Mozilla to expand focus on advertising - "We know that not everyone in our community will embrace our entrance into this market"
Improving online advertising through product and infrastructure | The Mozilla Blog
Hey, Laura. Fuck you. Fuck your profits and your corporate greed. Enshit yourself till you close down.
Firefox closing down would be pretty big loss since we'd lose all our serious non-Chrome/Chromium-based alternatives
hey maybe firefox just wants to show that ladybird is worth the wait
What if we could have a world that wasn't powered by ads? I'd like to get past this "only one way to run the internet" train of thought.
I'm just so tired of ads, commercials and advertising in general. It's exhausting.
It's either that, a subscription model of some sort, going to pay to install models, or something else to fund themselves. I'd suggest going to a donation based model, but I doubt there's enough Firefox users willing to pay to even be able to keep it alive more than a year or two tops.
Says who?
Plenty of sites out there just run by people who want to run them, no fee, no ads.
It's people who want to capitalize on having a website that have this problem.
And let's be clear, it's their problem. Not mine. If they can't turn a profit with/without ads, that's not my concern, that's theirs. But they setup these web sites/services with the intention of making money through ads and surveillance, so let's not go around acting like these orgs just won't make it without us (there are exceptions, say archive.org, and guess what, people donate to them because they believe in the cause).
The problem is a bunch of people figured out the web was a brilliant way to data mine for profit. I actually had this discussion with a friend circa 1993. If we could see it then, imagine how many other people already had plans.
I would happily pay to download Firefox if they removed telemetry, ads, analytics. Security updates could be free, feature updates could have a small fee. Something similar.
There is a way to fund Firefox without user data and ads. Will it be as profitable, who knows, because quite simply, the vast majority do not want to make it a reality and loose what profit, control, or power they currently hold onto.
Well, do you subscribe to news sites, YouTube Premium, Kagi? The world you dream of is available to you today
Even of they reduced everything down to just Firefox, Thunderbird, and all in infra to run those products (Mozilla accounts, addons stores, hosting, dev/build services...), as well as continuing to pay for dev time on open source they use/contribute to, and the time their employees put into w3c and other foundation/standards/steering initiatives, I don't think you'd want to see the cost of a monthly subscription.
This stuff costs way more than people think it does, and behind the scenes Mozilla does a lot of work (with google, Microsoft, apple) on web standards, and trust me, you want them still involved seeing as each other browser group involved is well... You know... Much worse for privacy generally.
YouTube premium and kagi aren't even remotely in the same league for comparison when it comes to the cost and value a "Firefox" or "Mozilla" subscription would be.
I subscribe to Nebula because f*ck Google, and I'd pay for Kagi if I could just simply pay $X for Y searches with no subscription BS.
The enshitification of Firefox continues 😢
Cory Doctorow: "Disenshittify or die!" (YouTube)
Frankly, I'm surprised it took them so long to say this publicly. For over a year, Mozilla has had a de facto conflict of interest when it came to their stance on advertisements, so take anything they say about their necessity with a huge grain of salt...
May 2023: Mozilla purchases FakeSpot, a company that sells private data to advertisers. Mozilla keeps selling private data to advertisers to this day.
June 2024: Mozilla purchases Anonym, an AdTech company.
Not everyone?
Does anyone?
Good thing we can fork, I guess, but it's kinda sad to watch a previously good org die
Fork, blah, blah, blah.
When one of these forks doesn't depend on Mozilla to do all the heavy lifting of security updates and compatibility fixes, then maybe we can talk seriously about forks. But no fork does fuck-all towards the hard part of maintaining a web browser engine. So forks mean nothing.
I've been using librewolf over the last week. Honestly.... It's a drop in replacement for me
Does anyone?
I don't want to see Mozilla shutdown because Google no longer pays them, or due to the loss of another funding source.
Diversifying their income sources is a good thing.
Oh you mean one of the only two reasons I use this fucking thing? Ad blocking and privacy?
You're shitting on both. That's like... Idk, Craftsman making tools out of plastic and removing the lifetime warranty... Wtf do I even need you for then?
