16 ms·

wasn't aware that 'anonym' existed. I don't care if PII is stripped or not. the answer to 'helping advertisers' or anything with advertisement metrics in any fa

wasn't aware that 'anonym' existed. I don't care if PII is stripped or not. the answer to 'helping advertisers' or anything with advertisement metrics in any fashion is always 'No.' - training things so that there's better data on how to best manipulate our psyche / give people data to psychologically manipulate us in to buying/doing things is a hard 'No.' > Asked whether Mozilla has any concerns that its user base, many ardent ad-blockers among them, will oppose Anonym, a spokesperson for the Firefox house told The Register advertising as a business model is what allows the internet to be free and open to everyone, though there's still room for improvement. No, the internet being free and open is what allows advertisers to exploit us. They can find other business models other than advertisement. It's not our problem. They need to stop making it our problem. I turned it off in about:config

Buttons840 2y ago
Without advertisements, the internet would only have content worth paying for and content people want to share for reasons other than financial gain. How awful (/s).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 2y ago
  That's the thing... people would still make free content, and since there wouldn't be as many shady ways to monetize, it would cut down on low-effort (and AI-generated) garbage. The internet would be such a better place. We would probably lose some good stuff, or see it moved behind paywalls. That would be a shame, but I think it would be worth it.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage. The high effort non-garbage stuff is produced by professionals who have the luxury of spending a full work week's amount of time improving their craft. writers writing free content with no business model can't do that unless they have a trust fund. which, I suppose they're out there, but I doubt the number of those that are writers.
    - josefx 2y ago
      > I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage. Right now the main search engine everyone uses is run by an ad company. Just getting rid of that conflict of interest would probably help to significantly weed out garbage.
  - nox101 2y ago
    I'm pretty confident that without advertising, the majority of YouTube channels people love most would not exist. maybe overall that would be a good thing as there's so much trash too
    - grishka 2y ago
      And that's fine. YouTube channels are always better when they're someone's hobby rather than a full-time job.
      - nox101 2y ago
        hard disagree. the majority of the channels I love the most have become full time jobs.
    - hypeatei 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure ad revenue for most channels is negligible so they resort to third party sponsorships or platforms like Patreon. The advertisements are there for Google to recoup some of the cost of running YT.
      - nox101 2y ago
        not sure what your point is. let's assume it's true. That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos. Without that those channels would have to pay for hosting themselves and could not afford to make the content. Further, most of them would have never even tried if it wasn't free to start Then, I don't buy your premise. Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly for Brilliant, NordVPN, etc... which means even without YouTube's ads they're still ad driven
        hypeatei 2y ago
        > Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly Those are third party sponsorships done by channel owners, not ads inserted by YT. > That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos Your assertion was related to the channels themselves existing, not YT as a platform. I can agree that the platform probably wouldn't exist without some sort of funding source but that doesn't necessarily need to come from ads.
  - Tepix 2y ago
    I remember an internet without ads. It was hardly all low-effeort garbage.
    - stavros 2y ago
      That's the GP's point too.
- LunaSea 2y ago
  Most people won't pay for content, no matter how good it is. Especially for text content. People still download or stream movies and TV series even though there are multiple high quality and official streaming platforms.
timeon 2y ago
>> allows the internet to be free As far as i know I still pay for internet. Only free internet is with public wifi.
- bluGill 2y ago
  You pay for the pipe to your house (which in turn pays for the backbone). However the content is mostly things you don't pay for.
skydhash 2y ago
> No, the internet being free and open is what allows advertisers to exploit us. The internet is neither free, nor open. I'm paying for it and there are all the geo-blocked and walled content. I'm grateful for the parts that are accessible at least (without sucking my private data dry). I don't mind advertising, but it should be a function of what I'm currently watching/listening instead of myself. I pay for F1TV and there are so much logos, but I don't mind them. Likewise for Soccer.
- account42 2y ago
  And free beer isn't free because you still need to pay for gas to haul it home? That certain parts are locked off also doesn't make the internet as a whole not open.
spondylosaurus 2y ago
I don't wholly disagree, but it's always a tad ironic to read "money is ruining the free/open internet" discussion on a free forum powered by VC money.
- xg15 2y ago
  On a free forum ran by an actual VC even, not just powered by the money...
  - krapp 2y ago
    Yeah but the layout is basic and doesn't use javascript so you know they're cool.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  If HN didn't exist people would gather on another link aggregator.
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    HN is only as good as dang makes it. There are a ton of other link aggregators out there, many more “free” than this. Yet here we are. Why? Because the folks behind this link aggregator pay dang to be here.
    - InfiniteLoup 2y ago
      There is obviously also a network effect at play here that makes people unwilling to explore new options. But just like MySpace, Facebook or tumblr showed you can always ruin a good thing and eventually people will move onto greener pastures. However, I love love love Hackernews and dang is one of the main reasons this little internet place became such an oasis for the intellectually curious, and interesting as well as serious conversation.
    - Gud 2y ago
      What are they? Can you link to them? Would love to see what else is out there! Personally I don't care much for discussion about web programming really, but more general tech news(fusion, space and the related politics).
PhasmaFelis 2y ago
> They can find other business models other than advertisement. The awful thing is, I'm not sure they can. Lots of sites turned to shitty ads and clickbait because it makes lots of money, but I've followed some passionate writers and journalists who decided to stick to their guns and focus on quality content with a reasonable subscription price. I don't follow any of them anymore, because they all either want out of business or gave up and switched to advertising hell.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > focus on quality content with a reasonable subscription price We’re a minority. See: every comment complaining about paywalls.
- black_puppydog 2y ago
  Article in German about this from August 1: https://netzpolitik.org/2024/klage-gegen-datenschutzbehoerde-streit-um-pur-abo-des-spiegel-eskaliert/ https://netzpolitik.org/2024/klage-gegen-datenschutzbehoerde... They're calculating with EUR 0.1 per user per month for targeted advertising. The "Pur Abo" (EUR 4-5 per month per site) are thus 40 times more profitable. The advertising has become mostly a mechanism to pressure readers into paying. The question is, can you convince roughly 1/40 of your readers to pay 5 bucks a month if you don't use targeted advertising as the "threat"? Maybe, just maybe, non-targeted advertising would already be enough? Many people pay to get rid of ads, not of surveillance, after all...
  - pndy 2y ago
