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

Make Firefox Private Again

make-firefox-private-again.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 348 posts

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#321

Post by IndySun »

jart wrote: post #296
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, "those dark Internet spaces" includes most news on most subjects. GitHub is great, but it can't be my entire world.

News is a narcotic that, like ads and social media, preys on human weakness. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the purveyors of news would partner with purveyors of ads, similar to how casinos like to partner with alcohol and tobacco companies.

You mean poor news, right? There is such a thing as news, coming from reputable sources, at least, as reputable as a friend of a friend. We can agree to start from the position knowing all news information is biased, but if you still end up with that view, where is the learning coming from?

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#322

Post by nox101 »

hypeatei wrote: post #259
nox101 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not sure what your point is. let's assume it's true. That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos. Without that those channels would have to pay for hosting themselves and could not afford to make the content. Further, most of them would have never even tried if it wasn't free to start Then, I don't buy your premise. Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly for Brilliant, NordVPN, etc...…

> Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly Those are third party sponsorships done by channel owners, not ads inserted by YT. > That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos Your assertion was related to the channels themselves existing, not YT as a platform. I can agree that the platform probably wouldn't exist without some sort of funding source but that doesn't necessarily need to come…

> Those are third party sponsorships done by channel owners, not ads inserted by YT.

That supports my point. Ads are paying for the content.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#323

Post by nox101 »

digging wrote: post #228
nox101 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most of my favorite channels make more money from one or more of: 1. Premium subscribers 2. Direct support on Patreon 3. Direct video sponsorship (a form of advertising, but wholly tolerable IMO) 4. Direct support by joining Nebula, which has no ads

3 is ads and fits my point. The content wouldn't exist without ads.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#324

Post by einsteinx2 »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #218
trustno2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is Safari. Or whatever is based on WebKit on Linux (there must be some...) GNOME Web/Epiphany (same thing) seems to use WebKit and is officially supported https://webkit.org/downloads/ https://apps.gnome.org/Epiphany/ It seems there is no WebKit browser for Windows.

No good adblocking for safari like in firefox though

AdGuard works perfectly fine in Safari on Mac and iOS

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#325

Post by kjkjadksj »

93po wrote: post #267
kjkjadksj wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a price like that I’m assuming this product has a shelf life. It would make way more sense to ask a dollar a month. In 13 years they will have made more than that $150, and this model also incentivizes them to keep up development for years and years.

for a fledgling project, $150 today is worth 10,000x $150 in 13 years.

Depends on the scale of your foresight. If you are pursuing growth at all costs then yes, cash now. If you are merely finding work to pay for your life then take the 13 year option and have income in 13 years.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#328

Post by kjkjadksj »

LunaSea wrote: post #248
kjkjadksj wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donations were and are a thing for covering hosting costs in many communities.

Not if the site serves videos and has 2024-levels world traffic.

Cap it at 720p and ask for donations. 2024 levels of traffic should mean donations scale too

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#329

Post by kjkjadksj »

lxgr wrote: post #263
kjkjadksj wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if your community is small costs are probably in the couple dollars a month range. An order of magnitude lower than the costs of hardware like your computer. If communities are large where an individual cannot trivially bear the costs, donation models have worked where the community itself funds its hosting.

Not nearly everybody on the Internet has ever bought their own computer. There's schools, public libraries etc., to say nothing of the billions of people that have only a smartphone and no desktop or laptop at all.

So what? Takes nothing from the point that hosting is in the dollars a month paid for by a half hour of work in most of the western world. I’m sure developing countries have cheaper hosting costs to match to purchasing power in these locations.

Re: Make Firefox Private Again

#330

Post by roca »

bux93 wrote: post #94
roca wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I think it's only fair for you to completely stop using ad-supported sites and services, right away. (Which will also mean that Firefox's treatment of ads will not affect you.)

What do you mean you don't want to sleep with me? It's a date! I paid for dinner! - advertisers

It's actually: you say you want to live in a world where there are no ads, and therefore no ad-supported content. Well, with a little self-restraint you can live in that world right now. What, you don't like that world after all?
Post reply on HN