Eh, I care about a third: browser engine diversity. If they drop Gecko, I'm out, there's literally nothing left to keep me here.
Funny that's exactly what Black & Decker did the moment they got their hands on the Craftsman brand
Did you read the article?
At this point, I don't see many other options to keep everything going for Firefox. If they somehow lose the go*gle money they use to keep themselves going, they need another revenue source and I severely doubt there are enough Firefox users willing to pay enough to keep it going as it currently does. Don't like it, but I'm gonna at least play devil's advocate.
It would be nice if they at least allowed for even being able to donate to the browser itself. All the options that I am aware of are either the paid extra stuff they have, or to the overall company. Which is annoying since I imagine that the current "donation" option means that the money is being used mostly for the upper execs and routed to the extra shit that already has options for paying subs.
And, for the foreseeable future at least, advertising is a key commercial engine of the internet, and the most efficient way to ensure the majority of content remains free and accessible to as many people as possible.
I'm afraid they aren't wrong. The majority of people aren't going to pay for access to random blogs etc. So we'd end up with only the big players having usable sites.
People kick off about ads but rarely suggest an alternative to funding the internet.
Back in the day ads were targeted based on the website's target audience not the user's personal data. It works fine but is less effective. Don't see why they couldn't go that way.
You posted this on Lemmy.
I don't believe a web browser should be designed specifically for one business model, period.
There are plenty of free sites. Truly free, with no ads.
There are plenty of paid sites, supported by subscribers.
There are plenty of sites funded by educational institutions, nonprofits, or similar.
There used to be plenty of sites that were supported by non-invasive ads.
I don't give a damn if everyone uses Facebook and Google. That doesn't mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.
Internet was fine in the early 2000s before the rise of social media platforms resulted in surveillance advertisement complex.
It was a different place, but worked ok.
More effective is a massive understatement. Now they can precisely measure effectiveness and adjust their strategy in real time to maximize output. They have increased effective effectiveness several fold. The cat is out of the bag, even if we try to roll this back the googles of the world know the data is there and can’t not harvest it. Our best strategy has to combine regulation and monopoly busting, break these companies into smaller ones that have less power to comb through big data.
For a good read on this, check out The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuniga.
If your product doesn’t generate enough revenue to turn a profit, you don’t have a viable business
I don't want the internet to be exclusively business
I kept giving Mozilla the benefit of the doubt and telling myself things weren't so bad.
I was wrong.
I'll continue using Firefox because it's the least bad option, but I can't advocate for it in good faith anymore, and I don't expect it to last long with this orientation.
So it goes.
Ok sure, what do you want them to do instead then? 80% of their income is reliant on a tech giant's grace and is seemingly more and more likely to be cutoff soon. They need to survive somehow, and every monetised service they tried flopped thusfar.
Maybe im a dumbass, but im currently using an entire operating system that is community funded, and made. How is it that its possible to do it with linux, and all the things that go with linux, but a web browser can't do it without getting into ads? Why are web browsers so special that they just need oogles and oogles of money to function?
Ideas:
But the article here reads like, "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas. Have ads..."
I could see them trying to take themselves away from Google which wouldn't be a bad thing as that's where most of the money comes from for them ... Unless that's changed recently..
I'm afraid it won't last long without it. That's the key problem.
People hate ads, as do I, but what's the alternative?
Pay executives less. Focus on grants and PBS-style 'underwriting'. Subscription services like email and VPN.
Getting into advertising is just jumping into an intractable conflict of interest.
Ideas:
In parallel to our existing consumer products, we have the opportunity to build a better infrastructure for the online advertising industry as a whole. Advertising at large cannot be improved unless the tech it’s built upon prioritizes securing user data. This is precisely why we acquired Anonym.
Catering to the ad industry is backwards thinking, imo. Securing user data is easy enough if you do not collect it to begin with.
Imo, the fact companies have changed the narrative in favor of advertisers and data collection, proves only profit matters, not the people.
Securing user data is easy enough if you do not collect it to begin with.
