Firefox

17937 readers

38 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

207

Mozilla explains their recent foray into advertising - A free and open internet shouldn’t come at the expense of privacy (blog.mozilla.org)

submitted 1 month ago by Blisterexe to c/[email protected]

149 comments fedilink hide all child comments

MARK SURMAN, PRESIDENT, MOZILLA Keeping the internet, and the content that makes it a vital and vibrant part of our global society, free and accessible has

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@sugar_in_your_tea @felsiq

I like the idea of GNU Taler a lot. I honestly didn't realize it was still around. I'll have to explore its source code sometime.

> But honestly, I also don’t care what the currency is, I just want a way to pay a website without seeing ads and without making an account.

This is what I would like too. I think there are a few reasons it will be hard to switch to this model. Perhaps the main one is that the advertising model allows sites to charge more and more attention for the same (or degraded) service, and that's harder to do if people see their money being spent. Another is that sites want to be able to charge more for popular content. That's easy with advertising, but with real payments as the price increases demand will slow down. So it will be harder for sites to get massive views. Finally, I think most sites overvalue their content and direct payment may increase the amount of spam.

> Mozilla probably wouldn’t be able to convince Google to join, but it could probably be an extension, and they could maybe convince Apple to join.

I don't think Mozilla is interested in this sort of solution. Meta needs Mozilla and the Anonym ad tracking tech to fight the attacks from Google and Apple made in the name of privacy. Meta has tons of money to make that happen. Previously Google needed Mozilla to prove it wasn't a browser monopoly. Now that source of cash is gone and Meta's executives are inside Mozilla. Remember when Facebook made a bunch of people sad just to see if they could? Or when they spied on teens' phone usage through a VPN app? The people who made those decisions are now making decisions for Mozilla.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I think there are a few reasons it will be hard to switch to this model.

It's the same model advertisers use though. Here's the flow for ads:

Ads load from the advertiser, with metadata about which website to pay
Periodically, advertisers pay the website for showing ads

All that's changing is the browser vendor is paying instead of the advertiser. So I guess think of Mozilla "paying" for ads, but not showing anything, and Mozilla's non-ads would show if a given header is present.

Another is that sites want to be able to charge more for popular content. That’s easy with advertising

Sure, and users could decide to see the ads or pay the premium to avoid them.

And yeah, I agree that most sites overvalue their content. This makes that more transparent, so users will gravitate toward the better value. I personally avoid a lot of high quality content because viewing it is too much of a hassel, a privacy violation, or too expensive (I'm not getting another subscription to read a handful of articles).

I don’t think Mozilla is interested in this sort of solution.

Agreed. But unfortunately, Mozilla seems like the best chance we have here. Brave replaces website ads (big no-no for many sites), Chrome doesn't EB want ad blocking at all, and Microsoft is cooking its own ad network.

So the most obvious niche left is an un-ad network, where you can pay to not see ads. Yet Mozilla wants to make "ethical ads" or whatever, which doesn't really solve the problem for people who hate ads.