LAURA CHAMBERS, CEO, MOZILLA CORPORATION As Mark shared in his blog, Mozilla is going to be more active in digital advertising. Our hypothesis is that we n

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

you don’t say

  • capt_kafei@lemmy.caEnglish
    2916·
    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.

    • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
      223·
      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.

    • rhabarba@feddit.orgOPEnglish
      198·
      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.

      • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        134·
        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.

        • rhabarba@feddit.orgOPEnglish
          49·
          1 month ago

          So? Is anyone who can’t afford one legally obliged to have a website?

          • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            103·
            1 month ago

            No, but if its prohibitively impossible to do so, people with legitimate good ideas will never be able to do anything about it. Barriers to entry only serve the wealthy.

        • richmondez@lemdro.idEnglish
          11·
          1 month ago

          And if everyone blocked ads and couldn’t see sites that insisted on advertising, how would that work out for the websites?

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.ggEnglish
            2·
            1 month ago

            Totally fine. That website does not at all benefit from your presence if you’re not paying them in any way (unless it’s a social media website).

            • richmondez@lemdro.idEnglish
              1·
              30 days ago

              Why have content on the web at all if it can’t be viewed by anyone? Even if generated with an intention to generate profit, there is no opportunity to do so if no one is looking at it.

              • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.ggEnglish
                1·
                30 days ago

                Plenty of sites operate on advertising or paywall based methods or additional services beyond what they publicly offer.

                The web is a lot of things not just free “journalism” and personal blogs.

                This argument that all websites should just be free content that the author not only takes the time to write but actively loses money to host is just not realistic.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.ggEnglish
      4·
      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). The money you paid got shared with the sites you visited based on your relative usage (and of course scroll kept some for themselves too).

      If Mozilla brought something like that back to the table, I could get on board.

    • Soapbox1858@lemm.eeEnglish
      3·
      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.

      • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.orgEnglish
        31·
        1 month ago

        The sane way is to allow all sites only to load the main HTML document. Sites that get return visits and have earned some trust get to have their CSS loaded.

        You will never see another advertisement “jump around” again

        I use uMatrix btw