Bingo.
As if de-anonymizing hasn't been demonstrated, repeatedly.
No one starts a company because they care about people
We know that not everyone in our community will embrace our entrance into this market. But taking on controversial topics because we believe they make the internet better for all of us is a key feature of Mozilla’s history. And that willingness to take on the hard things, even when not universally accepted, is exactly what the internet needs today.
But you're not doing the hard things. You're doing the easy thing. Capitulation to surveillance capitalism is the easy thing.
And that willingness to take on the hard things, even when not universally accepted, is exactly what the internet needs today.
Every fucking tech corporation ever has said this.
I write this at least once a day - I fucking hate business people / CEOs
Mozilla's non-profit status needs to be revoked.
I think at this point they have a nonprofit and a company, the later being used for all their taxable income.
I know; they should not be allowed to do that.
I feel like I’m reading a different article than everyone else. The comments made me think the article would be adding advertisements, but it seems to be trying to find a way forward to facilitate advertisements while maintaining privacy.
Without technical details I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I know lemmy is largely “Mozilla bad”, but I’m just not sure the comments are in line with the proposal.
I originally was one of the "FUCK FIREFOX IS FUCKED" people. However, after taking a deep breath and actually reading, yes, you are correct. There is no indication that they're blocking adblockers or taking away firefox customization. I think they're both looking for alternative revenue streams and trying to make the advertising business less intrusive. That being said, their communication is absolute dogshit and they deserve a lot of the shit they get. But I am not yet panicking. Firefox remains the best choice for blocking ads.
There is no indication that they’re blocking adblockers or taking away firefox customization.
Yet.
We don't know that after they are deeper and deeper into the advertising industry, that they don't just go ahead and do it.
Remember how Google wasn't always evil? Money changes companies (and people). Advertising money could very well change Mozilla. Plus, remember, these statements are them telling you the public version, things that they are claiming will happen. Often times what goes on behind the scenes is very different.
I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned by this.
Thank you for breathing a bit of sanity into this thread. Same here. Some commenters were like "oh there's already too many adds" and I was like wait, what? They're not adding more adds to Firefox, are they? The article doesn't suggest that.
The "Mozilla bad" crowd echo chamber has gotten completely out of control in my opinion, and it's an avalanche of low effort comments, dozens of upvotes, and it's kind of a self sustaining echo chamber that exists because it exists.
Yes, that's the same thing every time Firefox is mentioned here. It's like people here WANT to be angry.
It's like people here WANT to be angry.
Outrage addiction is absolutely, 1000% a thing.
She went on to work at eBay for 13 years, followed by PayPal, Skype, and Airbnb. source
why would Mozilla choose to be directed by an ebay+paypal+airbnb experience and can somebody with that background not think like this ☞
"Because Mozilla’s mission is to build a better internet. And, for the foreseeable future at least, advertising is a key commercial engine of the internet, and the most efficient way to ensure the majority of content remains free and accessible to as many people as possible."
Advertising will not improve unless we address the underlying data sharing issues, and solve for the economic incentives that rely on that data.
thanks to Mozilla for assuming the responsibility of improving advertising
We can’t just ignore online advertising — it’s a major driver of how the internet works and is funded. We need to stare it straight in the eyes and try to fix it. For those reasons, Mozilla has become more active in online advertising over the past few years. - MARK SURMAN, PRESIDENT, MOZILLA source
if we stay with that metaphor of "We need to stare it straight in the eyes and try to fix it", it's not difficult to imagine Mark and Mozilla being swallowed by the monster he's "staring straight in the eyes" :/
i hope they can filter the shit Mozilla will include in Firefox from mull and mullvad
She's not particularly wrong, but this highlights the problem for me.
Why does the corporate arm behind one of the last "free" browsers out there need to become involved in this clear conflict of interest?
Why does this need to be developed as core functionality in the browser codebase instead of as an addon like most of the previous experiments?
There is repeated insistence that this is key to the future of the web. I don't neccessarily disagree. I disagree entirely that this should have any direct contact with the Firefox project. Create a separate subsidiary within Mozilla for this shit. Anything to maintain a wall between the clearly conflicting goals.
