Live data from Hacker News

Make Firefox Private Again

make-firefox-private-again.com

101–110 of 348 posts

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#101

wasn't aware that 'anonym' existed. I don't care if PII is stripped or not. the answer to 'helping advertisers' or anything with advertisement metrics in any fashion is always 'No.' - training things so that there's better data on how to best manipulate our psyche / give people data to psychologically manipulate us in to buying/doing things is a hard 'No.' > Asked whether Mozilla has any concerns that its user base,…

I don't wholly disagree, but it's always a tad ironic to read "money is ruining the free/open internet" discussion on a free forum powered by VC money.

On a free forum ran by an actual VC even, not just powered by the money...

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#102
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also advertising is certainly not the reason the web is free. It was free before the insane amount of advertising. Maybe for platforms like Youtube or similar sites advertising is part of their business model. But the primary reason here is foremost people creating content. That Youtube has insane infrastructure costs is secondary and we certainly don't need Browsers to help advertising at all. If it doesn't stay opt…

How can you say that the infrastructure costs are secondary? How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure?

Through torrents, for example.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#103

wasn't aware that 'anonym' existed. I don't care if PII is stripped or not. the answer to 'helping advertisers' or anything with advertisement metrics in any fashion is always 'No.' - training things so that there's better data on how to best manipulate our psyche / give people data to psychologically manipulate us in to buying/doing things is a hard 'No.' > Asked whether Mozilla has any concerns that its user base,…

> They can find other business models other than advertisement. The awful thing is, I'm not sure they can. Lots of sites turned to shitty ads and clickbait because it makes lots of money, but I've followed some passionate writers and journalists who decided to stick to their guns and focus on quality content with a reasonable subscription price. I don't follow any of them anymore, because they all either want out of…

I agree that ads are basically here to stay, in one form or another. And that most people arguing that the internet could migrate towards another model are probably wrong (people want free stuff, and a lot of people don't even mind ads sadly enough...). But I think that the user agent (the browser) shouldn't care at all about the sustainability of businesses or how viable blocking ads are for tech businesses. It should just do what's best for the user, or at least give the option to do that.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#104

wasn't aware that 'anonym' existed. I don't care if PII is stripped or not. the answer to 'helping advertisers' or anything with advertisement metrics in any fashion is always 'No.' - training things so that there's better data on how to best manipulate our psyche / give people data to psychologically manipulate us in to buying/doing things is a hard 'No.' > Asked whether Mozilla has any concerns that its user base,…

Also advertising is certainly not the reason the web is free. It was free before the insane amount of advertising. Maybe for platforms like Youtube or similar sites advertising is part of their business model. But the primary reason here is foremost people creating content. That Youtube has insane infrastructure costs is secondary and we certainly don't need Browsers to help advertising at all. If it doesn't stay opt…

> Also advertising is certainly not the reason the web is free. It was free before the insane amount of advertising.

It never was free before modern internet advertising, the costs were just hidden somewhere else. I remember the time before that... IRC servers and a lot of code hosting (SourceForge, Linux distro repositories) were paid for by volunteers/donors/universities, newsgroup servers were ran by ISPs and paid for by ISP customers, forums, MMORPGs, general online game servers and the likes by donations or sometimes just the pockets of whomever in the community had some money to spare, and a lot of the warez scene was just plainly skimming off of others: STROs for hosting, phone dialer scams and credit card fraud. Additionally, some sites made small, direct advertising deals with relevant companies (say, a forum about car DIY could run banners from a dealership).

A lot of stuff that we take for granted today - especially animated content beyond short GIFs - simply was unfeasible because the amount of money you needed to cough up was so immense. The influx of money through modern advertising, especially Google Ads, made many things even possible in the first place.

Also, times (and legal responsibilities) changed, driving up the cost particularly for anything involving UGC. Blog comment sections, guestbooks and the likes got impossible to moderate due to spam, and as that vanished, so did blogs in general. Forums had to deal with CSAM spreaders hiding out, and then came terrorists and the regulatory responses towards them requiring very strict timeframe for the removal of such content... it's a real effort to host anything beyond a static HTML site these days.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#105
post #67
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing... people would still make free content, and since there wouldn't be as many shady ways to monetize, it would cut down on low-effort (and AI-generated) garbage. The internet would be such a better place. We would probably lose some good stuff, or see it moved behind paywalls. That would be a shame, but I think it would be worth it.

I'm pretty confident that without advertising, the majority of YouTube channels people love most would not exist. maybe overall that would be a good thing as there's so much trash too

I'm pretty sure ad revenue for most channels is negligible so they resort to third party sponsorships or platforms like Patreon. The advertisements are there for Google to recoup some of the cost of running YT.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#106
post #88
post #30

I just want to use a robust, secure and decently fast browser that uses a different backend than Chrome to support the open web not ossifying into a single browser spec. I'll pay monthly! Please just let me pay for this in money and not my privacy :-(

There's Ladybird. https://ladybird.org

looking forward to ten years from now, when it meets those requirements

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#107
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also advertising is certainly not the reason the web is free. It was free before the insane amount of advertising. Maybe for platforms like Youtube or similar sites advertising is part of their business model. But the primary reason here is foremost people creating content. That Youtube has insane infrastructure costs is secondary and we certainly don't need Browsers to help advertising at all. If it doesn't stay opt…

How can you say that the infrastructure costs are secondary? How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure?

> How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure?

Secondary doesn't mean nonexistent, it comes after the primary thing, content creation.

When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content. Creation was the primary motivation; costs were a secondary concern. I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#109
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say that the infrastructure costs are secondary? How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure?

Through torrents, for example.

The YouTube size estimates represent between 10 and 15 exabytes, that's not a possible volume for Torrents.

And that is simply touching the easiest problem to solve which is the storage part. Serving the video fast with adaptive quality and having the available bandwidth close to the user is another much larger problem.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#110
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say that the infrastructure costs are secondary? How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure?

> How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure? Secondary doesn't mean nonexistent, it comes after the primary thing, content creation. When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content. Creation was the primary motivation; costs were a secondary concern. I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, wh…

> When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content. Creation was the primary motivation; costs were a secondary concern. I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money.

Yes and on this young Internet your site had 100 views, mostly from people close by.

The content shared was mostly text and a small amount of images. Video and audio were largely non-existant.

> I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money.

You're describing hobby content creators which didn't have the volume and quality of individual content creators nowadays.

Post reply on HN