    > The question is, can you convince Seen recently few sites which blocked access unless you agreed for vicious tracking - so much for convincing readers, I guess. I'm afraid that it's a new trend to paywall everything and give user a quite harmful choice of being tracked if it won't pay. Few years ago there was an agreement in Poland between major media outlets to put an unified paywall system but it was abandoned quite fast. That was still before these vicious tracking techniques and cookie banners. People simply didn't want to pay for the access. Their tagline was "Do you value good journalism?" and it was memed out because the quality of these paid materials was considered as low. Many people complained that it's not that much different from stuff available for free. Others raised an argument that access to the information on the Internet should be free and they didn't want to spend money on this. Discussion happen, taking on paid content in general but whole thing fizzled out just like that paywall system.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
Also advertising is certainly not the reason the web is free. It was free before the insane amount of advertising. Maybe for platforms like Youtube or similar sites advertising is part of their business model. But the primary reason here is foremost people creating content. That Youtube has insane infrastructure costs is secondary and we certainly don't need Browsers to help advertising at all. If it doesn't stay optional, Firefox should be forked. It is not a wanted feature. Danger is that Firefox gets gimped because of bad business decisions, because other features regarding privacy aren't as good as they could be.
- stavros 2y ago
  > It was free before the insane amount of advertising. It was better before the insane amount of advertising.
  - Pet_Ant 2y ago
    > It was better before the insane amount of advertising. There was anything on it really before that. Wikipedia didn't start until 2001 and there were already pop-ups and banner ads everywhere. t was better before the insane amount of advertising. I seem to recall GeoCities having ads everywhere.
    - geobmx540 2y ago
      In the beginning there was no ads, but they got pretty aggressive at the end (1999ish)
    - strictnein 2y ago
      Geocities is an interesting case. It didn't start with ads and they monitored sites and told people to remove them (I received one such email). It wasn't out of some altruistic ideals though. They just didn't want anyone to advertise before they got their ads running on everyone's sites.
- LunaSea 2y ago
  How can you say that the infrastructure costs are secondary? How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure?
kerkeslager 2y ago
Yeah, being against advertising isn't fundamentally about privacy. I mean, I care about privacy too, but even an ad that collects no data about me is bad. I simply do not want products shoved in my face. If I need something from your company I'll come to you. Yes, in the current environment, companies have to advertise to compete with competition that advertises. This is why we need to agree as a society to stop this nonsense, so that companies that don't advertise are in competition with other companies that don't advertise, competing for independent review based on the quality of their products and services. Advertising undermines the fundamental premise that companies win in competition by providing the best products and services. An well-marketed inferior product outcompetes a poorly-marketed superior product every time, and that's a problem. Advertising should be viewed as anti-competitive, because it's not competing on the metrics that serve people's needs: which is the entire point of an economy.
lolinder 2y ago
> advertising as a business model is what allows the internet to be free and open to everyone My favorite period in internet history was the years in which self-hosted phpBB forums dominated the social landscape. We had a diverse set of forums paid for by one or more of their participants, who made the forum available simply because they liked hanging out with the community they were hosting. Advertising-based social media took all the air from that model and replaced it with the enormous advertising-driven attention economy. Genuine social interaction was largely replaced by vacuous attempts to get "engagement" as the platforms persuaded millions to act in their interests. Vulnerable interactions with persistent communities that allowed real internet friendships to develop gave way to ephemeral rage bait that ruins real life friendships. I'm not saying that advertising is the root of every single social ill we have today, but it's responsible for its good share of them.
- spiritplumber 2y ago
  Having run one, I have to say that towards the end people were moving to social media BECAUSE posts had a like counter. I regret not adding one to my forum.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Oh, for sure. They created a drug that suffocated all non-externally-rewarded social interaction and drew users in. But they created that drug in service to advertisements.
  - Klonoar 2y ago
    Tangentially related but I think upvote/downvote culture is one of the biggest social changes that we unleashed on the world and should’ve walked back long ago. The intent of the idea is good but I think in implementation it’s too ripe for abuse. In those old forums, you couldn’t (easily) bury things the way you can today. We basically handed an incredibly powerful weapon to anyone interested in controlling a narrative - especially so with the centralization of everything. (I want to be clear that I’m aware old forums could be gamed still, and I’m mostly trying to underscore how messed up I consider upvote/downvote/ratio culture).
commodoreboxer 2y ago
Most importantly, advertisement is a business. It's not charity and it's not a publicly owned resource. It doesn't keep the Internet free, because it makes a boat load of money doing what it does. It doesn't take an expert understanding of economics to see that any belief that advertisement allows for a free Internet is smoke and mirrors. The money comes from somewhere, notably from you. Either advertisement works, and you pay for your content by being psychologically manipulated into paying more than you otherwise would on things you don't need, or it doesn't, and businesses pay for ineffective advertisement, leading to increased prices. Advertisement is not free. It's a trick that looks free if you ignore the entire way it functions.
- bluGill 2y ago
  > It doesn't keep the Internet free There are two different definitions of free. Advertising keeps the internet free as in your don't have to pay for it. However there is also freedom and advertising doesn't help there at all.
  - commodoreboxer 2y ago
    That's the rub. You do pay for it. By the intention and definition of the business, advertisement eventually extracts money from you. It wouldn't be profitable otherwise. The fact that it happens more subtly and enables them to extract money from you in ways that you don't notice doesn't change the fact that it's still paid for. An advertisement funded Internet is still you paying for your content, it's just built so that you don't feel like you're paying for it. Advertisement is not free money, and it can not be free money. It's for-profit. So with advertisement, you're still paying for the Internet. We don't have a free Internet. We have an Internet built around businesses that make their entire business around psychological manipulation and extracting money from people without being noticed. The fact that people still push the myth that advertisement enables a free Internet like ad companies are somehow a public service shows how good they are at manipulation.
    - benmanns 2y ago
      I think there are legitimate cases where a business has a product available at a price that is net positive to both the business (profitable) and customer (consumer surplus) but is having trouble connecting with consumers. What % of advertising this is versus pushing low quality trash, branding, status symbols, and scams, I have no idea.
anewguy9000 2y ago
mozilla used to have this smart guy, brendan something, as their cto. but he was chased out of mozilla and created a new browser called brave. it actually does what this current cto claims to be trying to do
kazinator 2y ago
> is what allows the internet to be free and open to everyone The internet is free to hardly anyone. People pay for broadband and mobile plans. Free Wi-Fi hotspots are what actually keeps the internet free for many people.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Buttons840 2y ago

