Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrAlex94 | Hacker News Reader

I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads - it's a revenue share from the default search engine (which I've always been transparent about)[1], same as every other independent browser that has a search partner. It's not an "acceptable ads" programme where advertisers pay to be whitelisted.

[1] https://www.waterfox.com/docs/policies/revenue-model/

View on HN

FYI the documentation seems to be outdated.

On the Cookie Banner Reduction page[1] the section titled "Turn Cookie Banner Reduction on or off" talks about settings which don't exist (at least in the latest portable version 6.6.7 from Portapps.io). There is no option to block cookie banners in all windows.

[1] https://www.waterfox.com/support/cookie-banner-reduction/#tu...

Well, the default search engine is definitely your business partner, no? So they are getting a different tratment: default search engine (like in most other browsers, nothing fancy here) and their ads in their SERP are not blocked - at least by default - by the embedded ad-blocking engine of WaterFox. Isn't that correct? Happy to stand corrected, if it's the case.

Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default. Users can enable blocking on that page too with a single toggle in settings. That's why I laid it all out in this post, to let users know - it's about keeping Waterfox sustainable (paying bills, putting food on the table) as it's my only source of income currently.

I've mentioned in another comment, that I've tried other ways such as with subscription paid services, but unfortunately there's nowhere near enough traction for it to be sustainable.

Also bare in mind Waterfox currently comes with nothing, so this is just an extra layer of protection.

>I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads

...

>Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default.

The framing seems fair to me. Certainly not more unfair than those who criticize Firefox for having a search deal that defaults to Google while allowing the user to change it (which some people do)

The distinction I'm drawing is between a revenue share from a search partnership and something like an acceptable ads programme where individual advertisers pay to bypass the blocker - those are different things.

"For how it works in practice: by default, text ads will remain visible on our default search partner’s page - currently Startpage. The idea is that this is what will keep the lights on."

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com