
Mozilla: Ad on Firefox’s new tab page was just another experiment - ekianjo
https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/31/mozilla-ad-on-firefoxs-new-tab-page-was-just-another-experiment/
======
jchw
Wow.

They keep using that word 'experiment' to mean 'I can run whatever code I want
on an end user's computer' which is not right. It's an ad. You're pushing ads.
It's not the worst thing in the world if you just call it what it is, but
using the 'experiments' mechanism to push ads is scummy and to me a violation
of trust.

I've been running Firefox inside of Firejail, a sandbox, lately, primarily as
a light form of exploit mitigation, and I think maybe you should too, just in
case Mozilla decides to experiment with attacking your computer as well.

I think today I'm going to experiment with QuteBrowser and some other more
fringe browsers that are available for Linux.

~~~
clairity
the difference may not matter to you but it's not an ad because it's not a
_paid_ placement. no personal info is shared up front either.

obviously you'd share info once you click on it. i don't like ads either, but
this seems better than the standard track-you-out-the-wazoo ad.

~~~
jchw
Which definition of ad requires it to be a paid placement? As far as I
understand it the word advertisement is a pretty broad term. You could
advertise for someone for free, perhaps because you have an existing
relationship, or perhaps you could advertise for something other than monetary
payment. It's an advertisement.

Worse, it's an advertisement, for a commercial service, in a place that I
didn't want it to be. The last place I wanted something like that to be,
really.

~~~
clairity
we can debate the semantics but i don't think it's a stretch to consider
monetary exchange as a feature of advertising (perhaps a more narrow version
of your general exchange of value definition). with that said, another
commenter noted that this could be paid per action after the fact (CPA), so it
could very well be called an ad by any definition.

i agree that we shouldn't place ads everywhere, especially in "safe" places.
but i'm also concerned with the viability and longevity of firefox.

------
MiddleEndian
It's an experiment in hurting the good will of their brand.

I still use Firefox but it's painful sometimes. Not as painful as Chrome, but
Mozilla seems determined to come up with unexpected new ways to fuck up
Firefox for some reason.

~~~
TAForObvReasons
It's simple: $$$$$.

Every one of these actions is a short-term cash grab. The real amazing part is
how privacy advocates let these transgressions, or what Mozilla calls
"experiments", slide.

~~~
x0x0
Here's reality, though:

The minimum annual cash burn to have a high quality browser engine, js
runtime, and UI seems to be several hundred million dollars.

FF is now utterly dependent on google for cash (and to be fair, google really
needs FF to exist to pretend chrome isn't close to a monopoly). But who knows
how long that will last and if/when google will exert control. One of the best
things for Mozilla to do as an org is to figure out a non-google-dependent
revenue stream.

Privacy respecting ads are a good compromise.

~~~
mprev
Yes but Mozilla does a lot more now than produce and maintain software. For
example, in 2017 it spent $24m on its internet health project [1].

I’m making no judgement about that but there are two sides to fiscal
longevity: getting more money is one, the other is to focus spending.

1\. [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/annualreport/2017/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/annualreport/2017/)

~~~
metajack
Those are entirely different buckets of money. Money the foundation spends on
things like the IHR, do not come out of the revenue from the Google search
deal. Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp are two different entities (though
MoFo owns MoCo). In the same way, donations to MoFo do not pay for browser
developer salaries.

------
dependenttypes
If you want to avoid running random experimental mozilla code on your machine
without any kind of confirmation needed by you remember to go to
about:preferences#privacy in the "Firefox Data Collection and Use" and turn
"Allow Firefox to install and run studies" to off.

I would also set the about:config options "network.allow-experiments" and
"app.normandy.enabled" to false.

------
keepingscore
Based on their logic ads in newspapers aren't ads because customer information
isn't shared with the advertiser until they connect with the ad and visit
their store.

~~~
clairity
that's not quite right. newspaper ads are _paid_ placement, while these are
not. being paid for placement is an essential feature of advertising. so to
differentiate from that, mozilla uses the term "offer" here.

~~~
zzzcpan
Paid placement is just one model of advertisement. Other well known ones are
paid per impression, per click, per action. This is obviously the last one.

I guess Mozilla is confident enough not many people understand what CPA ads
are to claim they are not ads.

~~~
clairity
that's a fair point, but it still doesn't help the newspaper analogy i was
responding to.

i don't like ads either, but i'm ok with mozilla experimenting to find more
privacy-respecting revenue streams and lessen their reliance on google.

------
gwern
I hope they randomized it so they can measure the effect of ads on users
quitting Firefox or reducing usage.