Without advertisements, the internet would only have content worth paying for and content people want to share for reasons other than financial gain. How awful (/s).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 2y ago
That's the thing... people would still make free content, and since there wouldn't be as many shady ways to monetize, it would cut down on low-effort (and AI-generated) garbage. The internet would be such a better place. We would probably lose some good stuff, or see it moved behind paywalls. That would be a shame, but I think it would be worth it.
- fragmede 2y ago
  I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage. The high effort non-garbage stuff is produced by professionals who have the luxury of spending a full work week's amount of time improving their craft. writers writing free content with no business model can't do that unless they have a trust fund. which, I suppose they're out there, but I doubt the number of those that are writers.
  - josefx 2y ago
    > I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage. Right now the main search engine everyone uses is run by an ad company. Just getting rid of that conflict of interest would probably help to significantly weed out garbage.
- nox101 2y ago
  I'm pretty confident that without advertising, the majority of YouTube channels people love most would not exist. maybe overall that would be a good thing as there's so much trash too
  - grishka 2y ago
    And that's fine. YouTube channels are always better when they're someone's hobby rather than a full-time job.
    - nox101 2y ago
      hard disagree. the majority of the channels I love the most have become full time jobs.
  - hypeatei 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure ad revenue for most channels is negligible so they resort to third party sponsorships or platforms like Patreon. The advertisements are there for Google to recoup some of the cost of running YT.
    - nox101 2y ago
      not sure what your point is. let's assume it's true. That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos. Without that those channels would have to pay for hosting themselves and could not afford to make the content. Further, most of them would have never even tried if it wasn't free to start Then, I don't buy your premise. Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly for Brilliant, NordVPN, etc... which means even without YouTube's ads they're still ad driven
      - hypeatei 2y ago
        > Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly Those are third party sponsorships done by channel owners, not ads inserted by YT. > That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos Your assertion was related to the channels themselves existing, not YT as a platform. I can agree that the platform probably wouldn't exist without some sort of funding source but that doesn't necessarily need to come from ads.
- Tepix 2y ago
  I remember an internet without ads. It was hardly all low-effeort garbage.
  - stavros 2y ago
    That's the GP's point too.
LunaSea 2y ago
Most people won't pay for content, no matter how good it is. Especially for text content. People still download or stream movies and TV series even though there are multiple high quality and official streaming platforms.

