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

Promoted Add-ons Pilot

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#51

Post by random_dork1 »

aaomidi wrote: post #39
marsrover wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the positivity comes from the fact that Mozilla has struggled to survive since its inception and is generally a good company.

Except when they fired basically all their talent. I don't really have any love for them after this. Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.

> Except when they fired basically all their talent. That is an extreme exaggeration. From firing about 25% of their workforce, to 'basically all their talent' is a looong way.

> Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op. Please fork their software and start one. If you are successful, I will say I always believed in you, if not, I will say that you should've always been structured as a social purpose corporation

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#52

Post by leeoniya »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #44
leeoniya wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if they asked their advanced users to pitch in $10/mo to keep at least some of that talent and to ween off google revenue, i doubt any of us would have had issues. but they did the most absurd thing possible :(

Haven't they been asking for that for years?

it has always been impossible to donate directly for firefox or any specific mozilla initiative. any donations just got black-holed with questionable sideshow shit continuing to happen. i stopped donating at that point; that's not how i want to "vote with my wallet".

really bummed about the whole thing.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#53

Post by acdha »

beervirus wrote: post #50
lykr0n wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company needs money. They're the only browser out there not directly controlled by Google & Apple.

Step 1: fire everybody who isn't a programmer. Step 2: budget problem is solved.

Step 3: learn the hard way why companies founded by nerds who are dismissive of entire other professions tend to go out of business even faster

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#54

Post by ufedvjot13467 »

lukaa wrote: post #28
bartvk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty hefty statement that really needs more than just you thinking so, in my opinion.

That's why I said ''It looks like'' not ''It is''. When you have Ublock this really looks unnecessary.

Ublock is the one that was swiped from the original creator's hands under the guise of maintenance support while the original creator's time was scarce.

Ublock origin is the one to use, and is maintained by the original creator.

I'd link to sources, but it's too easy for me to cherry pick... I'd recommend looking around to see if what you find corroborates with what I've stated.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#57

Post by Forbo »

ffpip wrote: post #11
bartvk wrote: post #3

I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries" I've got two extensions which I'm really fond of: "I don't care about cookies" (1), and its paid version "No thanks" (2). The creator, D…

FYI, you don't need another extension for the 'Don't care about cookies' Go to the home page and click the 'AdBlock Plus' link to add to uBlock Origin - https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ 1 less addon with access to all sites you visit. To remove cookie banners permanently on lesser known sites, follow this 30 second guide by the dev - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o

I had no idea about the blocklist approach, thanks for bringing this up!

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#58

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

PeterisP wrote: post #40
ffpip wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide it. Sites like Facebook and Ghacks automatically opt you in if you start scrolling down, because they said they would do this in the banner they show. You didn't read it, because you were blocking it with the extension. The dev is just trying to save himself from silly lawsuits.

The only thing that a banner "by scrolling down you opt in to something" means according to GDPR is that the people who wrote that banner are liars. Quoting GDPR definitions (Art 4.12), '‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes [..]'. If the site owner wants to assert that the user provided consent, it's up to them to demonstrate…

I really hope that courts start striking down the various non-compliant banners and DPAs are secretly making a list and will start fining the shit out of them.

The law is pretty clear, nobody should be surprised that their banners are non-compliant.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#59

Post by edjrage »

gnicholas wrote: post #34

I don't understand what exactly it means to be reviewed. I have an addon and they review every time I update it. [1] I provide them with source code, and they often have issues with this or that, and we make changes to satisfy them. If this isn't reviewing, what is? It makes it seem like this new program is less about actually reviewing (which they already do) and more about pushing for advertising revenue. That's a…

The second paragraph of the article answers your question. Recommended extensions go through a stricter review and, if approved, are then "prominently recommended on AMO and other Mozilla channels". Mozilla has been doing this curation "for free" and at their own discretion; now they're adding a paid "shortcut" for anyone whose extensions are under their radar.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#60

Post by ghostpepper »

the_duke wrote: post #31

There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty small ( The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or comme…

This was my first thought as well. Best case scenario this takes off and now Mozilla becomes dependent on the money. Now they can't afford to do do anything that will upset their customers, who are now the people who pay them to review their add-ons.

I don't see how any amount of explanation and good intention can outweigh a fundamental conflict of interest.

Post reply on HN