This all reads like a new CEO coming in hungry to make a mark rather than actually just be a steward to keeping business as usual going.
But taking on controversial topics because we believe they make the internet better for all of us is a key feature of Mozilla’s history.
Is it?
I would rather have a world where Mozilla is actively engaged in creating positive solutions for hard problems, than one where we only critique from the sidelines.
Maybe your users don't.
Yeah adblock plus said the same thing. A lot of companies have said the same thing. It always comes down to greed
In addition to your good points:
a world where Mozilla is actively engaged
That doesn't have to mean a world where Firefox itself is involved in this engagement, despite her insistence that it for some reason must be. Firefox is not Mozilla as a whole.
Literally no one but advertisers like ads. Anything that leads to more ads being shown is a negative to your community. Some might understand the need to make money, but that doesn't make anyone like ads.
But at least forking is still an option. The instant they make any moves that inhibit forking or privacy on forks, Firefox will be completely dead. For now, it’s just gangrenous.
The thing is, people willing to maintain a fork could contribute to Firefox today, and reduce the development cost, reduce the need for income.
Sure, some people will be more willing to contribute, if it's a pure grassroots effort, or if they're left without a browser otherwise, but to just assume that a fork will fix it, that's wishful thinking.
I wish that most forks wouldn't be even worse. Pale Moon, the most interesting one, is a gang of patent trolls.
Pale Moon feels like it forked during the peak of Windows Vista, and hasn't updated its UI, or extension library since.
LibreWolf, Mullvad Browser, and Waterfox feel the most up to date, while being FOSS.
I honestly never expected the final death blow for Firefox to come from Mozilla.
Is this a response to the fact that they may not get paid for having Google as their default search engine? If so, I worry about a bunch of Linux distributions. It's ironic that a company's toxic virtual monopoly was paying for so much open software.
Eh, they've been speedrunning this for years, this is just the most efficient way to get to the end goal of complete ruin.
I have a few alternative ideas, but I honestly don't think they're interested in hearing them.
Maybe they've been infiltrated by bad actors from Google, parading around as pro-privacy frauds.
I hope so. I hope there could be a future where Mozilla is purged of these people and returned to being just a browser. Not everything has to be a "platform" with a business model for MBA's to feast on.
Mozilla's PPA was developed in collaboration with Facebook. While we don't usually think of that company as advertisement centric, they are, just moreso within their own walled garden of a social network.
parading around as pro-privacy frauds.
Here's a frighteningly accurate prediction from The Register, written back in January:
...Baker notes: "We need to be faster in prototyping, launching, learning, and iterating ... This requires rich data, and so we will be moving in that direction, but in a very Mozilla way."
Surely not slurping telemetry?
According to the report, the "Mozilla way" is all about privacy, encryption, and keeping customer data safe. Hopefully, it will also be about innovation rather than scattering AI fairy dust over its product line.
Wow, utterly shocked that a company with a shit CEO that takes most of its money from Google would have these viewpoints.
I'm sure it is completely coincidental that ublock is about to die as well.
I think the bigger issue is them potentially losing their Google income.
They've failed to diversify their income with a bunch of failed subscription services, Google is in hot waters because of anti-competitive behaviour; they're going to need something.
Which isn't to say I like it. But "this is happening because they take Google money" is parroted beneath every slightly negative thing Mozilla does.
Can one thing please not be full of adverts :( I'll pay for the browser, I just want marketers to fuck off for a while lol
Did I miss something? I don't think the browser is going to be full of ads?
This feels like the turning point for Firefox that we all feared would come. They've now switched to outright gas lighting their users. They're trying to convince us that if they take a stab at doing ads the right way, that we can have a web filled with tolerable ads that work for both the user and the business.
Ads and user data collection are the worst part of the internet. Nothing has ever gotten better because of them. And there's already far too much focus in this area. Mozilla just wants to be another exploiter so that they can have a piece of the stolen value pie.
