this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Firefox

17154 readers
62 users here now

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Just wanted to surface this comment, because not enough people are cognizant of the fact that adblockers do their job and prevent any PPA submissions.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. This helps the quiet majority, and the people who would turn it off are also those who would block ads anyway. So the majority gets a privacy bump, and those who hate ads get what they've always gotten.

I honestly don't see the issue here.

If Firefox blocked all ads by default, why would a website bother making any accomodations for Firefox? The number of "broken" websites would go up and Firefox users would get even more frustrated. If the quiet majority, who are okay with ads, leave because websites are broken, the rest of us are worse off.

On the flip side, if Firefox is able to broker a deal where privacy is respected so some of the privacy community disable ad-blockers (probably another quiet majority), that's a net win for advertisers because they're getting access to a demographic they otherwise wouldn't. Firefox could take a share of the profits as well, which provides another revenue stream apart from search, meaning Firefox is more independent.

I honestly don't see the issue with PPA. It sounds:

  • good for users - more privacy
  • good for advertisers - more people seeing ads
  • meh for anti-ads people - ad-blockers can still block these ads, or you can disable the feature
  • good for Firefox - privacy win + more revenue streams

That's exactly the thing Firefox should be doing, finding a way to increase privacy while making itself more independent from Google search revenue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Does this introduce more revenue streams for Mozilla? This dev said this does not impact their financials in any significant way. Your post is a hypothetical, but this opt-out feature is very real.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Privacy features, in Firefox, are not meant to be opt-in. " But anti privacy features and user influencing features are. So what's the point here?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I think they believe it's not anti-privacy, but a lesser of two evils.

Mozilla/Firefox simply can't exist without ads. Google same thing. So why would they actively contribute to their own demise by declaring war on ads?

Instead they chose a compromise that still allows ads but in a more responsible/private way. And you can still turn it off. Sure it should have been opt-in, but I think most people wouldn't use it then and we're back to the same problems.