seeing Mozilla embrace meta with open arms should provoke an instinctive disgust reaction even if there's marginal harm reduction involved. (and marginal is right - mainstream users don't use firefox! my posts have higher marketshare than firefox!)
>What would happen if advertising became an ineffective model due to user rejection or ad blocking? Companies would have to start making people pay for their services (facebook isn't going to use a fucking donation model lmao), which I think the typical user and the company would not want. So they have interests in preserving the advertising model.
it doesn't matter what people want (and what they want is manipulated - "the heroin addict wishes to keep his heroin, his dealer wishes to keep providing it, why should we intervene?"), it matters what's right - Facebook should be destroyed and all digital advertisers should be publicly executed. That Mozilla has an interest in preserving the model and in supporting those who want to preserve the model is precisely the problem.>If you accept that advertising is, in fact, a fundamental part of the current internet ecosystem that isn't going away for a while, if ever, to allow websites to self-support in proportion to their popularity… why not try and add a bandaid to reduce the exploitation of users?
Because this is digital Blairism. If they really cared about users they'd design a browser that inhibits tracking entirely rather than marginally reducing it, going into open conflict with advertisers rather than collaboration with them. (It's not like this would destroy the web either - the average user uses chrome! - though it might boost Mozilla's flagging marketshare a little to make a browser that de-shits the web by blocking ads by default.)
postscript: my recollection is that Wikipedia is loaded, they e-beg because they like pissing away money on social outreach bollocks and other grifts for tech-wankers - they've got the cash in the bank to run the servers until the sun burns out.