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

61–70 of 188 posts

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#61

Post by sequoia »

achingtooth wrote: post #43
dewey wrote: post #12

In case you are also wondering how that works and what's supported. Based on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring... it looks like it's a collaboration with https://scroll.com/ and supports sites like: - Vox - The Atlantic - Buzzfeed - Gizmodo - Slate

Seems like a bunch of publishers that have a leftist bias. I wonder if they'll give The Daily Wire, TYT, The Daily Stormer, etc the same opportunity or if it'll just be neoliberal outlets.

> Seems like a bunch of publishers that have a leftist bias.

Fair point. This is unlikely to appeal to anyone without left-leaning politics.

> The Daily Stormer

Very bad example of "the other side" which derails the point you're making. Better: "I wonder if they'll give The Federalist, National Review, Quillette etc. ..."

There are examples of conservative (or just heterodox, in Quillette's case) media outlets that don't endorse genocide.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#62

Post by SanchoPanda »

mirimir wrote: post #17
SanchoPanda wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4.99 would not even cover the NY Times or WSJ alone.

That's because their prices are ridiculously high. Sure, I want access to NY Times. But maybe I'll read 1-2 articles per day. Not the whole damn paper. Same for any other site.

Blendle has been offering this service for years, though I believe they recently are backing away from it. I used it for a while several years ago, but I found using small transactions frequently to be very uncomfortable (as in off-putting, not so much inconvenient).

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#63

Post by orf »

gdhbcc wrote: post #56
pjc50 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't there rightwing outlets you can recommend that aren't overtly racist?

Because the best way to tell if someone is being true to their stance, is to see if they apply it to those they hate as they do to those they love.

You're saying that not wanting to support Nazis and wanting a better funding model for content on the internet are mutually exclusive?

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#64

Post by hestefisk »

achingtooth wrote: post #43
dewey wrote: post #12

In case you are also wondering how that works and what's supported. Based on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring... it looks like it's a collaboration with https://scroll.com/ and supports sites like: - Vox - The Atlantic - Buzzfeed - Gizmodo - Slate

Seems like a bunch of publishers that have a leftist bias. I wonder if they'll give The Daily Wire, TYT, The Daily Stormer, etc the same opportunity or if it'll just be neoliberal outlets.

In what way is neoliberalism leftist?

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#65

Post by zamadatix »

dbspin wrote: post #49
achingtooth wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a bunch of publishers that have a leftist bias. I wonder if they'll give The Daily Wire, TYT, The Daily Stormer, etc the same opportunity or if it'll just be neoliberal outlets.

Gonna go out on a limb and guess that Firefox isn't that interesting in funding holocaust denial.

I find it unlikely as well and don't blame them (they have a huge brand identity to protect) but I don't think this sort of concept really works unless it's available everywhere ad revenue is. The unique value to the end user is "an ad free web" not "a web content curator".

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#66

Post by smt88 »

speg wrote: post #58
Touche wrote: post #54

This is sort of unfortunate news to me, as I take this as a sign that they won't do adblocking by default. I think this is a mistake; users want ads to be blocked. Especially on mobile, where it's more important from a perf perspective. Brave has ads blocked, Opera has ads blocked. If Firefox wants to follow the lead and be a privacy focused company like they say, then they need to block ads.

I may be in the minority, but I've never used an ad blocker. Content makers need to make a living and cutting off their ad revenue seems sleazy. That said, they may have gone too far with tracking and other excessive bloat that I might just start using one.

"Other excessive bloat" often includes malware. Less seriously, it also includes autoplay video and scams.

If ads were safe (i.e. text-only, no JavaScript, no video) and the publishers actually vetted the products, I wouldn't block them. I don't care that a physical NYT has ads. It's the algorithmic sale and distribution of ads that broke the model.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#67

Post by brians »

detritus wrote: post #57
Touche wrote: post #54

This is sort of unfortunate news to me, as I take this as a sign that they won't do adblocking by default. I think this is a mistake; users want ads to be blocked. Especially on mobile, where it's more important from a perf perspective. Brave has ads blocked, Opera has ads blocked. If Firefox wants to follow the lead and be a privacy focused company like they say, then they need to block ads.

I don't necessarily want ads blocked, especially on sites that I regularly enjoy that I don't pay for with money. I do want to block the underlying tracking/fingerprinting/profiling etc. This is why I'm very much against Brave - I don't really see why they have the right to edit or censor other people's revenue models and replace them with their own. That seems.. unethical.

They don’t. You, the end user, do. They’re selling you a tool to do that.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#68

Post by jfk13 »

dewey wrote: post #12

In case you are also wondering how that works and what's supported. Based on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring... it looks like it's a collaboration with https://scroll.com/ and supports sites like: - Vox - The Atlantic - Buzzfeed - Gizmodo - Slate

In principle, I could be interested in this, but they'll need a much better range of partners than what currently shows up on https://scroll.com/ before it looks worthwhile to me. Less of the celebrity/pop-culture gossip, and more real news, please.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#69

Post by glenneroo »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #48
dangerface wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google has the resources to make better products. True but for the past 5 years or so they have been interested in making more money not better products.

And yet I've had to switch all my Lubuntu devices to using Chrome because Firefox can't seem to manage to remain open without eventually locking up the entire system.

Did you try filing a bug report?
Post reply on HN