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
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 14 points 13 hours ago

I'm completely fine with anonymized ads being an option in theory, but there needs to be a way to compensate services w/o resorting to advertising. I think Mozilla should provide a way for users to pay to opt-out of ads, and get websites on board that way.

Websites want to get paid for their work, and advertising is the easiest way to do that. The solution isn't better ads, but alternative revenue streams for websites, and I'm 100% fine with Mozilla taking a cut of that alternative revenue stream. But I will not tolerate ads on my browser.

I hoped Brave would've solved this problem by letting users pay to remove ads, but instead they went to crypto to reward viewing ads. That's the opposite of what I want, and I really hope Mozilla has someone still working there in a position that matters that understands that.

[-] felsiq@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 hours ago

Isn’t that exactly what brave did? I wasn’t a fan of their “watch ads to get BAT” system either, but the alternative was always to just buy BAT with actual money. I’d rather see Mozilla work with brave to collaborate and improve on the BAT strategy than to start another competing standard, personally.

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Why's it gotta be crypto though

[-] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 3 points 12 hours ago

that's actually the first good idea ive seen somebody suggest mozilla do instead!

For the moment you can donate to sites you like while keeping the adblocker on.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 8 points 12 hours ago

Yup, and that's generally what I do.

I honestly just want to put $20 in a pool or something and have the browser deduct from that balance when I visit a site. The sites I visit more get more of my money, and I'll get a record of how much each site changes per visitor to decide whether I want to keep going there. If they use something like GNU Taler for the accounting, the sites can't track me at all, they'll just get micropayments and settle up with Mozilla at some interval.

Yet Mozilla seems to not consider this at all. Their entire messaging is "better ads," not "alternatives to ads."

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 points 7 hours ago

This is exactly what I've been saying. Shove a virtual tip jar in the browser and let it pay out to websites based on viewership. I could even imagine a model where sites simply say "you must have at least $x in your tip jar to view this site, or pay us directly $y per month" for sites like Wall Street Journal that now paywall everything away

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