This is just a huge fuck you to their community.
Yeah, perhaps because advertisements go against the values that users look for in your browser?
Squidward on the floor saying "Future, future"
But actually hexbear does need a future Squidward. We've got others but we need future
This Squidward also matches it well.
Because of propaganda, people find it easier to imagine the end of the world before the end of capitalism. Just the same, theres lots of commenters here that could imagine the end of the internet before they imagine the end of advertising on the internet.
The only ones who will embrace it are the advertisers....
You're forgetting about the people in the office building that sit around the big table. They embrace it too.
This breaks my heart.
My problem with this in spite of the dire situation they face if Google is forced to cut funding by anti-trust court rulings (or not even forced but they make paying off Mozilla a moot point so they stop) is that they become an ad company. Ads become tied to their CEO compensation, to the salaries of the people who develop it.
They claim they're making a better kind of ad network, a privacy respecting kind. The problem is the ad industry doesn't want less data, they want more. There are no looming laws that would force the ad industry to adopt a more privacy respecting alternative or die and without that the ad industry is going to shun this and it'll be a failure and then they'll have a failed ad network that they can either discard entirely or adapt to industry standards of privacy invasion and abuse and continue to exist and then they'll make another "hard choices" post about having to do that.
And I can see it now. This experiment will fail and after some pressure from the ad industry and some devil-on-shoulder whispering Mozilla will begrudgingly start to enshittify. Their ad network will become less privacy respecting by tiny little steps, by salami-slicing or boiling the frog, the whole privacy-preserving measurement thing will be thrown out BUT they'll still claim they respect you more than Google and will at first perhaps but that will erode. Maybe they'll just implode at some point after that which given Google is being found a monopoly works just fine for Google and the rest of big tech who want a more centralized, locked down browser company that wants to help implement DRM that can't be circumvented, that wants to help lock down everything on the web to restrict users freedoms to choose what is displayed or if they can save it or record it or copy it to say nothing of blocking ads.
I used to work in a marketing agency, and had a few clients that heavily used advertising data.
I'd go as far as to say that while more data is nice, good data is much better. If Mozilla can somehow produce an advertising platform that is not intrusive, is opt-in, and has a wide enough reach to satisfy advertisers, they're on to a winning strategy. Furthermore, they would need to codify any changes into Mozilla itself to ensure that advertising never gets to intrude on privacy or the browser experience - with the removal of the CEO and entire exec team as the cost for triggering this.
With all that said, I think the threat of doing this is probably a good thing. Mozilla's track record of products is, frankly, piss poor. The thing is, everyone seems to be good at advertising, so there's no reason why if Google leaves they can't just say "fine, we're an advertising company now" and eat their lunch.
I don't see how eating their lunch would happen. Something like 85-90% of Mozilla's income every year is from their Google search partnership. Google does some sort of revenue sharing thing where a portion of the value of search ads clicked through Firefox goes back to Mozilla, but the payment for search partnership itself, well, if that goes away, there's no lunch to eat, metaphorically. There's nothing to replace it with. Maybe Bing takes it's place but I'm not sure that would happen.
I think the elephant in the room here is that Mozilla has 0.2% of the revenue that Google has, but is sustaining market share orders of magnitude higher than that. But unfortunately, at this point there's a growing echo chamber of extremely low effort comments assuming that if you could just run back the clock, and not focus on "distractions" like their VPN or Mozilla.social, or the Mr. Robot Easter egg, that they would have overtaken Chrome in market share.
Like it was this easily achievable thing that just slipped through their fingers, rather than an inevitable consequence of Google's disproportionate finances and monopoly power.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the Google ad monopoly case?
It's probably at least a factor, yeah. They've been trying to reduce dependence on Google for a long time, which was always a smash hit with the community (not), but if there's a very concrete scenario where will stop paying, then the urgency ramps up quickly.
Ladybird is not usable yet, but it's an independent browser and engine that accepts donations
repo - https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird
youtube channel with monthly updates - https://www.youtube.com/@LadybirdBrowser/videos
So is NetSurf, and has been for most of this century already. I mean, it's great to see people even caring about independent browsers, but NetSurf surely needs much more love (and more developers). :-)
Not good
Burn the phoenix again.