------
aaaaaaaaaab
_“This snippet was an experiment to provide more value to Firefox users
through offers provided by a partner,” a Mozilla spokesperson told
VentureBeat. “It was not a paid placement or advertisement. We are continually
looking for more ways to say thanks for using Firefox._

Yuck, what a slimey piece of PR babble. I guess all those IE toolbars weren’t
spyware after all - they were trying to provide _value_ to their users! I
guess all those unwanted flyers tucked in my mailbox aren’t ads either, they
just want to provide me value...

------
gulbanana
how do these people convince themselves that the problem with ads is privacy
and tracking? i use an ad blocker so that i _won’t see ads_.

~~~
david-gpu
I would happily pay a flat $50/month for an ad-free experience where content
producers got paid for each of their pages I visit.

~~~
scarejunba
I, too, would pay $1000 for unlimited use of any supercar I want.

~~~
david-gpu
Snarkiness does not help.

Right now publishers make zero from me because I have a couple layers of ad
blockers. If I'm willing to pay X for some number of ad-free articles, which
does not have to be unlimited, then publishers would be making X dollars more.

~~~
scarejunba
Yup. That's why I don't pay for HBO, so I totally get it. If they want to make
it $2, at least they'd get something from me. Until then, there's always
Putlocker. Their loss, really.

~~~
david-gpu
HBO is not funded by ads. We are talking about removing ads with a
micropayment of equivalent magnitude.

The energy spent feeling smart would be better directed at your reading
comprehension.

------
ddtaylor
While I'm not thrilled Mozilla ran an experiment placing ads in the browser, I
am confident that anything they release will be easy to disable via
about:config or some other configuration.

However, looking closer at this situation there is a bit of a troubling fact
that `experiments.enabled` - the configuration directive used here - doesn't
appear in about:config but certainly is being used:

[https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-
esr45/source/browser/experim...](https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-
esr45/source/browser/experiments/ExperimentsService.js#20)

Looks like someone filed a bug:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1517147](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1517147)

~~~
naner
Mozilla's in a weird spot. I understand they need to be profitable but
springing these types of "experiments" on users is eroding trust and is
damaging long-term. There's got to be a better way to manage these changes so
that it doesn't feel like adware is being surreptitiously injected into your
web browser.

The Wikipedia method of getting in your face begging for money seems
unpleasant as well but at least that doesn't leave you questioning their
motives and judgement.

------
ekianjo
And Mozilla is wondering why they keep losing usage share...

------
clairity
the hubbub over this seems overblown. sure, there is advertising value to
booking.com, but if no data is shared with them until you click on the offer,
this seems like a decent privacy-respecting effort to find another revenue
stream for mozilla that's not google. if you already use booking.com, it's 20
bucks free.

moreover you can turn off snippets in the about:preferences > Home tab.

at least it's not chrome, which constantly and intrusively monitors you for
advertising value.

~~~
yowlingcat
Please don't resort to whataboutism to defend a move that would obviously
alienate a very core part of Firefox's userbase. Being better than Chrome is a
very low bar. This hubbub seems overblown to you, but not to others, and from
your comments on this thread, you don't seem to understand why.

Firefox has traditionally been the _only_ major browser that champions the
traditional freedoms that many folks (myself included) associate with the web.
For me personally, that involves looking at the commercial internet as a
subset of the internet as a whole, which is a successful decentralized system
which has reached escape velocity. The legacy of Firefox is the legacy of that
system. You seem to presume that the corporation and its profitability is
necessary for Firefox to be successful, and so a "decent privacy-respecting
effort to find another revenue stream" rooted in advertisements is reasonable.
I don't agree on principle, and I don't agree in practice, because these
things take away the sole differentiator that prevents Firefox from becoming
Chrome with less market share.

This is probably the central thing that might make sense for you to think
about: what is the market differentiator for Firefox? Why would anyone bother
to use it versus Chrome? Being less obnoxious in doing sketchy things but
still doing them is not a good reason. Not doing sketchy things is a good
reason.

~~~
clairity
i deny your whataboutism and counter with _slippery slope_!

but seriously, i don’t think it’s a big deal because

1) no personal data is shared up front

2) it's an experiment

3) you can turn it off/block it

4) some people might appreciate the discount

5) there’s a wide non-slippery gulf between complete ad blocking and complete
tracking

6) mozilla might find a decent compromise between those extremes, which is
sorely missing

7) i trust mozilla to course-correct if necessary, as they have in the past.

i don’t want ads everywhere either, and i applaud your principles, but please
apply them to helping mozilla find non-ad and non-google revenue streams
(assuming you’re not anti-revenue as well). please work through and put forth
a rationale, not an emotional appeal, and refrain from condecscension.

