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

Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 304 posts

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#261

Post by true_religion »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #198
sgift wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poor people aren't robots. They can and do see adverts for things that they don't then buy. Ah, the grand delusion of advertisers put out again. Sure, people aren't robots, but if ads couldn't influence their behaviour no one would pay for them and there wouldn't be any.

It pretty amusing to see pro advertisement people argue that ads aren't predatory because they're not ACTUALLY effective you see..

That's a strawman. (And wow, am I surprised to be able to say that to anyone on HN).

What's actually argued is advertisements aren't 100% effective, in that they can't force you to purchase a product as a mind-controller.

Ads let you know a product exists, may convince you that it's worthwhile or better than competitors, and offer reminders to keep the idea of the product on your mind. However, that's all the same things a carefully crafted in person sales-pitch could do, and sales pitches aren't mind-control even though they are far far more effective than any number of internet banner ads can be.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#262

Post by barnacs »

devsquid wrote: post #133

Man, ads are great. They allow content to be targeted towards people that could potentially not afford the content and towards people that might not necessarily use the product normally. The world is already significantly divided by wealth. Assuming someone poor even has access to a service like Google, imagine if it was behind a paywall. Could they afford it? If not imagine how much of a life advantage someone wealt…

Who pays for the content? Noone, ads make it free!

Who pays for the ads? Companies.

Who pays the companies? The customers.

When I check out at the grocery store, I pay for all the ads of the store, the suppliers, the factories and all the tools and services they use.

If I could deduct all these fees for all my purchases, I would gladly distribute that money directly among content providers of my choice. It would likely be shocking to learn how many google searches that would pay for.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#264

Post by sukilot »

devsquid wrote: post #205
marincounty wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my world, Microsoft started to turn hate into, "I will take a second look at what you are offering--maybe--if I'm in a good mood." Their advertising is still just noise, and a huge waste of money in my world. I started to turn when they offerd some products for free.(I still don't use the products they offered, but it was a nice gesture.) The best Ad I heard was on here. A guy commented, 'I like my Surface. I use…

You have barely used their hardware, but you believe it to be good hardware. Seems like effective ads to me. Have you actually used the device? Its kb is terrible and its touchpad is a joke. MS natives ads have dominated news feeds for the last few months. A/ws these points are meaningless. Just observing trends.

MS paid amd gave a ton of Surfaces to the NFL to use on TV... They were used as iPad stands for the first week , until MS clarified the contract requirements.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#265

Post by [deleted] »

mike_hearn wrote: post #244
Nursie wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They demand attention I don't want to give. They track my browsing and take information about me without my consent. They try to run code on my computer without even asking permission. No thankyou.

They obtained your permission to run code when you directed your web browser to load the page.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#266

Post by sukilot »

mike_hearn wrote: post #244
Nursie wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They demand attention I don't want to give. They track my browsing and take information about me without my consent. They try to run code on my computer without even asking permission. No thankyou.

They obtained your permission to run code when you directed your web browser to load the page.

And they lost my permission when I blocked the ad URL.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#267

Post by sukilot »

simoncion wrote: post #187
wlesieutre wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that's opposite

The author's point is threefold: 1) Firefox should be software that serves its computer user's interests. 2) The Mozilla corporation is pressured (to whatever degree) to turn Firefox into software that serves the entertainment and advertising and surveillance industry's interests. 3) Sometimes Mozilla bends to industry interests rather than user interests. This is a bad thing. When you excerpted that quote, you chang…

#2 comes from your own mind or other sources (DRM standards), not from the quoted material.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#268

Post by qq66 »

oconnore wrote: post #155
devsquid wrote: post #133

Man, ads are great. They allow content to be targeted towards people that could potentially not afford the content and towards people that might not necessarily use the product normally. The world is already significantly divided by wealth. Assuming someone poor even has access to a service like Google, imagine if it was behind a paywall. Could they afford it? If not imagine how much of a life advantage someone wealt…

The whole point of ads is to convince people to buy things that they may otherwise not. That seems like the opposite of helping poor people. Also, if you are struggling financially, ad supported "content" is probably not a major concern in your life, and certainly not a solution to your problems.

Yes, the purpose of ads is to convince people to buy things that they otherwise may not. But shouldnt that be a positive thing, more often than not? Traditional reasoning would suggest that someone buys something because it improves their lives, so selling it to them is a positive act.

I had a startup that made PowerPoint collaboration software, and we advertised on Google for terms like "work on presentation at the same time" and "PowerPoint collaboration." We got almost all of our users from Google, and most of these users were thrilled to find our software which they wouldn't have been able to find without targeted ads.

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#269

Post by sukilot »

tenfingers wrote: post #229

This is no news to anybody that ever tried an ad blocker, a proxy/content filter or even a generic hosts file. The difference is very noticeable. In fact, it's the main reason I run such filters. The difference is not only in traffic saved/lower latency, but also much lower cpu usage. However, this it would be a bit hypocritical for Mozilla (and probably the reason why the filter is off by default). Firefox is not mu…

Google says that ad blockers make the websites slow, due to the way they interact with the DOM (and of course google doesn't provide more efficient APIs for ad blocking)

Re: Firefox tracking protection decreases page load time by 44%

#270

Post by sukilot »

ama729 wrote: post #34
angersock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they actually get most of their revenue from the App store and iTunes--and in neither of those cases is privacy good for business.

> Huberty said that Apple's online services are underappreciated by investors because they accounted for less than 6 percent of the company's revenue over the last 12 months. http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/28/apples-app-store-r...

Revenue is a useless metric when comparing across markets. Hardware and software are different. What are the profit margins?
Post reply on HN