• The Hobbyist@lemmy.zipEnglish
    31·
    3 months ago

    I fully understand this to be a controversial take, but I think it is important to acknowledge that not all advertisement is the same. While I dislike all forms of advertisement, I only take issue with non ethical ones, which are based on surveillance. I don’t have any ethical concern with contextual advertisement which is how some search engines provide advertisement, such as giving advertisement for food when searching for food.

    But it is also critically important that extensions remain a part of the browser, to give a certain level of control to the person navigating the web instead of just allowing any website to freely track our activities.

    I don’t know what the path forward is for Mozilla. Google is unlikely to be able to fund Mozilla the way it has until now as a recent ruling which has deemed google as a monopolistic actor clawing at its default status everywhere it can. This was a major founding source for Mozilla. They need to figure out financing and while it is easy to criticize, we must also recognize the challenge it is to give sustainable and important funding sources to Mozilla. I really wish I had an answer… Can it somehow depend exclusively on its users for donations? Should It sell support services? Should it branch into more lucrative areas? If yes, which ones? It may need to be a combination thereof but for now, I’m personally blinded. We need to get together on this, because if we can’t help Mozilla, can we help anyone who might fall into this situation?

    • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      If a company is unethical, they will ignore the Mozilla standard. If a company is ethical, they don’t need the Mozilla standard, as they can adopt their own tracking-free methods of serving ads.

      I have been told repeatedly by Firefox advertisement advocates that PPA only affects people that don’t use ad blockers, so it allegedly only affects people that are already blasted by tracking networks to the fullest extent possible, while people who use ad blockers wouldn’t see the supposedly less invasive ads anyway. So it’s either 100% tracking to 110% tracking, or 0% tracking to 0% tracking. Seems like a lose-lose scenario for both sides of the equation.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      7·
      3 months ago

      The browser should not be aiding it, regardless of how nice it acts. The most important extensions - by a fucking mile - are ad-blockers. They represent a crystal clear separation of websites delivering data versus what the user chooses to do with it. All threats to that distinction are a foot in the door for losing control of how your computer does what you want.

      Quite frankly Mozilla’s been an obstacle to Firefox for many years. I don’t trust them and I don’t like them. This is yet another desperate pivot that squanders some of their vanishing goodwill and market share.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.eeEnglish
      23·
      3 months ago

      Fuck advertisers at this point.

      Maybe in 1999 I was still with you, but they’ve continually shown, not just disregard for out concerns, but a flat out “fuck you” malicious adversarialism.

      So fuck all advertisers at this point. Every fucking last one of them.

      I will block them every way I can. I will poison their tracking. I will do everything I can to fuck with them.

      Don’t be an apologist for their bullshit.

      And if you bring up the “well websites will cost you then”. That’s a whole lotta not my problem. If you want to host a server, that’s your problem how to pay for it.

      I currently pay for my internet, and you want me to subsidize your ads by paying my ISP to deliver those ads.

      I also pay for my own VPS, and related services, for stuff I want to do, such as provide some services to family and friends. Should I serve ads to them to subsidize my server costs?