Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Way way way too early to say we need to ditch firefox.
What we know is that Mozilla, firefox's parent, bought an ad company with the stated goal to make privacy friendly advertisements.
Also this week (I believe, maybe a bit earlier) Firefox announced that they are holding to manifest v2's rules for adblocking, that they are encouraging ublock and other apps to still block ads.
Firefox needs money to continue development though to be competitive with Chrome. Ads are the only real way to make money on the internet. There is nothing that suggests that they are adding ads to firefox, to me it sounds more like they want sites to use their privacy focused ad service to fund their development of firefox because they weren't receiving enough donations - which makes sense.
I'm not going to ditch my browser of 20 years over fear that something might happen. If something happens like that, then sure I'll change to something else. Remember though, all of the alternatives are chromium based, which is mostly controlled by Google. By giving up Firefox you're allowing Google to make their monopoly, because Firefox is the only other real browser engine out there.
So, rather than be reactionary, I'd say let's give them the benefit of the doubt and see where it goes.
Most level-headed reaction to the issue I've seen to date. Thanks for saying it.
If a company has had a decent record to date, I prefer to wait to see if they hang themselves with their own rope rather than rage quitting on insufficient information.
They've done some questionable things in the past that can be explained by over-zealous PMs and such, so I'll wait to see how this plays out.
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech Maybe I should rephrase It might be a bit early, but I don't think there is going to be any benefit from this course of action for the users.
We don't even know if this is for Firefox yet. As far as we know this is a completely separate entity selling adspace on other websites and places completely separate from Firefox. They have said literally nothing about doing anything like adding ads to Firefox.
Let's cross that bridge if and when we get to it. Otherwise this is all just a slippery slope argument. Yes, they can add ads to Firefox, but they have not done that or even implied that they might do that. If they do that, we'll deal with it then.