3 ms·

> But big daddy Google would get so cross I don't think Google would be as mad as every other publisher on the internet who relies on ads for their living. The

> But big daddy Google would get so cross I don't think Google would be as mad as every other publisher on the internet who relies on ads for their living. They would go on campaigns to block Firefox from their websites entirely. They already rail against adblockers with full-site popups and blocking content until you disable your adblocker, making adblocking a default would escalate the situation exceptionally quickly. Firefox's marketshare would drop even more quickly if people couldn't visit their favorite sites with it (and were likely directed to Chrome or Edge). Without an alternative, readily available method of monetizing websites, it's realistically going to have to remain opt-in (i.e. installing uBlock).

vimacs2 5y ago
Except there are already anti-anti-adblockers out there like REEK which work very well. Their campaigns might escalate but so would the efforts of the adblockers and in a fight between an established tech player like Mozilla and even a very large old media conglomerate, I don't fancy the latters chances at winning that tech arms race especially with all the bad press their efforts would generate. This whole argument is largely invalided by the mere existence of Brave anyway. You could argue that their crypto based mode of monetisation is not the absence of rather the reimagining of ads but regardless of how you feel about crypto, it's definitely superior for the end user and offers effective monetisation that is optional.