timeon 2y ago

>> allows the internet to be free As far as i know I still pay for internet. Only free internet is with public wifi.

bluGill 2y ago
You pay for the pipe to your house (which in turn pays for the backbone). However the content is mostly things you don't pay for.

skydhash 2y ago

> No, the internet being free and open is what allows advertisers to exploit us. The internet is neither free, nor open. I'm paying for it and there are all the geo-blocked and walled content. I'm grateful for the parts that are accessible at least (without sucking my private data dry). I don't mind advertising, but it should be a function of what I'm currently watching/listening instead of myself. I pay for F1TV and there are so much logos, but I don't mind them. Likewise for Soccer.

account42 2y ago
And free beer isn't free because you still need to pay for gas to haul it home? That certain parts are locked off also doesn't make the internet as a whole not open.

spondylosaurus 2y ago

I don't wholly disagree, but it's always a tad ironic to read "money is ruining the free/open internet" discussion on a free forum powered by VC money.

xg15 2y ago
On a free forum ran by an actual VC even, not just powered by the money...
- krapp 2y ago
  Yeah but the layout is basic and doesn't use javascript so you know they're cool.
idle_zealot 2y ago
If HN didn't exist people would gather on another link aggregator.
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  HN is only as good as dang makes it. There are a ton of other link aggregators out there, many more “free” than this. Yet here we are. Why? Because the folks behind this link aggregator pay dang to be here.
  - InfiniteLoup 2y ago
    There is obviously also a network effect at play here that makes people unwilling to explore new options. But just like MySpace, Facebook or tumblr showed you can always ruin a good thing and eventually people will move onto greener pastures. However, I love love love Hackernews and dang is one of the main reasons this little internet place became such an oasis for the intellectually curious, and interesting as well as serious conversation.
  - Gud 2y ago
    What are they? Can you link to them? Would love to see what else is out there! Personally I don't care much for discussion about web programming really, but more general tech news(fusion, space and the related politics).

