Improving online advertising through product and infrastructure | The Mozilla Blog

⁨115⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨tux0r@feddit.org⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-advertising/

our expanded focus on online advertising won’t be embraced by everyone in our community

you don’t say

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

jjjalljs@ttrpg.network ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Targeted ads should be illegal.

Contextual ads are a compromise I would accept. That is, you can buy ads based on the page content, but not the viewer details. So if I’m looking at a website about bikes, you can have bike ads on there. You don’t need to know I’m a xx year old living in zip code 10001. That’s how ads worked for like decades (centuries?). It’s fine.

source
capt_kafei@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I’m honestly not against this. I know a lot of people will be furious with Mozilla about doing anything related to advertising, but as the article says:

And, for the foreseeable future at least, advertising is a key commercial engine of the internet, and the most efficient way to ensure the majority of content remains free and accessible to as many people as possible.

We may dislike ads, but the vast majority of internet users are not going to engage with content that requires you to pay up front. Creators and journalists need money to survive, and currently, ad-supported viewing is necessary for that to happen.

Instead of just hoping that advertising somehow goes away, I’m glad that Mozilla is working on ways for ads to exist without mass individual user tracking. I wish it wasn’t necessary, but wishing won’t change the world.

source
- LWD@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  With all due respect, Mozilla is now (and, for a while, has been) an ad company. When an ad company tells you ads are necessary, you should not trust them. Plenty of lousy things have been entrenched as social norms, but it is the job of the entrenchers to justify their existence… Which Mozilla is definitely not doing here.
  
  source
- tux0r@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  Creators and journalists need money to survive, and currently, ad-supported viewing is necessary for that to happen.
  
  The only way out of this is to block advertising. I, personally, think that you should not have a website if you can’t pay for it yourself, but the only acceptable kind of website income is a paywall. If you just have “better advertising”, advertising will never go away. And I hate ads.
  
  source
  - d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    I, personally, think that you should not have a website if you can’t pay for it yourself
    
    You might want to consider how expensive web hosting can be, depending on the content and traffic. A belief like that can shut out a huge portion of the world from being able to even bother with a web site. Even a simple blog can get very expensive due to traffic. Maybe not expensive enough for your average 1st world individual… But that still excludes a large portion of the population with internet access.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Consider this: every website where you block ads is now inaccessible to you. How did that belief work out?
    
    source
- Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  There was another model of sorts in “scroll” but they got acquired by Twitter and … Who knows if that technology will ever get used again.
  
  The scroll model was that you pay $5/mo or so and the Internet becomes ad free (at least for sites that had a relationship with scroll).
  
  source
- Soapbox1858@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  I don’t mind simple static ads on websites as a way to keep them free to use. The reason I use an ad blocker is because websites use ads that flash, play video/audio, and dynamically resize causing the text you are trying to read to jump around and change, making the site unusable. Even with an adblocker, sometimes the only way to use those sites is with reader mode. I disable the adblocker on sites that display reasonable, mostly static advertising. People putting in the work to make the content deserve to eat.
  
  source
zecg@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Fuck you, Mozilla. I’ll turn off any option you expose and run away to Librewolf or Fennec as soon as you cross the line. And the line is ublock origin, make no mistake about that. Here’s a tip: Raymond Hill is the most valuable asset Mozilla has and, here’s the kicker – YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE HIM.

source
- beanlink@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Yup people saying run to Firefox yet they walk in line with Google every time as an illusion of choice.
  
  source
pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Yeah screw these guys, I’m going back to chrome!

But really, relax guys. Ads are the only way to run a profitable browser business. Change my mind. Any paid solution won’t get the scale to make the numbers work.

source
- donescobar@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  LibreWolf works perfectly fine, it’s a great Firefox fork putting privacy first.
  
  source
- tux0r@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Why do you think a web browser needs to make money?
  
  source
  - pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Cause food costs money and people need food and software needs people. I don’t make the rules, just play by them.
    
    source