cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/23894598

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.

    • pipariturbiini@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I dislike ads as much as the next person, and find uBlock Origin necessary for browsing the web, but the cold fact is that the internet is run with advertising, whether you like it or not.

      If that is done without creating a profile on me, and without crippling the reading/viewing experience, I can tolerate advertisement.

      I assume this is also an action towards becoming independent from Google funding; which is a good thing.

  • fireshell@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I can already see a crowd of advertisers running to them for the remaining 3% of its users.

  • ozoned@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    First off, yes, the title of the post is misleading. Mozilla is creating a privacy focused ad system. However, I legit don’t get who this is for.

    As a user, I’m not turning off my adblockers. Yes, privacy is important. I’m ok with some ads, but I’m not going to risk my privacy and security, because it’s not like I’ll have a clue who is backing said ads. So it’s not for me.

    Normal users have shown that they really don’t care, let alone have any kind of clue what’s going on. So it’s not for them.

    Advertisers have huge incentive to show you targeted ads. They don’t want to show someone an ad on the other side of the planet for something they don’t have access to. Also why would they want to show you an ad for something completely unrelated. What’s the incentive for them to give up their targeted ads?

    It’s not like Mozilla is poising themselves for any kind of government oversight. I’m in the US, and the US gov doesn’t seem to give a shit. And the EU, while they have GDPR and they’re fining companies left and right, it doesn’t seem like they’re really targeting these kinds of ads. Outside of those two I don’t know anything about other countries honestly.

    So again, I have zero clue who this is for or why Mozilla thinks this will be successful. There’s no incentive or knowledge that this is needed.

    I use Firefox. I run Linux. I’m not trying to bash Mozilla here. I’m not trying to be a naysayer. I’m just trying to understand what kind of real world use case this solves and incentivizes users and advertises to use it over the alternatives.

    • ozoned@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Also, WHY should I trust Mozilla with this? I use Firefox because it’s the best alternative at the moment. However, Mozilla is degrading that trust by pushing their weather thing, pocket, turning on their ad network, etc.

      Like a real reason I should trust Mozilla with this. Any company is 1 executive away from becoming Google levels of anti-privacy. So why would I EVER trust this?

  • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Yet another Mozilla hit piece that seemingly-intentionally misrepresents the good they’re doing for users.

    It begs the question: who has the means and motivation to consistently pay “journalists” to malign the only browser that has the slightest chance of tearing any significant amount of users away from chromium-based browsers?

    EDIT: Turns out the answer to my question above might, in fact, be OP! They wrote a patently false, inflammatory title that isn’t supported by the article (or reality) at all, and I fell for it like a sucker.

    • felsiq@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      …did we read two different articles? The only link I see is to Mozilla’s own blog, explaining their choices in a relatively positive way. I’ve seen the effect you pointed out a lot, I just don’t see it here.

      • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Nope; you read an article, and I just reacted to comments on Lemmy, assuming that those commenting had read the article.

        If I’d simply opened the link, I’d’ve seen it was on mozilla.org and would’ve realized it was just that the OP made a shitty clickbait title, not another Mozilla hit piece.

        Shame on you, OP! Also shame on me.

  • flappy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    So banning ublock origin lite from the addon store was malice, after all?

    That means they will drop MV2 as soon as Chrome ends the business/legacy support, since they were the alternative.

    • disguised_doge@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think the ublock origin lite thing was a legitimate mistake, though I understand Mozilla’s depleting benefit of the doubt.

      • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        THe developer also don’t want to develop uBLock Origin Lite. Mozilla is sucking all energy out of people.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          of course they don’t want, it’s such an inferior addon that it’s almost useless for privacy. it’s little besides just visually hiding ads. but that’s the best that can be done on chrome

          • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            uh… no… The add-on was also developed for Firefox, which still have Manifest V2. Because of the headache of Mozilla, Hill decided to stop development for Mozilla and only release the latest (signed) add-on via github, without further updates. The developer just makes a statement that it’s getting so worse to develop for Firefox that he just doesn’t do it anymore.

            https://www.ghacks.net/2024/10/01/mozillas-massive-lapse-in-judgement-causes-clash-with-ublock-origin-developer/

            • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              yes, it was made for Firefox too. did I say it wasn’t? but I think there was no real reason for anyone to use it on Firefox.

              • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Well you said:

                but that’s the best that can be done on chrome

                And I think the best use of such a plugin is actually to use it on Firefox. Since Firefox (or Firefox forks) still support Manifest v2. So actually ad-blocks on Chrome are worse, because Google created Manifest v3, which sounds newer… but it ACTUALLY worse. Manifest v3 basically disallow developer to block ads effectively. Just in the name of kugh kugh ‘privacy’ or ‘security’… Don’t get fooled by Google here!!

                SO please do not use Google Chrome, they are killing ad-blockers by the introduction of Manifest v3. More info: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-ad-blockers/

                • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I agree with you, I think there might have been a misunderstanding.

                  Well you said:

                  but that’s the best that can be done on chrome

                  that’s true. what I wanted to mean is that I don’t think gorhill really wants to develop that addon (uBO Lite), as I can imagine he’s fed up with the limitations and how little he can do there. I don’t know he’s reason for developing it, though. Maybe as an experiment on what it could still accomplish.

                  And I think the best use of such a plugin is actually to use it on Firefox. Since Firefox (or Firefox forks) still support Manifest v2.

                  I’m a little confused here. we don’t need that plugin on Firefox, because we have the full capability version.

                  SO please do not use Google Chrome

                  I totally agree. That would be a huge downgrade. Not looking back, only forward, for FF forks and whatever the future may bring us.