Gregory's Server@disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz It'd the way you increase the value of an ad. Which allows you to make more money off wealthy people and make more content available for people you can't monatize. It's an equalizer. Not saying it's great, but it's a system that works to some extent.
|
14 comments
 @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz I (sadly) can't see an economic reality in which it reasonably can. The math just doesn't work out unless there's huge collective action changes I don't see happening anytime soon.  @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Well for a start, we can let the current ad-driven system break, and Firefox can help by not giving advertisers ways to track its users. I use community-supported alternatives to the major provider services every single day and they're just as good if not better. I see creators of all kinds making a good living through public funding. Meta, Alphabet, Amazon etc. have such a hold over the internet through measures of control, not because they're the best. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz While I Iargely agree with you, that experiment (when executed well) will mostly push the most vulnerable groups (and this is not just about income but many other factors) to Chrome, since sites would simply stop supporting other browsers. That's not a difficult road for them to take. Some small, educated, privileged group would almost certainly continue to use Firefox. But the reality is that group has plenty or options already @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz Don't get me wrong, if someone were to build/fork the browser/services in a way you suggest, and it were to succeed, I'd be super happy, and wish them nothing but success. But until then, I need to think about the best possible avenues to offer benefits to the people most in need of those benefits. And the avenues by which web authors are facilitated in their advertising needs while user privacy is protected seems like the most feasible route to me. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz I am neither educated nor wealthy, and yet here I am. I'm sorry, but the narrative that this is a move for disadvantaged people feels disingenuous. I know Firefox has been struggling and tough choices need to be made, but I also believe that those who use Firefox do so because it is seen as the less evil alternative to Chrome/Chromium. Choices like this give the impression that this is changing. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz I don't think it is. Don't get me wrong. Working for Google or Facebook would allow me to make multiple times what I make at Firefox. If I didn't believe in the mission I'd be long gone. The Mastodon bubble (even if you are not educated as you say), is extremely unrepresentative of the web or society at large. That society at large and its most vulnerable, to me, are much more important than the savvy people here. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz If you think this is changing. Or that we are somehow beholden to Google. I can simply tell you, factually, that you're wrong 🙂. We may disagree on how to proceed with a web that is open and accessible to all, and that disagreement is okay! And I will assume you are in good faith, if you will accept that I am 🙂. This is -genuinely- the only route I see for helping protect the privacy of the most vulnerable people. Even if you disagree. @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz I don't expect to change your mind, and the decisions you make are hopefully the best they can be for everyone involved. However, I do expect the choices made to bear out over time, and I will say that the closer Firefox grows to Chrome, the less distinct an alternative it becomes as well. Even if this isn't going to affect users to a significant extent, the optics do make it appear as though users have one fewer reason to put their trust in Mozilla. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz That's completely fair. And it's a difficult comms battle for us to fight (and this isn't my area of expertise!). When we tried not to support DRM, our users didn't go 'great! You go! Fight the awful systems!' People went: 'Wtf? We wanna watch Netflix.' And we lost tens of millions of users. I understand if someone says 'good riddance, they didn't understand the importance of the open web...' But in my mind, we need to be here for everyone. Somehow. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz And as you rightfully said, our challenge is to explain to people how we still offer value over alternatives. What we do for them that other browser's don't. I think you're spot on there and it isn't something we're great at. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz (I'm in Europe and really need to get some sleep, so may not reply for a while. Thank you for your respectful engagement. I appreciate it.) @Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz Of course. it's nice to have a civil conversation. Take care. @disky00 @prettyhuman @cuchaz I'll happily get back to it later. And if ever I can help at least understand why we make decisions, I will try to do so :). (Even in those cases where I may not agree with them myself. :p) |
@Schouten_B @prettyhuman @cuchaz It's a way for ad services to make money off of wealthy people so they can increase their hegemony while serving their C-suite massive bonuses.
The internet can exist without these systems and it can exist without the services which are dependent upon them. Just because things are the way they are doesn't mean they're how they have to be.