Ancestors

Toot

Written by Blizzard@lemmy.zip on 2024-10-04 at 06:09

Mozilla doubling down on ads in Firefox

https://lemmy.zip/post/23894698

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Blizzard@lemmy.zip

Descendants

Written by ArbiterXero@lemmy.world on 2024-10-04 at 06:18

Gotta pay the bills somehow, and I’m just happy they care about privacy.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ArbiterXero@lemmy.world

Written by pipariturbiini@sopuli.xyz on 2024-10-04 at 06:26

I dislike ads as much as the next person, and find uBlock Origin necessary for browsing the web, but the cold fact is that the internet is run with advertising, whether you like it or not.

If that is done without creating a profile on me, and without crippling the reading/viewing experience, I can tolerate advertisement.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from pipariturbiini@sopuli.xyz

Written by mnmalst@lemmy.zip on 2024-10-04 at 07:23

Happy to see some sane comments here. Couldn’t have said it better. You can hate ads and still keep a foot in reality.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mnmalst@lemmy.zip

Written by Lexam@lemmy.ca on 2024-10-04 at 10:49

I choose to keep both feet firmly planted in unreality.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Lexam@lemmy.ca

Written by Sneezycat on 2024-10-04 at 11:46

If ads are necessary for the internet, I’m going back to reading books. It was fun y’all.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sneezycat@sopuli.xyz

Written by parpol@programming.dev on 2024-10-04 at 13:49

They put ads in books too, unfortunately. The internet ones you can block.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from parpol@programming.dev

Written by TurtleTourParty@midwest.social on 2024-10-04 at 14:31

Book ads are at least usually at the end of the book and for other books you might want to read. And they’re static. If internet ads were like book ads I wouldn’t have to block them.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TurtleTourParty@midwest.social

Written by XTL@sopuli.xyz on 2024-10-04 at 12:06

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from XTL@sopuli.xyz

Written by kylian0087@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 2024-10-04 at 07:33

I absolute despise ads but they are a necessary evil, it can be implemented well if it is not done intrusive and doesn’t take up more then the content it self. Also if it are mostly scam ads and such they might as well not have ads at all.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kylian0087@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Written by Kairos on 2024-10-04 at 08:11

The internet is run with egress contracts. The web is run with ads.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from LodeMike@lemmy.today

Written by NateNate60@lemmy.world on 2024-10-04 at 08:15

Okay bud. Have a biscuit 🍪

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from NateNate60@lemmy.world

Written by Kairos on 2024-10-04 at 21:14

Tay :)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from LodeMike@lemmy.today

Written by the post of tom joad on 2024-10-04 at 10:21

?? What birds got do wif the web? You crazy

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works

Written by the post of tom joad on 2024-10-04 at 10:22

?? What? Bird law got nothin to do with the web you crazy

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works

Written by BearOfaTime@lemm.ee on 2024-10-04 at 15:51

Fuck ads.

You’re lying to yourself if you think ads will ever be delivered without tracking.

This whole “anonymization” nonsense is a lie. It’s been shown, repeatedly, that data can be de-anonymised, especially data that’s not exactly narrowly collected.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BearOfaTime@lemm.ee

Written by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al on 2024-10-04 at 07:17

A bit disingenuous to call explaining what they’re doing as doubling down.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al

Written by parpol@programming.dev on 2024-10-04 at 07:30

Also disingeneous to call it adding ads to firefox, because that’s also not what is happening.

They’re trying to replace cookies with something better for our privacy, and them developing this feature will not impact any users who block ads or disable tracking cookies already.

I think they should go ahead and make the feature so that people who don’t care about ads at least don’t get tracked.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from parpol@programming.dev

Written by youmaynotknow on 2024-10-04 at 12:19

They are not trying to “replace” cookies. This is effectively adding yet another way to track users. Sure, may not be as invasive as cookies, but this does nothing to remove or modify them either.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jjlinux@lemmy.ml

Written by parpol@programming.dev on 2024-10-04 at 13:47

It doesn’t track users. It collects anonymous statistics and assign them to a unique ID without storing any other information about the user.

