That survey they throw at you if you try to sign up is just complete and utter garbage, and asks you questions that both contradict each other, are in the wrong order, and ask you things you can't possibly have a good answer for at this stage.
Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
101–110 of 188 posts
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Successful ad blocking would kill the advertisement revenue stream. This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. I like content, and I don't mind paying for it. I'd prefer to pay with money, not via ads. Give me that option. Further, I don't want a subscription. I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me.
>This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. Content that is funded by ads is often not content I particularly care about. If it matters enough people will be willing to fund it, if not, let it die.
Seriously? You never use StackOverflow? You never enjoyed anything on Youtube?
You are definitely in a tiny minority if that's actually the case.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#103This is sort of unfortunate news to me, as I take this as a sign that they won't do adblocking by default. I think this is a mistake; users want ads to be blocked. Especially on mobile, where it's more important from a perf perspective. Brave has ads blocked, Opera has ads blocked. If Firefox wants to follow the lead and be a privacy focused company like they say, then they need to block ads.
Successful ad blocking would kill the advertisement revenue stream. This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. I like content, and I don't mind paying for it. I'd prefer to pay with money, not via ads. Give me that option. Further, I don't want a subscription. I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me.
I'm happy to pay by seeing ads or by paying money. I'm not happy to have my personal info floating around on the servers of the ad-industry in order to deliver targeted ads.
Subscriptions risk making silos. Once you have paid $5 for site-group-A (one million sites) it's annoying to find that the site you are reading belongs to site-group-B which belongs to some other subscription. This is the HBO-vs-Netflix problem.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#104In case you are also wondering how that works and what's supported. Based on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring... it looks like it's a collaboration with https://scroll.com/ and supports sites like: - Vox - The Atlantic - Buzzfeed - Gizmodo - Slate
In principle, I could be interested in this, but they'll need a much better range of partners than what currently shows up on https://scroll.com/ before it looks worthwhile to me. Less of the celebrity/pop-culture gossip, and more real news, please.
Yeah as a non-American I'd love to see WaPo/NyT as part of a $4.99 deal, but I can imagine that they are reluctant to sell access in their home market at that price.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be in the minority, but I've never used an ad blocker. Content makers need to make a living and cutting off their ad revenue seems sleazy. That said, they may have gone too far with tracking and other excessive bloat that I might just start using one.
"Other excessive bloat" often includes malware. Less seriously, it also includes autoplay video and scams. If ads were safe (i.e. text-only, no JavaScript, no video) and the publishers actually vetted the products, I wouldn't block them. I don't care that a physical NYT has ads. It's the algorithmic sale and distribution of ads that broke the model.
> often includes malware.
Can you define often? It seems quite rare actually for a malware to be distributed online without user intervention, with the recent Firefox 0-day being one of theses cases and only touched a small proportion of people.
The web is quite secure already and sure ads network is a good vector but so is Hacker News, Reddit and Facebook, which nobody cares about (have you ever not clicked on a link on any of theses platforms and looked at the URL first?).
I seriously hate that argument of security, it's just wrong.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#106If they offer free trials so I can evaluate its worth to me personally, maybe I'd try it. Otherwise I'll keep fighting every website I visit with my massive list of ad-blockers and privacy tools. At least the latter option is free. And if it doesn't remove EVERY clickbait and dark pattern in said sites, I won't do it.
> At least the latter option is free.
This is _exactly_ why websites are as bad as they are right now.
> And if it doesn't remove EVERY clickbait and dark pattern in said sites, I won't do it.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If you want to support an alternative source of funding for content, then this appears to be a great positive step towards an internet without tracking and invasive advertisements, promoted by the only alternative to Google in the browser market.
If you want to take a philosophical stance, you should reject the tracker and leave websites that don't adhere to your strict criteria.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#107In case you are also wondering how that works and what's supported. Based on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring... it looks like it's a collaboration with https://scroll.com/ and supports sites like: - Vox - The Atlantic - Buzzfeed - Gizmodo - Slate
So much for "better journalism", unless that is the new term of art for "lefty journalistic narrative". Vox employs activists like Carlos Maza who encourage violence and deplatforming.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#108In case you are also wondering how that works and what's supported. Based on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring... it looks like it's a collaboration with https://scroll.com/ and supports sites like: - Vox - The Atlantic - Buzzfeed - Gizmodo - Slate
Seems like a bunch of publishers that have a leftist bias. I wonder if they'll give The Daily Wire, TYT, The Daily Stormer, etc the same opportunity or if it'll just be neoliberal outlets.
[flagged]
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Successful ad blocking would kill the advertisement revenue stream. This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. I like content, and I don't mind paying for it. I'd prefer to pay with money, not via ads. Give me that option. Further, I don't want a subscription. I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me.
> I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me. You often get a ecpm of 50 cents? That seems quite awful, even more so from the US. It should be closer to 10x that.
In my experience, US$5/CPM is about right for general content focused on an industrialized market, but:
1) it’s based on page views where ads are rendered. So ad-blocked users aren’t in the denominator.
2) most of that revenue is driven by clicks, not ad views. So users like me, that rarely click on ads, ever, probably earn publishers about 50cents/cpm.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet I've had to switch all my Lubuntu devices to using Chrome because Firefox can't seem to manage to remain open without eventually locking up the entire system.
Did you try filing a bug report?
If I had filed a bug report I would have then had to gather logs and other such things to get the developers whatever information they need to fix it, and frankly I just don't care about helping them fix it enough to bother with that. I didn't choose it for these devices it was just the default. For my purposes it was just much easier to switch to a browser that wouldn't hang the system if it was left open for a few hours.
Edit: I appreciate the downvotes, as though answering this question with honesty is undesirable behavior. Keep up the good work /r/svwebdev!