0 users browsing Discussion. | 35 bots
Pages: 1
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-02-22, 16:34
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #20 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
“By summer 2019, the Firefox browser will also block, by default, all cross-site third-party trackers, strengthening privacy without your having to do a thing.” I don't like Mozilla, but credit has to be given where credit is due. For a long time now, they've been integrating this kind of stuff into their browser by default. There has already been some work on the anti-adblock front. Hopefully, this will lead to an arms race, and one that is a winnable one for humanity. They should take the leap already and start shipping it with built in opt-out ad-blocking. Starve the beast, you know what I mean? It's a parasitic industry anyway, and it would greatly improve the user experience, which in turn would increase adoption. It's a win-win situation - either their competitors refuse due to anti-trust legislation, boosting Mozilla's market share, or they follow suit, decreasing Google's. At any rate, it would be quite a cut to the revenues of those kinds of businesses. Even with Firefox at "only" 5% of market share, albeit probably somewhat over-represented in the first world segment whose clicks are the most valuable, a 5% decrease in revenue would easily push many of the advertising companies dangerously close to the red. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-02-23, 00:54
|
|
Full mod
 Post: #130 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1101 days Last view: 172 days |
The problem is that the Internet currently runs on advertising money. Firefox isn't really big enough to destroy the entire industry with one punch, and do you *really* want to deal a non-fatal blow to an industry that specialises in shaping people's opinions? It's like the old saying: "Do not meddle in the affairs of bards, for your name sounds funny and fits the meter of many popular songs". Even if Firefox *could* end the advertising industry, that might not be a wise plan. Like I said, the Internet currently runs on advertising money so cutting off that revenue would kill off a lot of the internet. Sure, the parts you or I care about wouldn't be the worst hit, but we enjoy high-speed, high-quality Internet access because it was bankrolled by large companies who wanted high-speed, high-quality Internet access for themselves and their customers. If the Internet suddenly became "business hostile", maybe we'd all have to go back to 28.8k modems or Fidonet or something. Mozilla's plan is more gentle because it gives people time to adjust - if advertising revenue decreases by 5%, that's not an existential crisis, but it encourages people to find alternative revenue streams. And later, when Mozilla does something else that decreases advertising revenue by another 5%, people can invest more into those alternative revenue streams, and eventually all the generally useful companies are weaned from advertising money, and all the parasite companies are dead. What makes this approach particularly interesting is that for a long time Mozilla has been trying to wean itself off advertising money, build up alternative revenue streams, and generally demonstrate that it's possible to build a sustainable, ethical business online. And every time they try something, Slashdot and Reddit erupt with indignant fury at the idea of supporting Mozilla more directly than by letting Google track them across the Internet. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| nyanpasu64 |
Posted on 19-02-23, 04:41
|
|
Post: #19 of 77
Since: 10-31-18 Last post: 1189 days Last view: 1116 days |
>for a long time Mozilla has been trying to wean itself off advertising money Remember when Firefox added sponsored "new tab" tiles? Then sponsored "new tab" Pocket recommendations? I just bumped into the latter a few days ago. (I hope it's not surveillance-capitalism advertising, but it's still advertising.) |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-02-23, 05:49
|
|
Full mod
Post: #132 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1101 days Last view: 172 days |
Yeah, I guess I should have said "wean itself off surveillance capitalism money". It's hard to invent wholly new revenue streams, we know advertising works on the Internet, and society has been dealing with non-surveillance advertising for centuries, so hopefully people are more likely to understand it. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-02-23, 12:18
|
|
Dinosaur
 Post: #156 of 1316 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1 hour Last view: 1 hour |
> The problem is that the Internet currently runs on advertising money. Well, it's time to end that bullshit. Ads are deceptive, intrusive, insensitive, a complete waste of resources, and nobody really needs them. My hate towards advertising has grown so big that I don't even stand ads on the local radio stations anymore (why do you promote luxury cruise ship lines on a country where people can't eat, much less afford transportation?!) I prefer to see the Internet die rather than stand a single ad anymore. And this is why I'm not getting rid of my adblockers anytime soon. Preemptive answer: fuck cryptocurrencies too - "fake money" is not a solution either. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-02-23, 22:09
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #24 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by Screwtape 5% is a huge blow, though. Remember, we're talking percentage points. Since there's no corresponding decrease in expenditures, it would cut profits by much more than by 5%. Let's take Google as an example. It deals in a lot of other stuff, sure, but I can't come up with another advertising company and it doesn't make a great difference. So let's just say for the sake of argument that all of Google's revenue is from ads. Alphabet has a yearly gross revenue of $136.8 billion. It has a yearly net income (profit) of $30.7 billion. If their gross revenue would go down by 5%, that would be a cut of $6.8 billion, or roughly 20% of profits. Assuming constant P/E, that would also imply a 20% decrease in value. Certainly a lot more than the 5% figure would appear to suggest at first, don't you think? Also, this assumes that Mozilla would be the only actor. I don't think that's true. Apple (Safari 3.8%) have been adding support for ad blockers to iOS, and I don't see what Microsoft (Edge 4.3%) or Opera (1.6%) would have to lose by adding such a feature either. Even if they wouldn't, Firefox being the only one to provide such a feature would be a unique selling point which could bolster its market share somewhat. As for the advertising industry, what could they do that they aren't already doing? Ad blocking already has a prevalence of at least 10%, and I don't see any concerted efforts to slander it or make it unusable. If they were as good at shaping public opinion as they think they are, then how come using ad blockers today isn't deeply taboo? Posted by Screwtape I don't know what you're talking about. All websites of value I can think of have next to no operating expenditures outside of hosting, and to host websites just isn't that expensive. Sure, it can get expensive if you want to use "modern technologies", but a properly optimized website generally doesn't need more than a few hundred dollars for a few million users, with the only exceptions I can think of being file hosting sites and the like. Certainly enough to pay for hosting with just donations, or in the case of smaller websites out of the owner's pocket. The reason it tends to cost much more is due to extreme incompetence, and also Parkinson's law - "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." Posted by Screwtape I still don't get it. What is all of this revenue for? Take Mozilla, for instance. What does all the money go to? The intuitive answer might be "hiring developers for Firefox". But no, that'd be wrong. Mozilla has gross revenues (2017) of $562 million, of which $539 million are royalties (e.g. default search engine). It has gross expenditures of $422 million. Of this, only $253 million is for "software development". Mozilla has "over 1,000 full-time employees worldwide". Assuming they have 1500 employees, that would be $169k per employee. How much does the Linux foundation spend on developing Linux, again? I mean, bloody hell, just read their annual report. Here are some choice quotes:
(publishing some kind of report)
(posting on facebook)
(unclear, seems to have something to do with India) Just what does all of this have to do with browsers? If they'd take the money they spend on whining about tracking, and spend it on actually doing something about it, we'd all be better off. Parkinson's law. Posted by Screwtape What does it need the money for, though? I don't see why it's a good trade-off to run more ads in your browser so you can spend $13.3 million on doing something in a foreign country you can't even explain in plain English what it is. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
Pages: 1