PhasmaFelis 2y ago

> They can find other business models other than advertisement. The awful thing is, I'm not sure they can. Lots of sites turned to shitty ads and clickbait because it makes lots of money, but I've followed some passionate writers and journalists who decided to stick to their guns and focus on quality content with a reasonable subscription price. I don't follow any of them anymore, because they all either want out of business or gave up and switched to advertising hell.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> focus on quality content with a reasonable subscription price We’re a minority. See: every comment complaining about paywalls.
black_puppydog 2y ago
Article in German about this from August 1: https://netzpolitik.org/2024/klage-gegen-datenschutzbehoerde-streit-um-pur-abo-des-spiegel-eskaliert/ https://netzpolitik.org/2024/klage-gegen-datenschutzbehoerde... They're calculating with EUR 0.1 per user per month for targeted advertising. The "Pur Abo" (EUR 4-5 per month per site) are thus 40 times more profitable. The advertising has become mostly a mechanism to pressure readers into paying. The question is, can you convince roughly 1/40 of your readers to pay 5 bucks a month if you don't use targeted advertising as the "threat"? Maybe, just maybe, non-targeted advertising would already be enough? Many people pay to get rid of ads, not of surveillance, after all...
- pndy 2y ago
  > The question is, can you convince Seen recently few sites which blocked access unless you agreed for vicious tracking - so much for convincing readers, I guess. I'm afraid that it's a new trend to paywall everything and give user a quite harmful choice of being tracked if it won't pay. Few years ago there was an agreement in Poland between major media outlets to put an unified paywall system but it was abandoned quite fast. That was still before these vicious tracking techniques and cookie banners. People simply didn't want to pay for the access. Their tagline was "Do you value good journalism?" and it was memed out because the quality of these paid materials was considered as low. Many people complained that it's not that much different from stuff available for free. Others raised an argument that access to the information on the Internet should be free and they didn't want to spend money on this. Discussion happen, taking on paid content in general but whole thing fizzled out just like that paywall system.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

Also advertising is certainly not the reason the web is free. It was free before the insane amount of advertising. Maybe for platforms like Youtube or similar sites advertising is part of their business model. But the primary reason here is foremost people creating content. That Youtube has insane infrastructure costs is secondary and we certainly don't need Browsers to help advertising at all. If it doesn't stay optional, Firefox should be forked. It is not a wanted feature. Danger is that Firefox gets gimped because of bad business decisions, because other features regarding privacy aren't as good as they could be.

stavros 2y ago
> It was free before the insane amount of advertising. It was better before the insane amount of advertising.
- Pet_Ant 2y ago
  > It was better before the insane amount of advertising. There was anything on it really before that. Wikipedia didn't start until 2001 and there were already pop-ups and banner ads everywhere. t was better before the insane amount of advertising. I seem to recall GeoCities having ads everywhere.
  - geobmx540 2y ago
    In the beginning there was no ads, but they got pretty aggressive at the end (1999ish)
  - strictnein 2y ago
    Geocities is an interesting case. It didn't start with ads and they monitored sites and told people to remove them (I received one such email). It wasn't out of some altruistic ideals though. They just didn't want anyone to advertise before they got their ads running on everyone's sites.
LunaSea 2y ago
How can you say that the infrastructure costs are secondary? How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure?