And it IS meant to replace cookies, but you can’t just replace them all at once and disable the legacy cookies. It is going to have a gradual transition.

And they did tell us about this many months ago.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from parpol@programming.dev

Written by tiddy@sh.itjust.works on 2024-10-04 at 14:49

I hate to say but technically collecting statistics is non-anonymous identifiable tracking, especially in this age where theres so many datasets companies can coorelate them to

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tiddy@sh.itjust.works

Written by BearOfaTime@lemm.ee on 2024-10-04 at 15:42

Hahaha, because data can never be de-anonymised, right?

Oh, yea, that’s repeatedly been show to not be true.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BearOfaTime@lemm.ee

Written by parpol@programming.dev on 2024-10-04 at 23:34

That depends entirely on what kind of data is stored and how often a new unique ID is created, and that’s something users can seize control over.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from parpol@programming.dev

Written by BearOfaTime@lemm.ee on 2024-10-04 at 15:41

Didn’t we go through all this like a month ago?

Why are people still excusing Mozilla for this?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BearOfaTime@lemm.ee

Written by youmaynotknow on 2024-10-04 at 23:38

Right? They’ve done some good stuff over the years, but that does not eliminate the fact that they have chosen to be part of all the enshitification going on.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jjlinux@lemmy.ml

Written by LWD@lemm.ee on 2024-10-04 at 14:28

disingeneous to call it adding ads

Who called it adding

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from LWD@lemm.ee

Written by flappy@lemm.ee on 2024-10-04 at 09:32

So banning ublock origin lite from the addon store was malice, after all?

That means they will drop MV2 as soon as Chrome ends the business/legacy support, since they were the alternative.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from flappy@lemm.ee

Written by disguised_doge on 2024-10-04 at 10:00

I think the ublock origin lite thing was a legitimate mistake, though I understand Mozilla's depleting benefit of the doubt.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from disguised_doge@kbin.earth

Written by melroy on 2024-10-04 at 11:11

THe developer also don't want to develop uBLock Origin Lite. Mozilla is sucking all energy out of people.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from melroy@kbin.melroy.org

Written by ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org on 2024-10-04 at 11:59

of course they don’t want, it’s such an inferior addon that it’s almost useless for privacy. it’s little besides just visually hiding ads

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org

Written by melroy on 2024-10-04 at 13:49

uh.. no... The add-on was also developed for Firefox, which still have Manifest V2. Because of the headache of Mozilla, Hill decided to stop development for Mozilla and only release the latest (signed) add-on via github, without further updates. The developer just makes a statement that it's getting so worse to develop for Firefox that he just doesn't do it anymore.

https://www.ghacks.net/2024/10/01/mozillas-massive-lapse-in-judgement-causes-clash-with-ublock-origin-developer/

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from melroy@kbin.melroy.org

Written by ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org on 2024-10-05 at 15:43

yes, it was made for Firefox too. did I say it wasn’t? but I think there was no real reason for anyone to use it on Firefox.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org

Written by melroy on 2024-10-04 at 11:11

I'm very happy that I moved to Floorp.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from melroy@kbin.melroy.org

Written by Blizzard@lemmy.zip on 2024-10-04 at 13:50

No idea what’s that but it sounds… sticky.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Blizzard@lemmy.zip

Written by Random Dent on 2024-10-04 at 14:50

[Here ya go!](Here ya go!) It’s a Japanese fork of FF that’s more privacy-focused. I prefer Librewolf personally, but it’s good to have options I guess.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml

