great. Leave that to people who want to make the software better, not worse. If you can find a way to monetise software, that's fantastic, but if that monetisation requires degrading quality I have no respect for it.
      - symlinkk 6y ago
        Guess what, “the people who want to make the software better” can start today! Just fork it, it’s all open source! Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? Is it because those people have bills to pay? Hmm...
        sellyme 6y ago
        > Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? You mean apart from Pale Moon, Basilisk, Waterfox, Tor, XB, Iceweasel, Swiftfox, Swiftweasel, Cometbird, and IceDragon? Yeah no idea why that thing that has happened several times hasn't happened.
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.

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.
    - ramraj07 6y ago
      Sure, let's all build tree houses and live in them. If only problems can just be solved by willing the solution you want!
      - matheusmoreira 6y ago
        That's exactly what everyone should do. Instead of letting them get away with it, we should block it all unconditionally and by default, forcing them to find another solution that's acceptable. Linux distributions in particular are in the perfect position to patch this out and improve user experience for all their users.
- TheRealPomax 6y ago
  But it's also Firefox, just go into about:config and turn it off if you don't like it and presto?
LegitShady 6y ago
Personally my concern is more fundamental than that. If mozilla is moving towards expanding advertising in FF from the developer, then they're changing their incentive structure in a way that makes putting ads in front of my eyes against my wishes more and more beneficial to them. I can't see this as a good step forward. It only leads to places where they're incentivized to make the browser worse to make more money.
sellyme 6y ago
> I have nothing against straight ads. I do. They are actively hostile to the user experience. I will criticise any update to software that deliberately makes the user experience worse.
- symlinkk 6y ago
  Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. No, donations are not cutting it.
  - tux3 6y ago
    Note, I've heard that Mozilla takes donations, but I don't think Firefox does. Personally I don't mind at all if Mozilla wants to display ads in Treeherder or in their corporate offices, I wouldn't even feel like I want to pay to remove those :) My point being, I don't expect firefox donations would amount to very many millions, but it's important to note that today the option doesn't really even exist.
  - sellyme 6y ago
    > Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. Don't. If that means not doing further development, great. Leave that to people who want to make the software better, not worse. If you can find a way to monetise software, that's fantastic, but if that monetisation requires degrading quality I have no respect for it.
    - symlinkk 6y ago
      Guess what, “the people who want to make the software better” can start today! Just fork it, it’s all open source! Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? Is it because those people have bills to pay? Hmm...
      - sellyme 6y ago
        > Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? You mean apart from Pale Moon, Basilisk, Waterfox, Tor, XB, Iceweasel, Swiftfox, Swiftweasel, Cometbird, and IceDragon? Yeah no idea why that thing that has happened several times hasn't happened.

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.