5 ms·

I would guess a lot of Firefox's core users (the ones who evangelize it, install it for relatives, file bug reports, write plugins, etc.) stick around because t

I would guess a lot of Firefox's core users (the ones who evangelize it, install it for relatives, file bug reports, write plugins, etc.) stick around because this browser has been a hedge against uncomfortable trends in big tech, many of which were spawned from ad tech. Going the way of ads seems like a dangerous line to tinker with if Mozilla wants to maintain the trust of these users. Maybe there is a way to do ads well that isn't intrusive and that adds value to the UX. Or maybe it will annoy people and damage the brand by de-differentiating Firefox from Chrome and Brave. I like to give Mozilla the benefit of the doubt, because it's important that they innovate, but getting into the ad business feels like it could be a deal with the devil. Maybe you make more money---but if you lose your soul then you're just another browser ready to be replaced by the next shiny thing.

greenyoda 5y ago
> Maybe there is a way to do ads well... At the very least, they should have made it opt-in rather than opt-out. I don't like them quietly sneaking a pre-enabled advertising option into the configuration options. And they know it's a potential privacy issue, since all the address bar suggestion options are already under the "Privacy & Security" settings.
- reustle 5y ago
  If they were opt in, would they even make back the investment it took to build the feature to begin with?
_ofdw 5y ago
>Maybe there is a way to do ads well that isn't intrusive and that adds value to the UX. There isn't.
- rschneid 5y ago
  Okay, I'll bite. I believe ads can exist if I consent to being shown them BEFOREHAND and alternatives, such as paying to opt-out completely are offered. The world is vast and changing with increasing velocity. I cannot keep up with all the possible tech products and services coming out even if I had a theoretically perfect RSS feed combined with other follows/subscriptions to content feeds. If a product is commercially successful to the point where they can afford to throw dollars at a probability of acquiring a new user, there's no fundamental reason why that behavior is necessarily bad/unwelcome. If I visit a news website, I want to be presented (before assaulted with ads) with a notice that provides me the option of paying for the content or seeing ads. Off the top of my head, spiegel.de follows this paradigm. A level further, and within reason for a downloaded/heavily-used/customizable software such as web browser is the opportunity to see ads that are relevant to my interests by affording me the option of indicating my interests to the platform before ads are shown and the ability to easily discriminate arbitrarily against a specific ad or categories related to any ad I don't like for any reason. If I don't like the ads a company shows me, even on the free version, they should not be repeated. If I don't want any category of ads that must be fine, but they company may opt to place a generic request for support of their corporation a-la-wikipedia funding request-- I am using their software for free, after all... But to say there isn't exploring the full range of UX that can be afforded by modern software systems. I say this as someone who is deeply disturbed by this latest update and will stop recommending FF as an alternative to chrome with superior privacy settings. Your reply just struck me as horribly defeatist. Ads are not leaving the web, but they _can_ be served with far better motives than they are currently.
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    Look there's just people who don't make purchasing decisions based off ads.
  - SergeAx 5y ago
    AFAIK, YouTube actually losing money by offering paid ads opt-out.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Really? I've heard from YouTubers they make drastically more money from Premium viewers ( those who pay for no ads) and "regular", ad-paid viewers.
      - bayangan 5y ago
        I have no source to back up this claim but I think SergeAx is referring to YouTube themselves making less money. I think you are right in saying that YouTubers make more money, but YouTube themselves might lose more by not showing ads.
  - na85 5y ago
    Advertising is, by definition, both intrusive and poor UX.
foerbert 5y ago
Yep. It's way beyond anything I consider acceptable. I'm disgusted, really. It's still pretty fresh, so it's possible my opinion softens later, but right now I'm thinking it's appropriate to consider Chrome and Firefox pretty much equivalent on 'ethical' (or whatever you want to call it) grounds. Google is far more of a concern than Mozilla, but at this point it feels like Chrome is out to get you less than Firefox is. I nearly acted on my impulse to start switching everything over to Chrome. The only thing that saved Firefox here is the memory of some concerns about adblocking on Chrome in the future. I haven't looked into it much, so I don't know how significant of a concern that is. But functionally no adblock is worse than being forced to turn off user-hostile options, so, here I remain. I guess. For now.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  Yea, I can't even imagine the furor if Chrome were to do this and make it opt-out. Very unexpected from Mozilla, even with my lowered standards of the last half decade.
  - dralley 5y ago
    > Yea, I can't even imagine the furor if Chrome were to do this But... Chrome does do this. They're just not labeled as ads. Type the letter "K" (or any other single letter) into your Chrome search bar on a fresh profile and tell me what you see. Because I see an awful lot of "contextual suggestions" that are not really any different from ads. https://imgur.com/a/baXZDrN https://imgur.com/a/baXZDrN
    - foerbert 5y ago
      Welp. I guess that's my daily dose of 'oh god everything is actually worse than I thought and I don't know why I'm surprised again.' There's no way that's a decent no-history guess for what is intended.
    - SCLeo 5y ago
      Not saying I ditrust you, but do we know for sure that those are paids ads not unpaid sugesstions?
aasasd 5y ago
There's the simple “we're sponsored by Twarfle this month”. But I guess it's less valuable to the advertiser. As for adding to the UX, still no.

