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

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#81

Post by luckylion »

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.

I consider ad blockers a security issue: too many ad servers in recent history have been used as malware distributors, including Google Adsense. Since publishers don't secure their systems (Google's vulnerability here is known for years and they don't fix it but instead opted to kick out malicious advertisers if/when they catch them), adblockers offer protection.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#82

Post by rchaud »

It's about time somebody tried this. $5/mo. is fair; I don't need a million sites to be in the catalog, but I would like a bit more variety eventually.

People who complain about "modern journalism", take note. If this takes off, publications will be less incentivized to post those godawful clickbait articles that have soured the Internet reading experience.

I'll read the Atlantic and Vox, but Buzzfeed is a no-no, unless it's Buzzfeed News. And they should really consider changing the name as a serious news site on a subscription format shouldn't be associated with the ad hell that is the regular Bfeed.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#83

Post by tomp »

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 take it as a sign they're exploring other options. If this takes off, I would expect them to more seriously consider including adblocking as a default.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#84

Post by mavsman »

rchaud wrote: post #82

It's about time somebody tried this. $5/mo. is fair; I don't need a million sites to be in the catalog, but I would like a bit more variety eventually. People who complain about "modern journalism", take note. If this takes off, publications will be less incentivized to post those godawful clickbait articles that have soured the Internet reading experience. I'll read the Atlantic and Vox, but Buzzfeed is a no-no, unl…

I am tempted to visit buzzfeednews sometimes but can't bring myself to do it based on my disdain for buzzfeed as a whole.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#85

Post by abainbridge »

sergiosgc wrote: post #78
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.

Successful ad blocking would kill the advertisement revenue stream. This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. I like content, and I don't mind paying for it. I'd prefer to pay with money, not via ads. Give me that option. Further, I don't want a subscription. I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me.

I agree, but the problem here is that not all pages are of equal value. The Guardian ought to be able to charge me more per page if it was written by one of their full time employees. I can't see how Mozilla will ever be able to figure out how to apportion the money, without just exposing my "balance" and the cost of visiting each page.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#86

Post by MrGilbert »

I wonder what an average user generates in terms of ad-revenue per month. You know, the mix of your-favourite-media-provider, your-favourite-news-sites, your-favourite-social-media.

If that's more or less than $14.99, I'd be willing to pay it for an "ad-free" internet. This will never happen, I guess, but just thinking about it...

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#87

Post by CannisterFlux »

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 use an ad-blocker on Firefox but I think if Firefox started blocking adverts by default it could find itself in a dangerous situation. A lot of sites would feel justified blocking Firefox in that case, which would do more damage to the already-shrinking user base. I know many sites have "turn off your ad-blocker" currently and I usually just leave at that point, but I could imagine a movement to more actively crush Firefox if it had ad-blocking baked in.

Although maybe long term this will happen anyway, so Mozilla has nothing to lose. I mean Chrome will have its ad-tech-friendly blocking-lite, Firefox will be the only real ad-blocking available, and sites will start to make moves to directly discourage Firefox use ("I see you're using Firefox, switch to Chrome to view our crappy site").

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#88

Post by eitland »

SanchoPanda wrote: post #38
eitland wrote: post #31

Signed up. That said, this is a practical implementation of some patterns that belongs on https://userinyerface.com/game.html ;-)

Did you sign up to be notified or were you able to subscribe to the paid service?

To be notified.

Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience

#89

Post by faissaloo »

sergiosgc wrote: post #78
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.

Successful ad blocking would kill the advertisement revenue stream. This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content. I like content, and I don't mind paying for it. I'd prefer to pay with money, not via ads. Give me that option. Further, I don't want a subscription. I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me.

>This revenue stream is what pays for the content you enjoy, so ad blocking kills content.

Content that is funded by ads is often not content I particularly care about. If it matters enough people will be willing to fund it, if not, let it die.

Post reply on HN