Written by melroy on 2024-10-05 at 08:34

Fork of Firefox

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from melroy@kbin.melroy.org

Written by Blizzard@lemmy.zip on 2024-10-05 at 08:51

Firefork

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Blizzard@lemmy.zip

Written by clb92 on 2024-10-04 at 20:00

I just… I… I can’t install a browser that’s called “Floorp”. I just cant. I wouldn’t be able to look another person in the eyes and tell them that “I use floorp”. It’s probably a perfectly good fork of Firefox, but I just can’t.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from clb92@feddit.dk

Written by fireshell@lemmy.ml on 2024-10-04 at 13:47

And you downvoted me for my position about Mozilla

Laura Chambers, who replaced Mitchell Baker this year

They say it right: “A woman on a ship means trouble!” And when there’s a whole line of women and inclusivity, the ship is doomed anyway, it’ll sink with the crew - it’s just a matter of time. Mozilla was a good company once, and the browser was not bad, but today there are no good browsers.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fireshell@lemmy.ml

Written by datavoid@lemmy.ml on 2024-10-04 at 14:02

I have a suspicion you were downvoted for your view on women, not Mozilla

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from datavoid@lemmy.ml

Written by fireshell@lemmy.ml on 2024-10-04 at 14:06

in the previous topic they downvoted

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fireshell@lemmy.ml

Written by Beetle_O_Rourke [she/her, comrade/them] on 2024-10-04 at 14:42

Can’t snort cocaine off your secretary’s tummy anymore, because of WOKE!

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Beetle_O_Rourke@hexbear.net

Written by Kuori [she/her] on 2024-10-04 at 14:45

you’re a stupid piece of shit. look up the glass cliff and then drown in a septic tank.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Kuori@hexbear.net

Written by WIIHAPPYFEW [he/him, they/them] on 2024-10-04 at 15:30

feel like shit just want it back smh

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from WIIHAPPYFEW@hexbear.net

Written by Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them] on 2024-10-05 at 15:17

Yeah, I’m sure it was women that ruined Mozilla and not the same capitalist enshittification that ruins everything.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net

Written by fireshell@lemmy.ml on 2024-10-04 at 14:03

I can already see a crowd of advertisers running to them for the remaining 3% of its users.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fireshell@lemmy.ml

Written by refalo@programming.dev on 2024-10-04 at 14:37

69% of the world population doesn’t use ad blockers. Google made their billions from people clicking on ads.

Not only are we technical folks, only 5% of the population, not their target audience, it seems most people don’t care enough about ads to ever try to stop them… at all.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from refalo@programming.dev

Written by Blizzard@lemmy.zip on 2024-10-04 at 15:04

69%

Nice.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Blizzard@lemmy.zip

Written by Yi K on 2024-10-04 at 15:32

I installed local-network-wide DNS adblockers. After the change my mother found me and asked me why she couldn’t see the ads: she needed the ads and were enjoying them.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yikerman@lemmy.world

Written by youmaynotknow on 2024-10-05 at 02:34

That is fucking epic. I had (not anymore) a similar issue with my wife and ads about shoes and coats. So I allowed all the crap on her devices only on Adguard Home.

Then her phone died, I gave her mine with GrapheneOS on it,until she could get a new one. The first 2 weeks were a pain: “where’s the playstore?”, “what is this gayscale chrome (Vanadium)?”, “My banking app keeps crashing”, etc. After a while we started spending more time doing things together, she was spending more time with the kids, and was being way more productive I was her business.

Long story short, she kept the phone, I ended up getting a new one, and she even asked me to remove Windows from her computer and set her up with Fedora.

It’s a habit thing, I think.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jjlinux@lemmy.ml

Written by toastal@lemmy.ml on 2024-10-05 at 06:39

My wife has slowly been walking away from everything like that too. The hard part is she has done a lot in marketing & now wonders if it is all bullshit/evil, but it is still needed even for the good products & services, just not in deceptive or manipulative manner.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from toastal@lemmy.ml

Written by WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world on 2024-10-04 at 15:07

That’s really nuts to me when I run into it in the wild. It’s so easy and such a qol upgrade. I know a guy who self hosts a bunch of services, programming job, but does not use any ad block at all. He’s on the computer all day. Just looking at ads.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world

Written by refalo@programming.dev on 2024-10-04 at 15:18

such a qol upgrade

I don’t think you’re wrong, but I do think that if everyone thought that, they would be doing it already.