greenyoda 5y ago

> Maybe there is a way to do ads well... At the very least, they should have made it opt-in rather than opt-out. I don't like them quietly sneaking a pre-enabled advertising option into the configuration options. And they know it's a potential privacy issue, since all the address bar suggestion options are already under the "Privacy & Security" settings.

reustle 5y ago
If they were opt in, would they even make back the investment it took to build the feature to begin with?

_ofdw 5y ago

>Maybe there is a way to do ads well that isn't intrusive and that adds value to the UX. There isn't.

rschneid 5y ago
Okay, I'll bite. I believe ads can exist if I consent to being shown them BEFOREHAND and alternatives, such as paying to opt-out completely are offered. The world is vast and changing with increasing velocity. I cannot keep up with all the possible tech products and services coming out even if I had a theoretically perfect RSS feed combined with other follows/subscriptions to content feeds. If a product is commercially successful to the point where they can afford to throw dollars at a probability of acquiring a new user, there's no fundamental reason why that behavior is necessarily bad/unwelcome. If I visit a news website, I want to be presented (before assaulted with ads) with a notice that provides me the option of paying for the content or seeing ads. Off the top of my head, spiegel.de follows this paradigm. A level further, and within reason for a downloaded/heavily-used/customizable software such as web browser is the opportunity to see ads that are relevant to my interests by affording me the option of indicating my interests to the platform before ads are shown and the ability to easily discriminate arbitrarily against a specific ad or categories related to any ad I don't like for any reason. If I don't like the ads a company shows me, even on the free version, they should not be repeated. If I don't want any category of ads that must be fine, but they company may opt to place a generic request for support of their corporation a-la-wikipedia funding request-- I am using their software for free, after all... But to say there isn't exploring the full range of UX that can be afforded by modern software systems. I say this as someone who is deeply disturbed by this latest update and will stop recommending FF as an alternative to chrome with superior privacy settings. Your reply just struck me as horribly defeatist. Ads are not leaving the web, but they _can_ be served with far better motives than they are currently.
- Bancakes 5y ago
  Look there's just people who don't make purchasing decisions based off ads.
- SergeAx 5y ago
  AFAIK, YouTube actually losing money by offering paid ads opt-out.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Really? I've heard from YouTubers they make drastically more money from Premium viewers ( those who pay for no ads) and "regular", ad-paid viewers.
    - bayangan 5y ago
      I have no source to back up this claim but I think SergeAx is referring to YouTube themselves making less money. I think you are right in saying that YouTubers make more money, but YouTube themselves might lose more by not showing ads.
- na85 5y ago
  Advertising is, by definition, both intrusive and poor UX.

foerbert 5y ago

Yep. It's way beyond anything I consider acceptable. I'm disgusted, really. It's still pretty fresh, so it's possible my opinion softens later, but right now I'm thinking it's appropriate to consider Chrome and Firefox pretty much equivalent on 'ethical' (or whatever you want to call it) grounds. Google is far more of a concern than Mozilla, but at this point it feels like Chrome is out to get you less than Firefox is. I nearly acted on my impulse to start switching everything over to Chrome. The only thing that saved Firefox here is the memory of some concerns about adblocking on Chrome in the future. I haven't looked into it much, so I don't know how significant of a concern that is. But functionally no adblock is worse than being forced to turn off user-hostile options, so, here I remain. I guess. For now.

wutbrodo 5y ago
Yea, I can't even imagine the furor if Chrome were to do this and make it opt-out. Very unexpected from Mozilla, even with my lowered standards of the last half decade.
- dralley 5y ago
  > Yea, I can't even imagine the furor if Chrome were to do this But... Chrome does do this. They're just not labeled as ads. Type the letter "K" (or any other single letter) into your Chrome search bar on a fresh profile and tell me what you see. Because I see an awful lot of "contextual suggestions" that are not really any different from ads. https://imgur.com/a/baXZDrN https://imgur.com/a/baXZDrN
  - foerbert 5y ago
    Welp. I guess that's my daily dose of 'oh god everything is actually worse than I thought and I don't know why I'm surprised again.' There's no way that's a decent no-history guess for what is intended.
  - SCLeo 5y ago
    Not saying I ditrust you, but do we know for sure that those are paids ads not unpaid sugesstions?

aasasd 5y ago

There's the simple “we're sponsored by Twarfle this month”. But I guess it's less valuable to the advertiser. As for adding to the UX, still no.