• theherk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I feel like I’m reading a different article than everyone else. The comments made me think the article would be adding advertisements, but it seems to be trying to find a way forward to facilitate advertisements while maintaining privacy.

    Without technical details I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I know lemmy is largely “Mozilla bad”, but I’m just not sure the comments are in line with the proposal.

    • Bongles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Yes, that’s the same thing every time Firefox is mentioned here. It’s like people here WANT to be angry.

    • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Is this a response to the fact that they may not get paid for having Google as their default search engine? If so, I worry about a bunch of Linux distributions. It’s ironic that a company’s toxic virtual monopoly was paying for so much open software.

      • ramblingsteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I hope so. I hope there could be a future where Mozilla is purged of these people and returned to being just a browser. Not everything has to be a “platform” with a business model for MBA’s to feast on.

      • LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Mozilla’s PPA was developed in collaboration with Facebook. While we don’t usually think of that company as advertisement centric, they are, just moreso within their own walled garden of a social network.

        parading around as pro-privacy frauds.

        Here’s a frighteningly accurate prediction from The Register, written back in January:

        …Baker notes: “We need to be faster in prototyping, launching, learning, and iterating … This requires rich data, and so we will be moving in that direction, but in a very Mozilla way.”

        Surely not slurping telemetry?

        According to the report, the “Mozilla way” is all about privacy, encryption, and keeping customer data safe. Hopefully, it will also be about innovation rather than scattering AI fairy dust over its product line.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Eh, they’ve been speedrunning this for years, this is just the most efficient way to get to the end goal of complete ruin.

      I have a few alternative ideas, but I honestly don’t think they’re interested in hearing them.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      You’re forgetting about the people in the office building that sit around the big table. They embrace it too.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Oh you mean one of the only two reasons I use this fucking thing? Ad blocking and privacy?

    You’re shitting on both. That’s like… Idk, Craftsman making tools out of plastic and removing the lifetime warranty… Wtf do I even need you for then?

      • glaber@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Talk is cheap, get contributing! Donate, translate or code. That way we’ll have a proper way out of Mozilla sooner

      • Kuro@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Maybe this pushes the development a little bit. Would be a good opportunity to ask for funding and other means of help.

  • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Because of propaganda, people find it easier to imagine the end of the world before the end of capitalism. Just the same, theres lots of commenters here that could imagine the end of the internet before they imagine the end of advertising on the internet.

  • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    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.

    I’m afraid they aren’t wrong. The majority of people aren’t going to pay for access to random blogs etc. So we’d end up with only the big players having usable sites.

    People kick off about ads but rarely suggest an alternative to funding the internet.

    Back in the day ads were targeted based on the website’s target audience not the user’s personal data. It works fine but is less effective. Don’t see why they couldn’t go that way.

    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I don’t believe a web browser should be designed specifically for one business model, period.

      There are plenty of free sites. Truly free, with no ads.

      There are plenty of paid sites, supported by subscribers.

      There are plenty of sites funded by educational institutions, nonprofits, or similar.

      There used to be plenty of sites that were supported by non-invasive ads.

      I don’t give a damn if everyone uses Facebook and Google. That doesn’t mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.

      • refalo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        That doesn’t mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.

        From what I have seen, it does… if you want to have a popular site that stays running well, and don’t charge your users for access.

    • erenkoylu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      Internet was fine in the early 2000s before the rise of social media platforms resulted in surveillance advertisement complex.

      It was a different place, but worked ok.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Surveillance advertisement was already around.

        Social Media platforms simply capitalized on it.

        And users sucked it up for “convenience”.

    • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      If your product doesn’t generate enough revenue to turn a profit, you don’t have a viable business

  • erenkoylu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    It is time to fork Firefox. Mozilla has bern hijacked by people who don’t care about its vision.

        • bishbosh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Sure, but as you pointed out maintaining a browser is hard. I don’t know that any genuine fork or new browser is on the horizon, and the day to day of using firefox is fine by me, so a fork that strips there nonsense might be plenty for me.

  • datavoid@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Wow, utterly shocked that a company with a shit CEO that takes most of its money from Google would have these viewpoints.

    I’m sure it is completely coincidental that ublock is about to die as well.

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I think the bigger issue is them potentially losing their Google income.

      They’ve failed to diversify their income with a bunch of failed subscription services, Google is in hot waters because of anti-competitive behaviour; they’re going to need something.

      Which isn’t to say I like it. But “this is happening because they take Google money” is parroted beneath every slightly negative thing Mozilla does.

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I’m sure it is completely coincidental that ublock is about to die as well.

      wtf are you talking about?

      • datavoid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Not in Firefox specifically, but many chromium based browsers are about to lose access to the original ublock. I’ve been planning on switching to Firefox when this goes through for a while now.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    rockbottom: NOBODY wants to see the ads you throw in our faces. doesnt matter that, as you claim, those ad views pay you for your content. there is no good way to make those ads palatable.

  • modulus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    I kept giving Mozilla the benefit of the doubt and telling myself things weren’t so bad.

    I was wrong.

    I’ll continue using Firefox because it’s the least bad option, but I can’t advocate for it in good faith anymore, and I don’t expect it to last long with this orientation.

    So it goes.

