21–30 of 68 posts
I would also set the about:config options "network.allow-experiments" and "app.normandy.enabled" to false.
It's an experiment in hurting the good will of their brand. I still use Firefox but it's painful sometimes. Not as painful as Chrome, but Mozilla seems determined to come up with unexpected new ways to fuck up Firefox for some reason.
It's simple: $$$$$. Every one of these actions is a short-term cash grab. The real amazing part is how privacy advocates let these transgressions, or what Mozilla calls "experiments", slide.
The minimum annual cash burn to have a high quality browser engine, js runtime, and UI seems to be several hundred million dollars.
FF is now utterly dependent on google for cash (and to be fair, google really needs FF to exist to pretend chrome isn't close to a monopoly). But who knows how long that will last and if/when google will exert control. One of the best things for Mozilla to do as an org is to figure out a non-google-dependent revenue stream.
Privacy respecting ads are a good compromise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simple: $$$$$. Every one of these actions is a short-term cash grab. The real amazing part is how privacy advocates let these transgressions, or what Mozilla calls "experiments", slide.
Is there anything to suggest that this violated people's privacy? If not, I see no reason why privacy advocates should have a problem with it.
moreover you can turn off snippets in the about:preferences > Home tab.
at least it's not chrome, which constantly and intrusively monitors you for advertising value.
Based on their logic ads in newspapers aren't ads because customer information isn't shared with the advertiser until they connect with the ad and visit their store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simple: $$$$$. Every one of these actions is a short-term cash grab. The real amazing part is how privacy advocates let these transgressions, or what Mozilla calls "experiments", slide.
Here's reality, though: The minimum annual cash burn to have a high quality browser engine, js runtime, and UI seems to be several hundred million dollars. FF is now utterly dependent on google for cash (and to be fair, google really needs FF to exist to pretend chrome isn't close to a monopoly). But who knows how long that will last and if/when google will exert control. One of the best things for Mozilla to do as a…
I’m making no judgement about that but there are two sides to fiscal longevity: getting more money is one, the other is to focus spending.
1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/
However, looking closer at this situation there is a bit of a troubling fact that `experiments.enabled` - the configuration directive used here - doesn't appear in about:config but certainly is being used:
https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-esr45/source/browser/experim...
Looks like someone filed a bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1517147
Wow. They keep using that word 'experiment' to mean 'I can run whatever code I want on an end user's computer' which is not right. It's an ad. You're pushing ads. It's not the worst thing in the world if you just call it what it is, but using the 'experiments' mechanism to push ads is scummy and to me a violation of trust. I've been running Firefox inside of Firejail, a sandbox, lately, primarily as a light form of e…
obviously you'd share info once you click on it. i don't like ads either, but this seems better than the standard track-you-out-the-wazoo ad.
Based on their logic ads in newspapers aren't ads because customer information isn't shared with the advertiser until they connect with the ad and visit their store.
that's not quite right. newspaper ads are paid placement, while these are not. being paid for placement is an essential feature of advertising. so to differentiate from that, mozilla uses the term "offer" here.
I guess Mozilla is confident enough not many people understand what CPA ads are to claim they are not ads.