Does this mean they are gonna brick ublock origin and force me to Google's 3.0 shit? (I forgot the name of it)
Very unlikely. They will support new extension API's (they are already 90%+ compatible with manifest v3) bit Mozilla has committed to maintaining compatibility for the manifest v2 API's that don't exist in v3.
Claims otherwise are FUD.
Manifest v3? I gather they're already moving towards this but not in a manner which harms ad blocking
Time to switch to other fork
rockbottom: NOBODY wants to see the ads you throw in our faces. doesnt matter that, as you claim, those ad views pay you for your content. there is no good way to make those ads palatable.
69% of the world population doesn't use ad blockers. Google made their billions from people clicking on ads.
Not only are we technical folks (only 5% of the population not their target audience, it seems most people don't care enough about ads to ever try to stop them... at all.
So 31% uses ad blocking.
That's about 1/3. Pretty impressive actually.
Technically correct: literally no one does fit the criteria for not everyone.
The original developer has a great blog, and has commented on this
They've decided who their customers are, and it's not you
Since FF is free - isn't that a given?
I will go against the tide here and welcome this change. The web is powered by advertising and tracking. It will happen whether Mozilla is part of it or not. In that case, I would much rather have a website using a Mozilla advertising service that is more ethical and respects the user more than the ones from big tech. It's a lesser of two evils and I support this. I would of course rather have no ads at all but we don't live in a fairy tale world and evil companies exist. And like most ads currently in Firefox, I fully trust we will be able to disable them easily, just like we can right now.
I think this is a good thing that Mozilla is finally trying to distance itself from Google's money because it ensures that maintaining the nonprofit is more sustainable
If Mozilla starts being aggressive to ad blocking, I'll agree with the common opinion on this post. But for now I'm more less neutral. If the choice is Mozilla dies or they do some ad stuff, I'd rather the latter. Whether the current and former people running Mozilla have made the right decisions or not to get to this point is kind of irrelevant, because people do not want Mozilla to disappear (even if they claim otherwise) because Mozilla is still a major driver of privacy-oriented work in w3c and web in general.
Aside from that... The only real way to stop ads and tracking, or at least prevent selling and sharing of data outside of the 1st party collector, is a legal path. Whether Anonym/Mozilla is as private as they are claiming, their intent is at least what a realistic legal solution to web tracking would condone that would continue to allow for revenue via ads. There is no way ads will ever go away in a capitalist economy, so it'll need to do something, blocked or not.
Mozilla won’t go after ad blocking. It just makes no sense for them to do so. They haven’t given any indication that they will put extra ads in Firefox, they are saying that they are creating an ad company which respects privacy as an alternative to all the others
Thanks but
We are targeting a first Alpha release for early adopters in 2026.
We need an alternative before that
Now imagine if they had something to advertise which people actually want!
Google was recently successfully sued for being anit-competitive by paying third parties to set Google as the default search engine.
That payoff by Google is like 90% of Mozilla's income, which is probably disappearing. So yeah, they're in full panic to fill that gap.
So long as they remain open source
I switched to a fork of Firefox (Zen) without their bs..
Based. I switched to Midori
I’ve been using Zen, too, for a few weeks now and despite it being early days it feels like a very polished experience.
Well, Thunderbird gives me hope.
Same! Check the telemetry line in about:config that still has a value in it though (I forget what it is, just that it had one)
I don't see how they think it's a good move. I'm not speaking about people being upset. Most of the Firefox users are either people having at least some tech knowledge or people which use it because of a person with some tech knowledge.
And most of these people use an ad-blocker, know how to install a fork and so on. So, from the beginning, I don't know who think it's a good idea other than to kill Firefox.
How it's been going.
Hard fork incoming in 3... 2... 1....
Does anyone know if this will hit Fennec on Android as well?
Maybe if we support firefox we could reach the same amout of money than google
