127
submitted 23 hours ago by Blisterexe@lemmy.zip to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

MARK SURMAN, PRESIDENT, MOZILLA Keeping the internet, and the content that makes it a vital and vibrant part of our global society, free and accessible has

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 21 points 22 hours ago

Sure, you can see it like that.

Doesn't change the reality. Sarcasm doesn't pay bills and personel costs, and hence most websites directly or indirectly rely on advertising. As does most other content like podcasts or videos.

We can either keep being delusional and pretend we can magically revolutionize the whole internet and much of the business around it, or we can be a bit more realistic and try some reforms, like less privacy-intrusive advertising and analysis.

Which do you think has a better chance to actually improve the actual privacy for users? Hrm?

[-] kbal@fedia.io 5 points 21 hours ago

I think the fediverse has a better chance of doing more good, and Mozilla should've stuck with it.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

But they did stick with it, AFAIK? They just took down their mastodon instance, that's absolutely not the same thing. Unless you mean to imply that all of us here, using this but not running our own instance, are also "not sticking it up for the Fediverse" or so.

Plus, let's not forget that by their underlying nature, Reddit and Twitter are not ad-driven via the ads shown directly. The real ads are in astroturfing, promotions and subtle pushing of products and ideas. And Lemmy, Mastodon, et al are just as susceptible to that, if not more so, lacking a usable central authority to curb such behavior if wanted.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 1 points 10 hours ago

It wasn't meant to be just an ordinary mastodon instance they were running. Nobody seems to be saying exactly what was being worked on, but judging by what was said in the various press releases and so on they were trying to reinvent social media. It sounded like some kind of giant ambitious project that failed. Perhaps a bit too ambitious, then. If it continues in some other form I'm unaware of it.

But outside of whatever that was, they haven't done even what one would think of as the bare minimum when it comes to federated social media. The CEO never had even a mastodon account, so far as we know. I would check once in a while to see if that had changed, before eventually giving up. Their home page still invites us to "follow @mozilla" at exclusively at the usual places such as twitter and instragram.

Their hamfisted attempts to appear to be actively on the side of addressing the problems of contemporary social media were not well-received, their mastodon fork must've got mismanaged into some kind of impenetrable morass, so they walked away from the whole thing and are on to the next brilliant idea.

[-] verdigris@lemmy.ml 3 points 18 hours ago

You know the fediverse doesn't make its own browser right

[-] kbal@fedia.io 5 points 18 hours ago

It serves here as an example of what an Internet without ads might look like. Mozilla has the kind of resources that could've really helped its development if they'd been capable and determined enough to succeed in turning whatever crazy project they had in mind when they launched mozilla.social into something practical. If they'd built something good it could have earned them much goodwill and prestige, maybe brought in a little money somehow or other, and gone some way to ridding the Internet of the infestation of adtech that currently afflicts it.

[-] verdigris@lemmy.ml 6 points 18 hours ago

"somehow or other" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 3 points 18 hours ago

Not really. It's just an aside for the bean-counters.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 2 points 17 hours ago

... but you know, it's not difficult to think of possibilities. They could have a shiny new line of business providing hosting, spam detection, admin, support, moderation, and other services for whatever new and improved flavour of fedi instances they can create in accordance with all the principles they used to talk about. They could use their marketing team, their money and connections, to become the provider of choice for corporations, governments, and NGOs who don't yet realize that they need their own instance.

Would've been worth a try. Instead, after so much fanfare, they ran a small mastodon instance for a little while and then cancelled the project. I suppose it's likely that the same kind of fate will befall the new ad tracking stuff before too long.

[-] cpjoa@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 13 hours ago

Maybe the fediverse could define a limited subset of web standards, such that creating an alternative browser capable of rendering all services remains tractable.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Podcasts, by their very nature, do not use any kind of tracking whatsoever (well, besides IP address regions, anyway).

Absolutely no reason for a browser developer to get in on this besides shameless profiteering.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Erm, podcasts very much get dynamically placed locally-relevant ads based on listener location (probably IP) by now. Which even makes sense, some ads are not legal to run for listeners in other countries, so as long as you conduct business there (say the BBC's podcasts when listened to from Germany) then they got to abide by local advertising laws and hence need to partially present other ads. And would want to, as not all products of theirs are available in all countries equally (as some are local in their content) and hence they have no reason to run cross-selling ads.

You actually see (hear?) this a lot nowadays. Sure, it doesn't work with all platforms and definitely not with all providers, but "tracking" for ad-purposes exists in podcasts. For legal reasons, if nothing else.

[-] Celnert@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 18 hours ago

Maybe I'm cynical but I'm thinking whatever platform the podcast is on probably has that tracking information for sale anyway if the podcast producers want it.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 18 hours ago

That is probably true for podcasts on exclusive platforms like Spotify, but those are few and far between. Even with those, I don't think Spotify is delivering customized audio files to each user.

It's more like with broadcast TV, where they have general demographic information that they use to attract advertisers.

The general case is a plain ol' RSS feed accessed by any arbitrary client. There's not much data to be tracked there. And there's not a whole lot you can do with an IP address without introducing highly-visible problems. You can infer the general geographic location of your listeners, but that's about it. If you try to do personal tracking via IP address, it's going to be messy. Cell phones don't typically have persistent unique IPs, and even most laptop users are going to be running on a shared external IP (e.g. at a college campus, business, or any ISP that does not provide users with a dedicated IP). And again, they're not customizing audio files per user. It's a mostly static medium.

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
127 points (95.0% liked)

Firefox

17302 readers
314 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS