91–100 of 188 posts
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…
As others stated, the submitted title of "Ad-Free Internet by Firefox" overstates what this actually is: pay $4.99/month for ad-free experience on a handful of media publishers' websites[1]. (I.e. it's not a universal ad blocker that lets you avoid ads on Youtube.) The Firefox webpage itself doesn't oversell the feature as "ad-free internet" so not sure why writing a misleading title for HN was necessary. [1] https:/…
The NYT is one of the co-sponsors that started Scroll, so I'm sure that they'll be on board eventually if they're actually not already.
I'm super into this, and I was tempted to sign up immediately. But then I realized I have privacy/tracking concerns; does anyone have a line on what Scroll/Mozilla say on this? I couldn't find anything after a (very shallow) search.
I did go to sign up immediately, only to discover this is pure vaporware!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's surely fair to use the page title as the HN link title.
Ok, fair enough. Before I wrote my comment, I did perform a "view source" to search for "ad-free internet" and it wasn't found. However, if one uses F12 Developer Tools to inspect the DOM, it does have: " Ad-free Internet by Firefox " It's interesting that that phrase is not visibly used and the big bold text people actually see just says "Support the sites you love, avoid the ads you hate" . EDIT to the replies: Yep…
I got the following when I tried the link to subscribe: Thank you for your interest in Firefox Ad-free Internet! This product isn't available yet, but we're working on it. Would you please click the Next button to take a short survey to tell us what you think? At the end of the survey we'll get your (optional!) e-mail address so that we can let you know when the Firefox Ad-free Internet beta launches. If you don't wa…
must be a geo-ip thing ... I got a page offering me this service for $4.99 a month EDIT never mind, once you click through to subscribe it's that survey. This whole thing seems a bit disingenuous ...
Personally, I don't necessarily mind ads, unless intrusive. I mind: - tracking - javascript being used everywhere (IMO, for pure viewing, javascript should be optional).
That's why I like Adblock Plus, even if many find their position to be highly controversial. i.e. to charge advertisers to be whitelisted as "acceptable ads" if they respect certain criteria. When left unchecked, advertisers are to websites what kittens are to furniture.
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 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.
You often get a ecpm of 50 cents? That seems quite awful, even more so from the US. It should be closer to 10x that.