I would love to if FF could handle Amazon.com without boiling my MBP2013. Is it a bug in FF or just Amazon did not care to optimize their shit?
Is there a way to figure out the performance's origin in FF somehow?
In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
61–70 of 437 posts
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#62It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. Ads are inevitable, and in some ways beneficial to both content providers and consumers (i.e. revenue can be earned from users without any direct payment). But are invasive forms of tracking such as 3rd party cookies really that necessary? Could websites survive using only contextual advertising without the excessive tracking?
How could ads benefit users? Obviously, if the revenue that content creators receive from ads came directly from the consumers, the middle (ad) man would be cut out and all others would benefit.
The media is financed by ads to the tune of around 50%.
That business is sort of necessary for democracy, as decision-making requires information to close the feedback loop.
Therefore, I wouldn't quite so readily cheer the downfall of the industry with nothing more than the typical "be better and you'll find more paying customers" advice.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#63Already lot of sites are not tested on Firefox and many explicitly so [1]. Now the web publishers that rely on ads will have less incentive to support Firefox. They might even actively promote other browsers. Similar to how IE was discouraged by websites explicitly. "This site works best on Chrome" is only what is needed now to reduce the Firefox userbase further. Note - This comment was typed on firefox. [1] https:/…
If you are serving customers and don't want to walk away from sizable percentages of your user base, you test on Chrome, Firefox, IE, Edge (old and the chromium one), Safari, Brave, and maybe even good old Opera. And if you are any good, it would be relatively rare for you to find issues.
IE is probably the hardest of these. The reason that still has non trivial amounts of users is because so many websites can't afford to lose access to those users.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tracking protection != ad blocking. If browsers would always heuristically filter-out ads, this would make them useless at best, or actually deceptive. See also other comment about incentives of browsers becoming misaligned with users (or indeed Brave which you mentioned yourself).
Ads are not of interest to users. I think their display is a waste of time and resources, as well as the risks associated. How blocking ads make a browser “misaligned” with users? It’s in fact the opposite. Brave is simply, like stated before, a Trojan Horse. Replacing google with another ad broker is not helping anyone. >> Brave browser (Stage 1) is a Trojan Horse for their actual business which is a blockchain-base…
> Ads are not of interest to users.
If you think that's true, then your idea of what constitutes an ad is very narrow, to the point it leaves out a large swath of reality.
An ad is an informational transaction between an entity offering a good or service and a consumer that may want that service.
When done poorly, it's an exchange neither are happy with. When done well, it's an exchange that both are happy with. We're all familiar with poor ads. The perfect ad is likely the signage above a retail space that let's the person looking for it know it's at that location. Even then, for those not looking for that specific store, it could be seen as unwanted (and that's also why a lot of cities limit the size of signage for buildings).
You might see this as a distinction without purpose, but I think viewing things completely (and often as a spectrum) helps put into focus the specific problems that we want to combat and let us focus our efforts on things that actually make poegress in those problems, rather than ineffectually attack a symptom.
Advertising isn't the problem. Poorly matched advertising is annoying, in effective, and costly. Tracking and profiling of the individual has risencin use to combat this, but has many other negative consequences. If we prevent tracking and profiling, the market will shift to some other way to match advertising, and we'll have less privacy problems (but possibly worse targeted ads). But at least it isn't overly broad and done in a way that doesn't help the real problem, tracking.
Do we really want to support something so draconian that even HN's minimal advertising articles, or someone's personal blog that endorses something would fall under those regulations? If not (if for not other reason it wouldn't help anything), we should be careful how we approach this, and target the real problem.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tracking protection != ad blocking. If browsers would always heuristically filter-out ads, this would make them useless at best, or actually deceptive. See also other comment about incentives of browsers becoming misaligned with users (or indeed Brave which you mentioned yourself).
Ads are not of interest to users. I think their display is a waste of time and resources, as well as the risks associated. How blocking ads make a browser “misaligned” with users? It’s in fact the opposite. Brave is simply, like stated before, a Trojan Horse. Replacing google with another ad broker is not helping anyone. >> Brave browser (Stage 1) is a Trojan Horse for their actual business which is a blockchain-base…
Brave (Stage 1) is a Trojan Horse for Brave Fraud (Stage 3, terminal), which is what it's called when you insert yourself between two parties on false pretences with the expectation of leveraging your power to regulate mutual access to make money.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#66It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. Ads are inevitable, and in some ways beneficial to both content providers and consumers (i.e. revenue can be earned from users without any direct payment). But are invasive forms of tracking such as 3rd party cookies really that necessary? Could websites survive using only contextual advertising without the excessive tracking?
I don't agree ads are beneficial for users (or "consumers" as you put it). They could be, but you pay with your focus/time. I'd rather pay for the content then, or get a free (demo) version (I regard a RSS feed as such). Tracking, however, is on the long term never beneficial for the users. It is a behemoth of a privacy nightmare. This article is about ad trackers .
All widespread forms of online payment require proof of identity and hence take away all anonymity and all privacy.
Even after many years of debates and experiments, there is still no practical way to do anonymous micropayments. And I doubt there ever will be, because governments will always want to regulate payments.
So direct payment for content will very likely end up being yet another stronghold of all-powerful gatekeepers, just like the app stores.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes they can. Online advertising is on the rise. Businesses have been spending the same % in advertising for a century. If it is not possible to use trackers, businesses will keep spending the same, and advertisers should be paying out the same to publishers. The bigger question for me is why publisher payouts keep dropping even while online advertising spend is skyrocketing. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rach…
Because Google and Facebook take the majority of that money, leaving the rest of the publishers less and less of that pie.
Which is why they need more competitors, and being unable to use their trackers means smaller competitors can get a chance.
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#68Those who want a world where Firefox has a higher market share and mind share, please consider doing the following: 1. Evangelize Firefox to people you know any chance you get and show them all the reasons why its better than Chrome (focus on privacy as an important point). Show them how great browsing can be with a few key extensions (like uBlock Origin, Containers, Privacy Possum, etc.). This does not imply that Mo…
Is there some way to ensure the donation money will actually go to Firefox and not to some sort of "diversity" campaign?
Yikes why would you not want companies investing in diversity? Especially if they are the interface to our online world?
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#69It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. Ads are inevitable, and in some ways beneficial to both content providers and consumers (i.e. revenue can be earned from users without any direct payment). But are invasive forms of tracking such as 3rd party cookies really that necessary? Could websites survive using only contextual advertising without the excessive tracking?
The ads that I find most useful are the ones which mimic olde newspaper/magazine ads by simply showing things relevant to their general readership. The advertisers don't need to know a thing about me, they just need to know the general demographics and interests of the publication. For example, the ads on this blog[1] are far more relevant and less invasive/annoying than anything that Google ever showed me before I s…
Are you sure hackaday isn’t using third party ad networks?
Re: In a swipe at Chrome, Firefox now blocks ad trackers by default
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree ads are beneficial for users (or "consumers" as you put it). They could be, but you pay with your focus/time. I'd rather pay for the content then, or get a free (demo) version (I regard a RSS feed as such). Tracking, however, is on the long term never beneficial for the users. It is a behemoth of a privacy nightmare. This article is about ad trackers .
> I'd rather pay for the content then People like you are a minority. Most people expect Internet content to be free.
Because there is a lot of paid pulp content. Demo versions of qualitative, paid content will sell itself provided the stack is user-friendly enough. Just like people pay for Netflix. Also, if you price yourself conform US or EU salary don't expect poor countries to buy your product.