Hacker News Reader

> Or...hear me out: Firefox gets into the adblocker business and lets the big boys paya fortune to be exempted by default.

That will make Firefox a very attractive browser to people who want to block as many ads as possible, and they will then install an add-on which also blocks the ads that Firefox whitelists, perhaps using Firefox's own whitelist as a source if it's easily available. Then if Firefox tries to pull a Google and be evil and lock down their add-on API so that ad blocker add-ons can no longer be made, these people will just switch to a fork with no such limitations. And in the first place I don't think Firefox has enough usage for them to be able to charge a "fortune" for such an ad blocking exemption in the first place.

By "EU and US govs mandating it as the only default browser" I assume you mean for government employees and not for the entire populace (which would be straight up despotic), but either way it would probably be unenforceable.

> By "EU and US govs mandating it as the only default browser" I assume you mean for government employees and not for the entire populace

Yes, for their own gov pcs not the people in general.

> and they will then install an add-on which also blocks the ads that Firefox whitelists

You are the third commenter I had to explain this to, so maybe my fault in not making this clear but there is no need for that, the whitelist is just a default "moderare" adblock setting which you can change to "aggressive" to block everything. And exisiting adblockers will continue to work if you prefer them.

This is similar to how you can set your search engine to duckduckgo but google pays a fortune to be the default.

> but either way it would probably be unenforceable.

A healthy IT organization shouldn't allow the average user to install their own browser of choice. But government orgs tend to be underfunded to the point that Firefox mandates are nowhere near their top tech priority.

> Firefox gets into the adblocker business and lets the big boys paya fortune to be exempted by default.

This would completely alienate Firefox's core userbase.

> i have ideas on how to implement unblockable ads using traditional means

If a way to serve unblockable ads existed, it would already be implemented and widely used

> If a way to serve unblockable ads existed, it would already be implemented and widely used

I don't think this is necessarily true. It's clear that any tech that literally forces users to look at something is coercive. Forcing your users to wear a Clockwork Orange style eye gadget is clearly not acceptable. Playing ads and asking your users not to switch to another channel is clearly acceptable. The game is largely about gaining or ceding ground between those extremes about what's socially acceptable rather than what's technologically possible.

Many users are okay with some level of ads. It's easier to ratchet up the ads those users are willing to watch than it is to get increasingly authoritarian with the small number of users who insist on not seeing any ads. For example, YouTube didn't attempt to fight ad blockers for years. They're only really starting now because it's trying to hit revenue targets.

I am surprised by your comment and the reaction to mine. Why would firefox's users be alienated? They get an adblocker by default that will be supported and maintained by mozilla. If you want to block all ads that would be changing a setting, what google and pals pay for is the default setting that benefits them, they will still get blocked if users want them blocked. This mindset of making an emotional ideologic reaction isn't helping anyone!

> If a way to serve unblockable ads existed, it would already be implemented and widely used

It would require a change in how ads are served and bids are made in realtime. The main reason it isn't happening already is that most people are not blocking ads, especially on mobile where engagement has most value.I'd say ad blocking users are not more than firefox users even.

You're right, it was an emotional reaction comment. I don't like ads, I think ads are a negative on the world, and I hate that nearly every corner of the internet is funded by them. I use Firefox because it's open source software made by a non-profit that I believe is trying to do good in the world. So, when I saw your idea to put even more ads into Firefox, I knee-jerk'd out a negative comment.

I just wish we all directly and willingly funded things that were good.

> when I saw your idea to put even more ads into Firefox, I knee-jerk'd out a negative comment.

That wasn't what I suggested though, it was the opposite. Now i have randos downvoting every comment i make lol. People in general these days need to be more open minded I think.

>This would completely alienate Firefox's core userbase.

How's that core userbase working out for them? Sub 2% very nearly. Time to shake things up and figure it out. What they've been doing don't work no more.

Hi Satan.

Mozilla will have the most beautiful, pure FOSS browser on the planet. But who is going to use it?

Me and 2% of the internet, happily.

> Firefox gets into the adblocker business

This would be an abysmal decision all around. Firefox doesn't have enough market share to command any sort of price for this, and selling ad-blocker access would immediately destroy all trust in Firefox as a product.

They already make hundreds of millions just for allowing google as default search engine, they can make more with this.

I re-read what I said and it is in plain english, why are you and others not understanding that I didn't say selling ad blocker access? Ad blocker default exempt list is what is sold which users can change. And you can still use ad blocking extensions.

Basically a ton of people get an adblocker by default and you people have your pitchforks out because mozilla sells the default setting of an adblocker? Your emotions and open source religion aside what exactly offends you about this?