Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is it worth supporting Firefox?

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 224 posts

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#111

Post by adrian1973 »

DanBC wrote: post #61

There's a bunch fo websites (Atlantic being notable) that tell me I'm using an ad-blocker and ask me to turn it off. I'm not. I'm using stock Firefox. So, I guess their conversation goes: > We block Firefox (but don't know that we do so) > We don't see many Firefox users > Why do we optimise for Firefox? It's mildly frustrating that they block users for dumb reasons. (Again, I'm not blocking ads). But it's only a mil…

They are probably detecting that some ad/tracking cookies are not being set... because by default in FF tracking protection is enabled.

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#112

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

johnchristopher wrote: post #14

> I work for a major publisher. Ad-blockers are starting to hurt our revenue big time. No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. > We're doing a redesign now. Manager says that we should just discourage the users of…

> Edit: They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too.

That's why we need to educate users, just like we're doing now about Facebook. They need to understand that this is the worst scenario possible for the so-called "world-wide web".

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#113

Post by rgbrenner »

johnchristopher wrote: post #14

> I work for a major publisher. Ad-blockers are starting to hurt our revenue big time. No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. > We're doing a redesign now. Manager says that we should just discourage the users of…

years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs

I put up with this for years because I do believe that websites need a way to support themselves. But then a Forbes ad tried to download a virus.. and then I got another ad like it on WashingtonPost. These are big, dull websites.. the last place I would expect that.

I've been on the internet since the 90s. The ads have never been so aggressive (autoplay videos, in particular) or dangerous. I disabled adblock 6 months ago temporarily, and some sites are so loaded down with ads, my browser was unresponsive at points.

I now recommend everyone install ad block. I consider it similar to antivirus software in Windows. What else can I do? I really feel forced to do it. But they refuse to police themselves. It's gotten completely out of hand.

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#114

Post by pjmlp »

dagmx wrote: post #87
pjmlp wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> non-intrusive like television In which country?!? I hardly see any regular TV because in 30m show, 20m are advertisements, and the remaining 10m have lots of product placements.

Bit of an exaggeration. The average show is roughly 22-24 minutes per half hour with the rest going to advertisments.

Try to watch Portuguese TV on prime time, specially when soap operas or loved series are reaching their last episodes.

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#115

Post by gwbas1c »

The bigger problem is that publishers are loosing control over their advertisers. The reason why I block ads is that they turn great websites into horrible experiences.

Remember, the way ads work today is that the web site is delivered to your browser, and then ad networks' Javscript comes in and mangles the page to insert ads wherever the ad network pleases.

In the days of paper, editors laid out where the ads went in newspapers and magazines. There weren't obnoxious blinking ads that would move the text around while you were reading it. Now, publishers hand control over where ads go to the advertisers themselves. The publishers are in denial about the problem they created.

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#116

Post by FRex »

rsoto wrote: post #32

> Extension cannot mimic everything. There are far too many features. NaCl, other css values. Also we use obfuscated js to resist reverse engineering. There are like 100 features, and more in future that'll be chrome specific. Average time to reverse engineer a 10mb obfuscated js file is like a 1 month. We're safe for 10 years. I'm against this shit tho. Not to be dismissive, but this sounds like he's trolling. One t…

I agree.

One time he (or she) is against that, another time he acts cocky like saying they'll now sabotage opera too (after being told it has a built in ad blocker) or bringing up existing DRM in a tone that is less like being sad those ideas are getting into web and more like he wants the same in html.

It also starts reasonably with just focusing on chrome and then goes to asking google for a html drm, asking google to help sabotage chromium users, blocking firefox using obfuscated 10 mb js even though the site works well on ie8, vague threats of html drm coming soon to end ad blocking in an accusatory tone, saying they do all this to cut costs because each page they send is 3 megs and ff users are freeloaders, etc.

Plus the weird title ('should we support' vs. 'we sabotage'), going with this to reddit instead of anonymously tipping fsf, eff or mozilla off (if he's already willing to leak that info and the fact he works there, the latter could remain hidden if he tipped these orgs off), etc.

Edit: oh, and since css and images are loaded via js (on which he also comments by saying that people using no script 'ironically make their job easier') wouldn't that 10 mb one cause a flicker (fast internet) or a broken website for several seconds (slow internet) during at least the first load uncached load? And 2-3 megs of content for the few freeloading ff users is too much or can't be cdn'd but pushing that 10 meg js to everyone and taking up time of web devs and business-y people (for lobbying for drm at google or wherever) is fine and cheaper?

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#117

Post by pmontra »

bansheehash wrote: post #40
slezyr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that'd just bring chrome users who use ad-block. There is no ad-block on _mobile_ chrome. Maybe they talk about mobile clients here?

If you're on Android, try a firewall-based system-wide adblocker like Blokada ( https://blokada.org/index.html ). It's very effective at blocking ads, including on mobile Chrome, and it's grandma-friendly (doesn't need root, nothing to maintain)

Blokada also blocks ads inside apps, which is great.

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#118

Post by gruez »

floatboth wrote: post #98

> And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads Good luck with that. You could render an article into a DRM'd video, and utterly destroy SEO, accessibility, readability, and the website's whole reputation. "DRM for news articles" makes zero sense. Movie DRM works because HDCP decrypts the video on the display . ("works" - pirates…

>You can't DRM software on a general purpose computer.

You can with SGX

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#119

Post by scarface74 »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #78
scarface74 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the opposite end of the spectrum where advertising works - niche publications by small teams. In the Apple ecosystem there is Daring Fireball. John Gruber charges $6500 a week for one ad that appears on Monday on both the website and RSS Feed and a thank you post at the end of the week. He also charges $5500 for three ads in each podcast.

It works for some, there is no doubt. I would believe that industry publications (transportation, forestry, etc.), and popular blogs, still make decent coin on selling print ads or sponsorships on the web. It's different to the original post's comments. They are looking at a public audience with ad blockers. Podcasts are a different affair altogether. I would love to see the numbers for those as I'm never in front of…

I would love to see the numbers for those as I'm never in front of my computer when I listen to a podcast and I don't remember the ads long enough to followup even when I'm interested in the product.

It's not always about direct action, it's often about brand awareness. If you listen to a lot of podcasts, you'll know the first company you think about when you are in the market for:

- Mattresses

- Eyeglasses

- Creating a website quickly

- online backup

- shaving products.

- Mesh networking devices

It's an old joke that the definition of a podcast is "two or more white guys talking about tech sponsored by Squarespace".

Whether you act right then, when someone asks you to build them a website, your first thought is going to be to point them at SquareSpace.

Since the same sponsors keep buying ads on podcast and most of them have coupon codes to tell them where their customers came from, they have metrics that tell them the return on investment.

Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?

#120

Post by senorjazz »

rgbrenner wrote: post #113
johnchristopher wrote: post #14

> I work for a major publisher. Ad-blockers are starting to hurt our revenue big time. No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. > We're doing a redesign now. Manager says that we should just discourage the users of…

years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs I put up with this for years because I do believe that websites need a way to support themselves. But then a Forbes ad tried to download a virus.. and then I got another ad like it on WashingtonPost. These are big, dull websites.. the last place I would expect that. I've been on the internet since the 90s. The ads have never been…

I guess you never visited porn sites in the late 90s. I think their model of opening up 100s of new windows was slightly more annoying that flashing gifs :)
Post reply on HN