And ads in the address bar search results. https://twitter.com/CohanRobinson/status/1364172683118866433 E: saved you a click on my own link. In about:config you can disable this by setting the following to false browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsored browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsoredTopSites
Why is the default enabled? Defaults are supposed to be sane and this is anything but sane or desired.
That is just a silly question. Of course nobody will go through the trouble of opening their settings just to enable ads. But if they are on by default many people (including me) won't mind them enough to bother turning them off again.
The responsible way to monetize something is to charge for it. Advertising makes it normal to have "free" products and people become slaves to it. Can't say or do anything they don't like lest they kill your income.
Sure, let's all build tree houses and live in them. If only problems can just be solved by willing the solution you want!
That's exactly what everyone should do. Instead of letting them get away with it, we should block it all unconditionally and by default, forcing them to find another solution that's acceptable. Linux distributions in particular are in the perfect position to patch this out and improve user experience for all their users.
And ads in the address bar search results. https://twitter.com/CohanRobinson/status/1364172683118866433 E: saved you a click on my own link. In about:config you can disable this by setting the following to false browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsored browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsoredTopSites
Looks like they mentioned this here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy It's apparently being trialed to a limited subset of users.
AKA they want to see what kind of backslash they will have to weather before they roll this out.
Why is the default enabled? Defaults are supposed to be sane and this is anything but sane or desired.
Presumably shipping ads ( or 'sponsored content') off by default would leave them with a low adoption rate... this is the sort of feature that people don't really request in their browsers. Fortunately, this probably doesn't do any extra tracking. Unfortunately, that means my distribution (Debian) probably isn't going to protect me from these sort of features now and in the future, as I don't think this breaks the DF…
> Presumably shipping ads ( or 'sponsored content') off by default would leave them with a low adoption rate... this is the sort of feature that people don't really request in their browsers.
Geez almost like users don't want sponsored content in their address bar...
And ads in the address bar search results. https://twitter.com/CohanRobinson/status/1364172683118866433 E: saved you a click on my own link. In about:config you can disable this by setting the following to false browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsored browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsoredTopSites
Thanks for restoring order to my world view. I always face Firefox updates these days with trepidation about what fundamental interface functionality they're going to turn from perfectly adequate to shit this time.
The present update seemed to break the pattern, but apparently things are going according to expectations after all.
And so far it's a bug that has an off-switch. Best kind. Much obliged for the documentation.
You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy. What do you want them to do, invent money out of thin air? And it's still Firefox: if you're upset enough to consider "migration to a different browser", why not instead get upset en…
> You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy It also feels weird to donate to have an ad-free, privacy first, open source browser and get ads in it. > And it's still Firefox: if you're upset enough to consider "migration to a…
That's not what you donate to? You don't donations to the firefox application, you donate to Mozilla. It's not a "pay to get a better browser" scheme, you're donating because you care about their mission, and Mozilla uses that money to further that mission. Firefox does not get funded by donation, it has its own revenue stream and it's been losing money for years, so do you want it to at least not die? Then you'll have to accept that they _need_ money and unless you happen to have a cool few hundred million lying around to sign over directly for Firefox as a non-donation, no-obligations-other-than-it-goes-to-firefox sponsor partnership, this is how hard it is to get money in this landscape.
You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy. What do you want them to do, invent money out of thin air? And it's still Firefox: if you're upset enough to consider "migration to a different browser", why not instead get upset en…
You know what most sites and services do when they need our help? They ask. If Mozilla is going broke, ask for donations by all means! Slap ads all over Firefox by all means. Get my consent first though, eh? Give me a chance to open my wallet before you start ruining the only reason I interact with your company. Can I note this is not the first time Firefox had made people think they've been hacked for monetary gain.…
I absolutely do, and this is nothing like the mr. robot nonsense. Browsers constantly pull the rug from under you, firefox is on the same level of offender as Chrome in that respect, but at least in firefox you get to then go "actually, no", instead of going "well I guess I'm fucked, time to get used to this. Again"