Wikipedia's campaign worked well enough that I now donate monthly. I'd rather Mozilla bugged me in-browser about setting up a monthly donation rather than paying marketing people to craft statements to explain these kind of bs decisions.
Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
61–70 of 92 posts
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#62Honestly I don't care how harsh this sounds but they should fire their entire marketing department. Or the people who are approving the bullshit we've been seeing for the past what, 2~3 years? They're either completely clueless, don't care about damaging the brand or are just malicious. And in the process, accordingly to themselves, they aren't even making money just partners and good feels, right? We can't afford to…
Is Mozilla in any way a democratic organization? I understand that the Corp is 100% owned by the Foundation, but how does it work? Can we do anything, as users, to stop these people from hurting Mozilla, without stopping to use Firefox everyday? Are they, in any way, accountable to their bad performance for all those recent years?
The Corporation CEO answers to the Corporation directors. The Corporation directors answer to the Foundation. The Foundation is controlled by the Foundation directors. The Foundation directors elect themselves.
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#63[deleted]
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#64Response from Mozilla:
"This snippet was an experiment to provide more value to Firefox users through offers provided by a partner. It was not a paid placement or advertisement. We are continually looking for more ways to say thanks for using Firefox. In a similar vein, earlier this month we offered Firefox users a free opportunity to enjoy a live concert from Phosphorescent."
Well, maybe it's just me but it seems every single time Mozilla fucks up they respond with a excuse like "yeah, but it was just a experiment".
If they keep going on like this, thousands of former Firefox users will switch to Brave - which due to its latest codebase is basically technologically Chrome but designed from bottom to top with privacy and security in mind. And former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who - politics aside - seemingly DOES know how to run a company focusing on PEOPLE using the web and building a browser with PEOPLE using the web in mind will be there and happily welcoming them to the Brave community.
And it's not like these idiots EVEN need the money because it is an open secret the likes of Google are giving Mozilla $300+ million dollars on a year-to-year basis to keep them afloat and "competing" with Chrome anyway!
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#65Wikipedia's campaign worked well enough that I now donate monthly. I'd rather Mozilla bugged me in-browser about setting up a monthly donation rather than paying marketing people to craft statements to explain these kind of bs decisions.
Ask any open source project how many donations they get and it might be just barely enough to run the severs, if they’re lucky, and not nearly enough for much else. The idea that large OSS projects can be supported by individual contributor donations (or the other terrible idea: selling stickers or t-shirts) is just not in touch with economic reality.
Mozilla’s handling of this situation is really a problem, but it’s not hard to understand that they need to find sustainable ways to make money if they want to continue their mission.
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go ahead. Really. You’ll quickly find that even just forking and building and distributing your releases for every FF-Release (not to speak of keeping your patches up-to-date) will consume a substantial amount of resources. Just consider the case that a 0day drops, FF gets an urgent maintenance release at what’s midnight in your TZ and your patch doesn’t apply cleanly. That’s why every time something controversial ha…
> Just consider the case that a 0day drops, FF gets an urgent maintenance release It's only urgent if the browser is adtech optimized and delivers tons of random third party js, html on every page visit by default. Otherwise with sensible defaults that block all that the risk of exploitation of any 0day is too small to make it urgent.
There have been sufficient issues with libraries such as zlib and handling of various image formats. Running without js certainly reduces the attack surface substantially, but it’s not a full protection.
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was not a paid placement or advertisement. I would like that people were more explicit in why they despise ads. For me it is because they are unsecure, often outside the control of the site owner and heavily rely on tracking. For a long time my impression of Mozilla is that they are trying to "sanitize" ads on the web by experimenting on advertisements that are non-tracking by design. (this does not cover cliqz,…
Reasons to despise ads? > they are unsecure, often outside the control of the site owner and heavily rely on tracking. - They attempt to influence me into buying things I do not want or need. - They take up some of my attention, a resource that I consider very valuable. - They create perverse incentives to create content that advertising buyers appreciate (particularly worrisome when we are talking about a browser, t…
Don't forget they track you in very ingenious ways, effectively eroding your privacy.
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets compare. Chrome has never showed me ads. Most developers target Chrome and you're less likely to experience issues. Chrome is also open-source (BSD) as Chromium, and I can use a fork (such as Vivaldi, MS Edge, Opera, Brave, or Ungoogled Chromium) if I have an issue with upstream.
> Chrome has never showed me ads. Totally fair, but this alone by no means indicate that Chrome is more privacy-friendly than Firefox. Firefox was the first browser to implement DNT (Do Not Track) alongside other major browsers in early 2011, whereas Chrome/Chromium implemented it nearly two years later at the end of 2012.[0] > Most developers target Chrome and you're less likely to experience issues. …and don’t you…
> Chromium also syncs all your data to Google’s servers the moment you login to any Google service.
You said something about Chromium and supported it with a link to a blog about Chrome. Though the terms can be confusing, it is very important to get them right if you run around making charges like this. I built a Chromium-based browser and it doesn't sync data with Google.
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just consider the case that a 0day drops, FF gets an urgent maintenance release It's only urgent if the browser is adtech optimized and delivers tons of random third party js, html on every page visit by default. Otherwise with sensible defaults that block all that the risk of exploitation of any 0day is too small to make it urgent.
There have been sufficient issues with libraries such as zlib and handling of various image formats. Running without js certainly reduces the attack surface substantially, but it’s not a full protection.
Yeah, image libraries is one of the reasons I disable images on all forums that I visit, apart from being tracked by random participants through image requests.
Re: Firefox shows ads for Booking.com in New Tab page
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chrome has never showed me ads. Totally fair, but this alone by no means indicate that Chrome is more privacy-friendly than Firefox. Firefox was the first browser to implement DNT (Do Not Track) alongside other major browsers in early 2011, whereas Chrome/Chromium implemented it nearly two years later at the end of 2012.[0] > Most developers target Chrome and you're less likely to experience issues. …and don’t you…
> Chromium also syncs all your data to Google’s servers the moment you login to any Google service. You said something about Chromium and supported it with a link to a blog about Chrome. Though the terms can be confusing, it is very important to get them right if you run around making charges like this. I built a Chromium-based browser and it doesn't sync data with Google.
> I built a Chromium-based browser and it doesn't sync data with Google.
AFAIK Chromium, by default, syncs data with Google as well unless you can disable it by some custom compile flags or something. Do we seriously expect (the majority of) users to compile their own browser?