Despite its emphasis on protecting privacy, Mozilla is moving towards integrating ads, backed by new infrastructure from their acquisition of Anonym. They claim this will maintain a balance between user control and online ad economics, using privacy-preserving tech. However, this shift appears to contradict Mozilla’s earlier stance of protecting users from invasive advertising practices, and it signals a change in their priorities.

    • Blizzard@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      43 minutes ago

      Don’t quote me on this but if I remember correctly, Mozilla foundation has nothing to do with Firefox development and was also kind of shady for some reason.

  • tourist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    fuck it

    just going to print out the man pages for wget and study it like a religious text

  • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It’d be cool if Mozilla could just stick with one thing for more than a couple months. Even if that thing is terrible. Right now it’s like some physical embodiment of ADHD is running the company.

  • zurohki@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m not interested in my computer striking a balance between my needs and the needs of people seeking to manipulate me into buying things.

    I paid for my computer, it serves my needs. Yes I do run Linux, how did you guess?

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      But that isn’t the balance that’s being struck. Mozilla is trying to balance between useful services being available for free and people’s right to privacy. If you’re using any websites that has staff employed, they’re more likely than not being paid for by advertising.

      • Tekhne@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Honestly, despite the crypto, good on Brave browser for trying to subvert the advertising model by providing an actual monetization alternative

        • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          What does this even mean? Brave didnt find something to “subvert the advertising model”, they have a subscription lol. Mozilla is trying to keep its browser free and safe, especially now that it’s losing its billion dollar google funding.

  • hackerwacker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I will never ever accept any ad technology except maybe <a href="company_url"><img src="funny_picture.gif"></a>

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 minutes ago

      Would you look at that, privacy preserving advertisement!

      Let’s take it one step further and go really crazy with a/b testing

      <a href="company_url/campaign1"><img src="funny_picture.gif"></a>
      
      <a href="company_url/campaign2"><img src="different_picture.gif"></a>
      

      😲

  • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Mozilla sold out a long time ago, they are nothing like they used to be. Everyone should be ditching Firefox for forks if possible. Yes, Firefox is still miles ahead of anything Chromium-based but we can’t trust Mozilla to not screw over their users anymore (and it’s been apparent for YEARS…Pocket, “Sponsored” shortcuts and links, Mozilla VPN popup ads, this behavior is hardly new). What can we trust? Firefox forks with the bullshit stripped out, mostly. I’ve been using LibreWolf for several years on my Linux, Windows, and MacOS systems now. I originally switched because of the Mozilla VPN popups but at the time, complaining about those popups was met with a bunch of Mozilla apologists going “it’s not that bad” “they’re a big company and they need their precious monies”…no. That was ADVERTISING front and center, and it was in Firefox years ago. So was Pocket. So was having Amazon links auto-filled on the new tab shortcuts. Go to something that isn’t run by money. Go to a community-maintained and sanitized fork.

    • pipe01@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It’s crazy how for me the worst thing about Firefox is how much people complain about it online, never had a single issue with it

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You do understand those forks do 1% of the work required to keep the Firefox codebase performant, standards compliant and technically sound?

      If Mozilla disappears those forks will too.

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Hopefully Mozilla employees will kick out their money sink CEO with double legs before the browser disappears for good.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Been called an idiot for saying that I wouldn’t trust Firefox as far as I can throw it like 2 months ago after they made telemetry opt out.

      I can’t believe that someone who is privacy conscientious would just stick to their guns rather than watching out for their privacy.

      I just hope someone else picks up the shards and runs with it and then we can all just focus on making them better instead of getting riled up over a god damn browser lol.

  • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    we maintain the same goal – to build digital advertising solutions that respect individuals’ rights

    Does it include the right to be able to choose not to be advertised to?

    Yes, advertising enables free access to most of what the internet provides

    What does this even mean?

    I don’t read their blog posts but seems like they have fully embraced startup lingo.

    • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      At the end of the day web sites cost money. There needs to be a way to fund them.

      People 100% aren’t going to pay to access every random website they want to visit. So what you’d end up with in a world without ads is only the big corporations being able to run a website.

      Back in my day (lol) ads were based on the website not the user. When you set up ads you selected keywords for your website and those were used to select ads.

      Like you’d visit a programming blog and get ads for computer games and porn. Made total sense. You’re still targeting your target audience just not the individual.

      Targeted ads are obviously way more effective and therefore generate more money. But it’s not the only way.

      The alternative is to set up some system where you pay a monthly fee and it’s divided amongst the websites you use. But that seems like an equally bad privacy nightmare.

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

        Targeted ads are obviously way more effective and therefore generate more money. But it’s not the only way.

        I’m not so sure this has turned out to be all that true