Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

blog.mozilla.org

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

#51
post #36
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be completely normal, and profitable, to effectively advertise without personal information. The idea that this is now required for advertising is just wrong, and shouldn't be accepted as such

> It used to be completely normal, and profitable, to effectively advertise without personal information. It used to be completely normal to get all of our news and entertainment through a small number of curated channels. What works for advertising in that environment won't necessarily work in the massively different news and entertainment environment we now have.

"Small" means what?

Four TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS), plus independents.

Several dozen radio networks.

Shortwave if you are really into world news like the BBC or Radio Moscow.

The local newspaper. A big city used to have several. If you are in a small place you might also subscribe to the nearest big city paper, and/or the New York Times or other major city paper.

I knew people who received the local paper via mail from the small town they came from. Every one of those is a potential news source, though for major news they mostly used wire news services.

And then there's the weekly and monthly news magazines (Time, The Economist, etc.)

That's far less of a bottleneck on news distribution than we have now, where a couple of advertising companies dominate the entire market.

I cannot believe that a digital marketplace, which has less overhead than a physical one, requires user tracking and behavioral marketing in order to survive.

I find it much easier to believe that user tracking and behavioral marketing gives the ability to out-compete more ethical context-based marketing, just like how companies which dump their waste right into the river can out-compete companies which treat their waste first.

Re: Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

#52
post #9

That's all flowery happy-talk, but lurking in the background is the reality that Firefox's main revenue source (Google) is clearly going away and they need to replace it. It seems they've decided to replace it with advertising and everything else is them trying to justify that decision in noble terms. > we do this fully acknowledging our expanded focus on online advertising won’t be embraced by everyone in our commun…

I'll acknowledge they're in a tough spot when the CEO isn't taking home a 7 figure salary. What I think is going to end up happening instead is that they're going to run off their base of power users once a good not-Chromium alternative appears, and by then it'll be too late for them to recover.

> once a good not-Chromium alternative appears

Betting on this not happening is probably a better decision than most of the ones Mozilla has made over the past decade.

It could happen but it's really unlikely for anything to be compliant, compatible, and make enough of a dent to last.

Re: Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

#53
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then people complain about seeing diaper ads when they don't even have a baby. The opposite is worse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...

I don't see how your cited article is "worse" in any way. They used intuition to deduce what items a customer might be interested in based on their other purchases. > One Target employee I spoke to provided a hypothetical example. Take a fictional Target shopper named Jenny Ward, who is 23, lives in Atlanta and in March bought cocoa-butter lotion, a purse large enough to double as a diaper bag, zinc and magnesium sup…

> A cashier at the corner store can deduce as much by paying attention to their customers.

Yes, you've just explained why people may go to a different store, where they are a stranger, when they want to buy something they don't want the local cashier to know about.

The classic example is a 16 year old who buys condoms at a store where no one is likely to recognize him, but others include buying adult diapers, buying a single plunger, and buying hard liquor.

The cashier at the new store might figure out what's going on, but does not know who "you" are.

Which is why the example you quoted is called contextual marketing - it's based on a very small context of the things you are currently buying.

That link, however, expands beyond that to user profiling with 'So Target started sending coupons for baby items to customers according to their pregnancy scores'.

> targeted ads are actually a lot less annoying to most people because they're relevant.

"Targeted ads' includes targeted based on context advertising and targeted based on user profiling.

The g'g'parent comment was specifically about advertising 'without personal information', which is only one type of targeted ads. Please do not use language which confuses the two as it makes it seem like you don't understand the relevant issues.

Re: Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

#54

Ladybird can't happen soon enough. I've been a ff advocate for many, many years and it pains me to say this, but I've had enough now. I don't want my browser to be made by an advertising company. I wish Mozilla the best. It would be great if they could be successful in advocating for web ads that consist of, say, a jpeg and an href, but I don't think that's ever going to happen.

What about the browser in Linux named Epiphany or sometimes Web? Was installed on a Phosh device of mine and seems ok.

It's WebKit, so effectively Apple if I'm not wrong

Re: Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

#55
post #36
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be completely normal, and profitable, to effectively advertise without personal information. The idea that this is now required for advertising is just wrong, and shouldn't be accepted as such

> It used to be completely normal, and profitable, to effectively advertise without personal information. It used to be completely normal to get all of our news and entertainment through a small number of curated channels. What works for advertising in that environment won't necessarily work in the massively different news and entertainment environment we now have.

> It used to be completely normal to get all of our news and entertainment through a small number of curated channels.

Before the 90s, there were one or two orders of magnitude more channels for information than there are now. There may be a bunch of brands now, but all the people who own, run, and make the final decision about what goes on them could fit in my bathroom.

Seeing our new, concentrated media culture as diverse requires the intentional deception of ignoring that this claimed diversity is delivered through precariously employed independent contracting "content providers" who all have to pass through half a dozen gatekeepers who have complete control of their income and message at any time, with no oversight (except through various forms of informal government intimidation.)

It's not "what works for advertising," it's what works for the tiny number of incestuous oligarchs with media publishing arms and the politicians they pay for. It's also a matchmaking problem: publications used to have subjects, and advertise things related to those subjects. Now the content is generic, fact-free jingoistic sludge that people are tricked into reading by manipulatively vague headlines, advertising random shit that happened to win a realtime auction.

I absolutely promise that you could keep your fishing website afloat advertising fishing gear, but only if the market and fishing gear manufacturers were operating individually and rationally, rather than based on calculations motivated by complex ownership structures and market manipulation.

Re: Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

#56
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nope, I use cash. So you admit to being an extremist then. You probably find problems with a great deal of the modern world as well. You can't buy things online with cash. Your opinion on what people do online is therefore, colored significantly and is definitely out of touch with most people's experiences.

Declaring anyone who disagrees with you (and acts on those ideas) as an extremist is a neat trick, but the only thing it actually gives you is an ad hominem.

A person who only uses cash for payments in 2024 is in fact, an extremist.

A person who only uses cash cannot purchase things online either. This entire thread is about online shopping/advertising.

A person who only uses cash has no relevant opinion on this topic.

Re: Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

#57
post #44
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably use a debit or credit card for a lot of your purchases - don't you?

Most of the websites I look at I am not making any kind of payment. What is the point you're trying to make?

So you're telling us you are receiving targeted advertisements for websites that don't even sell anything?

Color me skeptical.

Re: Mozilla becoming active in online advertising

#58
post #57
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the websites I look at I am not making any kind of payment. What is the point you're trying to make?

So you're telling us you are receiving targeted advertisements for websites that don't even sell anything? Color me skeptical.

No.. I really don't know what you're on about.
Post reply on HN