I have routinely tried to get friends and family to use ad-blockers and they simply don’t care enough to even attempt to download one.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from refalo@programming.dev

Written by psud@aussie.zone on 2024-10-05 at 02:28

I occasionally accidentally open the fandom page for a game on Chrome with no ad block (which I keep around for Google apps) and it’s unusable. Go there on Firefox with ublock origin and it’s fine

And there’s worse sites than that

Download sites for things like Minecraft mods have several competing “download” buttons without ad block

It’s nuts people might accept these, let alone want them

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from psud@aussie.zone

Written by BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip on 2024-10-04 at 18:49

Yet another Mozilla hit piece that seemingly-intentionally misrepresents the good they’re doing for users.

It begs the question: who has the means and motivation to consistently pay “journalists” to malign the only browser that has the slightest chance of tearing any significant amount of users away from chromium-based browsers?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip

Written by felsiq@lemmy.zip on 2024-10-04 at 19:40

…did we read two different articles? The only link I see is to Mozilla’s own blog, explaining their choices in a relatively positive way. I’ve seen the effect you pointed out a lot, I just don’t see it here.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from felsiq@lemmy.zip

Written by floofloof@lemmy.ca on 2024-10-04 at 20:01

I guess the hit piece is just the title OP put on the post.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from floofloof@lemmy.ca

Written by BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip on 2024-10-04 at 23:03

Nope; you read an article, and I just reacted to comments on Lemmy, assuming that those commenting had read the article.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip

Written by ozoned on 2024-10-05 at 13:35

First off, yes, the title of the post is misleading. Firefox is creating a privacy focused ad system. However, I legit don’t get who this is for.

As a user, I’m not turning off my adblockers. Yes, privacy is important. I’m ok with some ads, but I’m not going to risk my privacy and security, because it’s not like I’ll have a clue who is backing said ads. So it’s not for me.

Normal users have shown that they really don’t care, let alone have any kind of clue what’s going on. So it’s not for them.

Advertisers have huge incentive to show you targeted ads. They don’t want to show someone an ad on the other side of the planet for something they don’t have access to. Also why would they want to show you an ad for something completely unrelated. What’s the incentive for them to give up their targeted ads?

It’s not like Firefox is poising themselves for any kind of government oversight. I’m in the US, and the US gov doesn’t seem to give a shit. And the EU, while they have GDPR and they’re fining companies left and right, it doesn’t seem like they’re really targeting these kinds of ads. Outside of those two I don’t know anything about other countries honestly.

So again, I have zero clue who this is for or why Mozilla thinks this will be successful. There’s no incentive or knowledge that this is needed.

I use Firefox. I run Linux. I’m not trying to bash Mozilla here. I’m not trying to be a naysayer. I’m just trying to understand what kind of real world use case this solves and incentivizes users and advertises to use it over the alternatives.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ozoned@lemmy.world

Written by ozoned on 2024-10-05 at 13:40

Also, WHY should I trust Mozilla with this? I use Firefox because it’s the best alternative at the moment. However, Mozilla is degrading that trust by pushing their weather thing, pocket, turning on their ad network, etc.

Like a real reason I should trust Mozilla with this. Any company is 1 executive away from becoming Google levels of anti-privacy. So why would I EVER trust this?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ozoned@lemmy.world

Proxy Information
Original URL
gemini://mastogem.picasoft.net/thread/113247659759685323
Status Code
Success (20)
Meta
text/gemini
Capsule Response Time
539.075566 milliseconds
Gemini-to-HTML Time
22.382446 milliseconds

This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).