    • Redex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Ok sure, what do you want them to do instead then? 80% of their income is reliant on a tech giant’s grace and is seemingly more and more likely to be cutoff soon. They need to survive somehow, and every monetised service they tried flopped thusfar.

      • doleo@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        How about not have a multi-million-dollar-costing CEO? Seems a bit rich (pun intended) for a supposed non-profit org.

        • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Yeah I’m not defending that but CEO pay only rounds to like 1% of their total expenditures. Developing a browser is expensive.

          • doleo@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            only 1%? That’s about on par with a fortune 500 company, which supposedly Mozilla is not.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Ideas:

        • directly ask for donations, and actually use those donations to fund browser development
        • build an add-on to pay sites instead of seeing ads - Mozilla could take a cut here
        • push harder on existing, optional add-ons that generate revenue, like their VPN

        But the article here reads like, “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas. Have ads…”

      • rhabarba@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        22 hours ago

        What makes you think that developing a free web browser needs to grant anyone any income?

        • Metz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Do you think developers don’t have to eat? or pay rent? And donations alone do not cut it.

          • rhabarba@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Being a developer myself (with no ads in his software), I don’t think you understand my point. The software I write in my free time does not pay my bills. That’s why I also have an actual job.

            • Metz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              22 hours ago

              You are aware that there are full-time developers working at Mozilla, yes? Developing a browser is not a hobby-project that you can pull off with some volunteers in their free time. You need professionals that work on such a giant project with their full attention.

              Developing Firefox is their job. And of course they want to get paid for that (and deserve it). Just like you get paid for your actual job.

              • rhabarba@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                21 hours ago

                (and deserve it)

                Please enlighten me: how do they deserve to be paid for a non-profit product?

                • Metz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  How does someone deserve to be paid for work done? Is that your question?

                  Is this some kind of pathetic troll attempt?

                  I will not reward that with further attention.

                • abbenm@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  Non-profit doesn’t mean that there’s no employees. They’re still organizations that have a cash flow, seek to raise funds, and employ people to serve their mission. Most non-profits have paid employees.

    • Joeffect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I could see them trying to take themselves away from Google which wouldn’t be a bad thing as that’s where most of the money comes from for them … Unless that’s changed recently…

    • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I’m afraid it won’t last long without it. That’s the key problem.

      People hate ads, as do I, but what’s the alternative?

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Ideas:

        • donations - these need to actually go toward Firefox development, they don’t, so I don’t donate
        • paid services (e.g. their white-labeled VPN, they could also white-label Tuta or Proton services)
        • and add-on that pays sites to not see ads (my preference)
        • funding of privacy-oriented startups - they have something like this, so do more of it
      • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Pay executives less. Focus on grants and PBS-style ‘underwriting’. Subscription services like email and VPN.

        Getting into advertising is just jumping into an intractable conflict of interest.

  • Rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Can one thing please not be full of adverts :( I’ll pay for the browser, I just want marketers to fuck off for a while lol

  • heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    1 day ago

    What if we could have a world that wasn’t powered by ads? I’d like to get past this “only one way to run the internet” train of thought.

    I’m just so tired of ads, commercials and advertising in general. It’s exhausting.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s either that, a subscription model of some sort, going to pay to install models, or something else to fund themselves. I’d suggest going to a donation based model, but I doubt there’s enough Firefox users willing to pay to even be able to keep it alive more than a year or two tops.

      • ItsComplicated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I would happily pay to download Firefox if they removed telemetry, ads, analytics. Security updates could be free, feature updates could have a small fee. Something similar.

        There is a way to fund Firefox without user data and ads. Will it be as profitable, who knows, because quite simply, the vast majority do not want to make it a reality and loose what profit, control, or power they currently hold onto.

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          I’ve always said this about software. Let me license a specific version, with free minor updates until the next major release.

          If the new version has something I need/want, I may be willing to buy it again.

          I use lots of old software, on my PC and my phone. It works, why do I need the new version? And some, the new version sucks so bad I refuse to upgrade (FolderSync on Android, for example).

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Says who?

        Plenty of sites out there just run by people who want to run them, no fee, no ads.

        It’s people who want to capitalize on having a website that have this problem.

        And let’s be clear, it’s their problem. Not mine. If they can’t turn a profit with/without ads, that’s not my concern, that’s theirs. But they setup these web sites/services with the intention of making money through ads and surveillance, so let’s not go around acting like these orgs just won’t make it without us (there are exceptions, say archive.org, and guess what, people donate to them because they believe in the cause).

        The problem is a bunch of people figured out the web was a brilliant way to data mine for profit. I actually had this discussion with a friend circa 1993. If we could see it then, imagine how many other people already had plans.

    • cornshark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well, do you subscribe to news sites, YouTube Premium, Kagi? The world you dream of is available to you today

      • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I subscribe to Nebula because f*ck Google, and I’d pay for Kagi if I could just simply pay $X for Y searches with no subscription BS.

      • funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Actually, I do. I have a YouTube Premium subscription and subscriptions for two news sites. And on top of that a ton of Patreon subscriptions and offline memberships. I am the one who knocks pays.

    • murmelade@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      I think the ad model is fine as long as adblockers work. Only a small percent uses them and the normies without can watch the ads so the service stays free. Perhaps a bit egoistical but works for me! 😅