kerkeslager 2y ago

Yeah, being against advertising isn't fundamentally about privacy. I mean, I care about privacy too, but even an ad that collects no data about me is bad. I simply do not want products shoved in my face. If I need something from your company I'll come to you. Yes, in the current environment, companies have to advertise to compete with competition that advertises. This is why we need to agree as a society to stop this nonsense, so that companies that don't advertise are in competition with other companies that don't advertise, competing for independent review based on the quality of their products and services. Advertising undermines the fundamental premise that companies win in competition by providing the best products and services. An well-marketed inferior product outcompetes a poorly-marketed superior product every time, and that's a problem. Advertising should be viewed as anti-competitive, because it's not competing on the metrics that serve people's needs: which is the entire point of an economy.

lolinder 2y ago

> advertising as a business model is what allows the internet to be free and open to everyone My favorite period in internet history was the years in which self-hosted phpBB forums dominated the social landscape. We had a diverse set of forums paid for by one or more of their participants, who made the forum available simply because they liked hanging out with the community they were hosting. Advertising-based social media took all the air from that model and replaced it with the enormous advertising-driven attention economy. Genuine social interaction was largely replaced by vacuous attempts to get "engagement" as the platforms persuaded millions to act in their interests. Vulnerable interactions with persistent communities that allowed real internet friendships to develop gave way to ephemeral rage bait that ruins real life friendships. I'm not saying that advertising is the root of every single social ill we have today, but it's responsible for its good share of them.

spiritplumber 2y ago
Having run one, I have to say that towards the end people were moving to social media BECAUSE posts had a like counter. I regret not adding one to my forum.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Oh, for sure. They created a drug that suffocated all non-externally-rewarded social interaction and drew users in. But they created that drug in service to advertisements.
- Klonoar 2y ago
  Tangentially related but I think upvote/downvote culture is one of the biggest social changes that we unleashed on the world and should’ve walked back long ago. The intent of the idea is good but I think in implementation it’s too ripe for abuse. In those old forums, you couldn’t (easily) bury things the way you can today. We basically handed an incredibly powerful weapon to anyone interested in controlling a narrative - especially so with the centralization of everything. (I want to be clear that I’m aware old forums could be gamed still, and I’m mostly trying to underscore how messed up I consider upvote/downvote/ratio culture).

commodoreboxer 2y ago

Most importantly, advertisement is a business. It's not charity and it's not a publicly owned resource. It doesn't keep the Internet free, because it makes a boat load of money doing what it does. It doesn't take an expert understanding of economics to see that any belief that advertisement allows for a free Internet is smoke and mirrors. The money comes from somewhere, notably from you. Either advertisement works, and you pay for your content by being psychologically manipulated into paying more than you otherwise would on things you don't need, or it doesn't, and businesses pay for ineffective advertisement, leading to increased prices. Advertisement is not free. It's a trick that looks free if you ignore the entire way it functions.

bluGill 2y ago
> It doesn't keep the Internet free There are two different definitions of free. Advertising keeps the internet free as in your don't have to pay for it. However there is also freedom and advertising doesn't help there at all.
- commodoreboxer 2y ago
  That's the rub. You do pay for it. By the intention and definition of the business, advertisement eventually extracts money from you. It wouldn't be profitable otherwise. The fact that it happens more subtly and enables them to extract money from you in ways that you don't notice doesn't change the fact that it's still paid for. An advertisement funded Internet is still you paying for your content, it's just built so that you don't feel like you're paying for it. Advertisement is not free money, and it can not be free money. It's for-profit. So with advertisement, you're still paying for the Internet. We don't have a free Internet. We have an Internet built around businesses that make their entire business around psychological manipulation and extracting money from people without being noticed. The fact that people still push the myth that advertisement enables a free Internet like ad companies are somehow a public service shows how good they are at manipulation.
  - benmanns 2y ago
    I think there are legitimate cases where a business has a product available at a price that is net positive to both the business (profitable) and customer (consumer surplus) but is having trouble connecting with consumers. What % of advertising this is versus pushing low quality trash, branding, status symbols, and scams, I have no idea.

anewguy9000 2y ago

mozilla used to have this smart guy, brendan something, as their cto. but he was chased out of mozilla and created a new browser called brave. it actually does what this current cto claims to be trying to do

kazinator 2y ago

> is what allows the internet to be free and open to everyone The internet is free to hardly anyone. People pay for broadband and mobile plans. Free Wi-Fi hotspots are what actually keeps the internet free for many people.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]