our expanded focus on online advertising won’t be embraced by everyone in our community

you don’t say

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 month ago

    Targeted ads should be illegal.

    Contextual ads are a compromise I would accept. That is, you can buy ads based on the page content, but not the viewer details. So if I’m looking at a website about bikes, you can have bike ads on there. You don’t need to know I’m a xx year old living in zip code 10001. That’s how ads worked for like decades (centuries?). It’s fine.

  • disguised_doge@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    became the thing you were to destroy

    They get (got?) millions in donations, maybe instead of giving it to their CEO and political activists they put it into the browser they could run their browser without ads. But instead they became the infinite growth (at least attempted anyway, not doing well in the growth department) funded by ads silicon valley company in a nonprofit’s disguise.

    • Apollo2323@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Those millions will drain in a few months and at the end of the day they are a company and need to make money. Its not a fairy tale where Mozilla fight against the big tech and ends up winning because of their good will , be realistic we live on a capitalist society , companies need to make money. I prefer to still have them around rather than letting Google being another monopoly on the internet.

      • Kyouki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        While realistic - if nobody tries differently without getting just the massive bag of ceo tax money, it’ll never ever change.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Get was correct. For a long time the vast majority of Mozilla funding is provided by Google,and that will continue.

  • capt_kafei@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m honestly not against this. I know a lot of people will be furious with Mozilla about doing anything related to advertising, but as the article says:

    And, for the foreseeable future at least, advertising is a key commercial engine of the internet, and the most efficient way to ensure the majority of content remains free and accessible to as many people as possible.

    We may dislike ads, but the vast majority of internet users are not going to engage with content that requires you to pay up front. Creators and journalists need money to survive, and currently, ad-supported viewing is necessary for that to happen.

    Instead of just hoping that advertising somehow goes away, I’m glad that Mozilla is working on ways for ads to exist without mass individual user tracking. I wish it wasn’t necessary, but wishing won’t change the world.

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      With all due respect, Mozilla is now (and, for a while, has been) an ad company. When an ad company tells you ads are necessary, you should not trust them. Plenty of lousy things have been entrenched as social norms, but it is the job of the entrenchers to justify their existence… Which Mozilla is definitely not doing here.

    • rhabarba@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Creators and journalists need money to survive, and currently, ad-supported viewing is necessary for that to happen.

      The only way out of this is to block advertising. I, personally, think that you should not have a website if you can’t pay for it yourself, but the only acceptable kind of website income is a paywall. If you just have “better advertising”, advertising will never go away. And I hate ads.

    • Soapbox1858@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t mind simple static ads on websites as a way to keep them free to use. The reason I use an ad blocker is because websites use ads that flash, play video/audio, and dynamically resize causing the text you are trying to read to jump around and change, making the site unusable. Even with an adblocker, sometimes the only way to use those sites is with reader mode. I disable the adblocker on sites that display reasonable, mostly static advertising. People putting in the work to make the content deserve to eat.

  • zecg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Fuck you, Mozilla. I’ll turn off any option you expose and run away to Librewolf or Fennec as soon as you cross the line. And the line is ublock origin, make no mistake about that. Here’s a tip: Raymond Hill is the most valuable asset Mozilla has and, here’s the kicker – YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE HIM.

    • beanlink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yup people saying run to Firefox yet they walk in line with Google every time as an illusion of choice.