3mo ago

Mozilla explains their recent foray into advertising - A free and open internet shouldn’t come at the expense of privacy

blog.mozilla.org A free and open internet shouldn’t come at the expense of privacy | The Mozilla Blog

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

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're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

151 comments

Don't let your bias color your opinion.
In another comment, you endorsed the AdTech industry lobbying to create an advertisement monopoly. Charitably interpreted, you could only have meant one of two things:
Mozilla is uniquely positioned to lobby on behalf of this
All AdTech companies, even Google and Brave, should get a crack at lobbying their products
But since you don't seem to be very pro Google, I believe it's the former... And based on Mozilla providing nothing more substantial than any other company engaged in the incestuous and corporate PATCG, it sure does seem you are the one engaging while wearing rose tinted glasses.
- How did you get an endorsement for adtech industry lobbying out of my other comments? And how would my comments insinuate that I want them to create a monopoly? You're engaging in some heavy reframing and redefining of what I've stated.
  Mozilla deserves criticism. But i dont think it makes any sense to campaign against firefox as is happening all over this post. You are the one who began demanding an argument about Anonym on a comment where I was suggesting that firefox itself is still a net good, especially for people who want to continue to use forks like librewolf. Whether this path Mozilla is on ends up working out or not, firefox is still far superior in all sorts of other domains of privacy and user choice when it comes to a browser, and that allows the forks to exist, too. People should use forks if they want to, but they shouldn't discourage people from using firefox if they aren't interested in a fork.
  I don't actually give a crap about Anonym, aside from the mission seeming better, nor do i believe I've endorsed Anonym anywhere. All I've said is thay they are steps closer to a realistic possibility for the current US political, legal, and economic environment to have any measure of privacy in advertising. You are the one trying to put the endorsement in my mouth and reflavoe my words as advocating for an adtech monopoly.
  I'd rather Ads not exist. I'd rather tracking not exist. But Mozilla planting a flag on that hill only means they go extinct unless the political, legal, or economic environment of our society changes. And Mozilla going extinct also means the forks will most likely go with it, and that is a far worse outcome than Mozilla doing some ad stuff in a different business unit.
  And based on Mozilla providing nothing more substantial than any other company engaged in the incestuous and corporate
  I agree the PATCG is a pit of scum. But while it exists and it influences how Firefox will need to operate to be competitive and work with web standards, why should they be faulted for being a part of it?
  
  How did you get an endorsement for adtech industry lobbying out of my other comments?
  Already addressed
  how would my comments insinuate that I want them to create a monopoly?
  Having enough political power to exert control over an industry is monopoly control in my book. Not yours?
  I'd rather Ads not exist. I'd rather tracking not exist. But...
  Ads and tracking. Hmm.
  I hate to see "but" after a statement like that.
  Mozilla planting a flag on that hill only means they go extinct unless the political, legal, or economic environment of our society changes.
  WTF? Up until recently, they did plant their flag on that hill. Mozilla fight tracking. They blocked it. And you know what? Unlike you, I'm willing to take the stand that they did the right thing there.
  And I have no idea why you would say that their decision to do that for years up until 2022 was a bad thing.
  While you repeatedly insist (without basis) that services must use ads to exist, let me remind you: you are on Lemmy.
  
  Having enough political power to exert control over an industry is monopoly control in my book. Not yours?
  Theres a massive difference between advocating for something bu havinf some power and influence, and doing so with the power of a monopoly. You took my words and dialed them up to assume monopoly when all I meant is having a seat at the table.
  While you repeatedly insist (without basis) that services must use ads to exist, let me remind you: you are on Lemmy.
  Obviously not all services require ads to exist. Ive not stated that once, but you apparently are happy to put those words in my mouth to suit your arguments.
  
  Let's say there's a table, and sitting at it are nine companies that want to wring every penny out of consumers by any means necessary. Mozilla sits at the table.
  How many horrid companies are there at the table now?
  Theres a massive difference between advocating for something bu havinf some power and influence, and doing so with the power of a monopoly.
  And what a table it is.
  
  9 horrid plus 1 delusional that may swing toward horrid later for its own survival
  I mean, good luck but I doubt anything really changes. I hope to be wrong I just don't expect to be - less disappointing that way.
  
  You are the one who began demanding an argument about Anonym
  This was a bizarre thing to read, because I never brought up Anonym, never even mentioned them.
  You brought them up. Right here.
  It's strange that you would accuse me, or anyone else, of arguing against something you brought up yourself. WTF

151 comments