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

Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

firstlook.firefox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#171

Post by dang »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #110
glenneroo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Downvotes can be frustrating but everyone gets them. Please don't let them trigger you into breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes this place even worse, and guarantees more downvotes.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#172

Post by belorn »

pjc50 wrote: post #138
swebs wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, all of those are considered far left sources according to mediabiasfactcheck.com, except for The Atlantic, which is only center left. I don't want to pay $5 a month to only hear one side of the story.

And who is this mediabiasfactcheck.com? Is it bias all the way down? It appears to be some guy called Dave Van Zandt. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check > "Until October 2018 MBFC rated China's Xinhua News Agency as "least biased",[205] but the rating has since changed to the somewhat more reasonable "left-center bias".[206] Xinhua has been criticized by Reporters Without Borders as being the "world'…

Do you prefer the study from harvard? https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

They define buzzfeed as center-left.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#173

Post by SamWhited »

rusk wrote: post #162
SamWhited wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one of their trial site things; I doubt they expect people to go directly to it from HN, they expect people to know that these products don't actually exist yet.

It literally says ”Sign up now!”

Yes, because it's one of their trial sites. It's supposed to look exactly like the real deal, but not actually work. Normally you'd get to it from a blog post or landing page explaining this.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#174

Post by rusk »

SamWhited wrote: post #173
rusk wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally says ”Sign up now!”

Yes, because it's one of their trial sites. It's supposed to look exactly like the real deal, but not actually work. Normally you'd get to it from a blog post or landing page explaining this.

have you got a link to such a page?

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#175

Post by SimeVidas »

outime wrote: post #16

Note the following: * This is yet not available. * It's not "Ad-Free Internet" but more like "a dozen websites ad-free". * They expect a monthly payment - which is fine, but the first thing I imagined from the title was a built-in blocker in the browser but this is quite different.

Firefox already has built-in tracking protection, which blocks trackers and by extension most ads.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#176

Post by asadotzler »

err4nt wrote: post #113
heinrichhartman wrote: post #51

I welcome this effort! Enabling alternative revenue streams for web content will be critical to make the place less abusive. Unfortunately, the big successful players seem to make pretty good $$ by selling customer data, so they have little incentive to change this. Mozilla/Firefox is in a unique position to launch an effort like this, since it controls a decent browsing platform with a significant user base. I'll si…

Mozilla's userbase isn't really that significant, https://caniuse.com/usage-table

Mozilla has about 300 million users across desktop and mobile. I'll let you decide if that's significant or not.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#178

Post by hereme888 »

maccard wrote: post #106
hereme888 wrote: post #93

If 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, promot…

Ya I guess my statements were extreme. Probably written late at night.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#179

Post by ddalex »

smt88 wrote: post #165
ddalex wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> publishers actually vetted the products I work in ad technology for a publisher. We put in a lot of effort to make the tech fast, lightweight and secure for our visitors - we hate bad ads too. We screen our partners, use whitelists and monitor what JS is running on the site. This being said - things sometimes slip through the cracks. Somebody with a browser-based 0-day will pay huge CPMs to insert their ad and own…

I don't think reviewing code for malware scales, especially in a competitive industry like online ads. You have to automate it, and automation isn't foolproof. You can either: 1) disable JS in ads entirely, or 2) give all users an option to pay for an ad-free site. Since few publishers do either, I'll continue to use my adblocker and simultaneously pay the publishers I think we can't do without (e.g. ProPublica).

I agree that getting directly payed by users is a much better outcome. But the reality is that people don't want to pay us directly (in the US markets; we charge directly in other markets and it's working beautifully)

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#180

Post by SamWhited »

rusk wrote: post #174
SamWhited wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because it's one of their trial sites. It's supposed to look exactly like the real deal, but not actually work. Normally you'd get to it from a blog post or landing page explaining this.

have you got a link to such a page?

No, I can't actually find one for this product. I don't know how they announced it, however. It does seem to be the same kind of trial thing they've done in the past though.
Post reply on HN