• modulus ( modulus@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky ( AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 years ago

    At this point, I don’t see many other options to keep everything going for Firefox. If they somehow lose the go*gle money they use to keep themselves going, they need another revenue source and I severely doubt there are enough Firefox users willing to pay enough to keep it going as it currently does. Don’t like it, but I’m gonna at least play devil’s advocate.

    • d-RLY? ( dRLY@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 years ago

      It would be nice if they at least allowed for even being able to donate to the browser itself. All the options that I am aware of are either the paid extra stuff they have, or to the overall company. Which is annoying since I imagine that the current “donation” option means that the money is being used mostly for the upper execs and routed to the extra shit that already has options for paying subs.

  • Asafum ( Asafum@feddit.nl ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 years 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?

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • erenkoylu ( erenkoylu@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 years 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.

      • dan ( dan@upvote.au ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sounds like you’re forgetting about the dot com bubble. The internet wasn’t fine abck then because nobody really had a sustainable business model.

          • dan ( dan@upvote.au ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            The reason I mentioned the dot com bubble is because a lot of the companies back then failed because they couldn’t figure out a sustainable business model. It was mostly hype-driven with the idea of getting users first, then figuring out monetization later.

            That’s why we have ad-supported sites today. It was the main business model that was the most sustainable.

            There were a lot of small sites, sure, but a lot of them were hosted on services with no real business model. Even back then, not a lot of people self-hosted.

    • Pulptastic ( Pulptastic@midwest.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      More effective is a massive understatement. Now they can precisely measure effectiveness and adjust their strategy in real time to maximize output. They have increased effective effectiveness several fold. The cat is out of the bag, even if we try to roll this back the googles of the world know the data is there and can’t not harvest it. Our best strategy has to combine regulation and monopoly busting, break these companies into smaller ones that have less power to comb through big data.

      For a good read on this, check out The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuniga.

  • Lemmchen ( Lemmchen@feddit.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 years ago

    But taking on controversial topics because we believe they make the internet better for all of us is a key feature of Mozilla’s history.

    Is it?

    I would rather have a world where Mozilla is actively engaged in creating positive solutions for hard problems, than one where we only critique from the sidelines.

    Maybe your users don’t.

  • datavoid ( datavoid@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years 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.

    • Very unlikely. They will support new extension API’s (they are already 90%+ compatible with manifest v3) bit Mozilla has committed to maintaining compatibility for the manifest v2 API’s that don’t exist in v3.

      Claims otherwise are FUD.

        • cybermass ( cybermass@lemmy.ca ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Well y’know what, if the cost of that is some backed in ads on the new tab page I am totally good with that.

          YouTube allows just about any ads on their site, so many recent examples of scams and malicious sites advertising on there.

          • abbenm ( abbenm@lemmy.ml ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Yeah, I don’t love Manifest V3 adoption, just for what it implies about Google’s ability to push standards it wants. (Is google even pretending it’s not purposely targeting ad blockers with V3?) But if you have to, this is the way to go.

  • 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.

    • Ephera ( Ephera@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s probably at least a factor, yeah. They’ve been trying to reduce dependence on Google for a long time, which was always a smash hit with the community (not), but if there’s a very concrete scenario where will stop paying, then the urgency ramps up quickly.