n.b. - i've used firefox since it was called phoenix (v0.3).

~~~
yowlingcat
Please allow me to apologize in advance for the long rant that is to follow.

I think you're proving my point by insinuating that I need to put forth a way
for Mozilla to find non-ad and non-Google revenue streams, and I also think
you're misunderstanding me by implying I'm putting forward an emotional appeal
-- I actually could care less about whether or not Mozilla Corp chooses to
uphold the open source values that propelled it to success and relevance, I
merely think it's poor decision making to ignore that if they wish to survive.

This, of course, was the heart of the question I posted to you at the end of
my comment, and it is also something that you still haven't answered. Let me
reiterate it: what is the key differentiator of Firefox? Why do people use it?
You are talking about why you don't think it's a big deal. The thing is,
whether you (or anyone else) thinks it is a big deal or not is simply not
directly relevant to Mozilla and Firefox (although it is a signal). The
question of whether it's strategically a good decision for them is actually
important. I believe that it is not. To further illustrate that, let me make
some arguments by comparison.

Is Python ad-supported? Is the Linux Kernel ad supported? Ruby? Nginx? There
are companies that make products which utilize Python or are greatly involved
in the Python ecosystem, and those companies contribute back to the ecosystem
because it serves their purposes. Likewise with the Linux Kernel, Ruby, Nginx,
Python, and many other excellent pieces of open source software. Would you
dilute the reference protocols and implementations for these products by
diluting key parts of their functionality with advertising in a form that is
essentially malware?

No. You wouldn't do that because it would compromise the trust of your core
users and ultimately result in negative momentum. You wouldn't do that because
ultimately, it's poor product management. Healthy businesses that operate with
a division between the open source and closed source areas are well trodden
territories, and one of the easiest ways to kill the healthy business line
that depends on the open source product's mindshare is to dilute it. This is
what you're not addressing, and based on your arguments, it may be something
that you don't understand. What Mozilla Corp just did was a bafflingly poor
product management decision. It was an experiment with little reward and what
appears to be high risk. Time will tell. They may have lost sight of the the
need to add value first in order to rake in profits long term, and the need
for that to sometimes take longer, more expensive paths to result in the most
lucrative circuit.

This, of course, is something that the original core contributors to all of
these projects understood quite well. They produced software, but they were
first and foremost constructing protocols. Protocols can be created in purely
informational theoretic terms and be released into the wild, and upon critical
mass of mindshare adoption, operate self-sustainably in their current form. It
is certainly the case that money and other resources can scale up the rate of
development and scope of these protocols as well as the ecosystem around it,
but it is not a requirement. The organization and labor that construct these
protocols are motivated by a variety of motivations, but often times, one of
the core motivations is the desire to mutate the way that things flow in
societal infrastructures by improving them. When attempting to build one of
these mutations, focusing on profitability prematurely is ironically one of
the easiest ways to doom it, or precluding it from ever occurring. It will get
you stuck in local minima and distract you from executing correctly. Why did
Google beat every other search engine? They figured out how to do search
properly, better than every other competitors.

Mozilla Corporation (if it can) needs to figure out how to do the browser
properly, better than every other one of its competitors. If not, it will
slowly fade into obsolescence as superior forks or competitors better at its
core functionality supplant it.

------
hnaccy
Either Mozilla has been infiltrated by malicious actors or the modern crop of
web-focused developers are so numb to current status quo of mass ads and
tracking that they are unable to see alternatives or understand why people
would be upset.

I find it a bit bizarre.

~~~
darkpuma
> _" malicious actors"_

Maybe, but my best guess is they've been 'infiltrated' by people with
absolutely no ideological commitment to what Mozilla has traditionally stood
for and instead view it as "just another job". Probably people with a stronger
marketing background than anything else.

I think it's the best explanation for shit like this or the "mr robot tie in."
These sort of advertisements aren't the sort of ideas a software developer
with a commitment to free software and privacy would think up. These are the
sort of ideas that come from people with a marketing background. I doubt these
were bottom-up ideas, the order almost certainly came from the top down. I
hate to say it but Mozilla's upper and middle management probably need to be
gutted if this kind of crap is ever going to stop, and I doubt that will
happen.

------
justapassenger
With things like that, I find moral superiority of Mozilla to be questionable.

------
sodosopa
"It's not an ad" is such a fucking bullshit line. Why does anyone believe
Mozilla is different than the others?

------
apiraino
to those complaining about Mozilla trying to monetize: did you (ever) make a
donation to the foundation?

Now it is a good time to show your support to the project.

~~~
csande17
If you disagree with what Mozilla just did, now is a terrible time to show
your support for them; given their data-driven philosophy, they'll conclude
that running ads on the New Tab page led to an X% increase in donations and do
it again in the future.

------
dang
A related thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360)

------
stockkid
I am disappointed.

------
nvo
Mozilla's death will be one of the saddest dead-horse-beatings to be ever
seen. Personally I've switched to Chrome after so many years of using Firefox
and I'm not looking back. I'll be stabbed in the back, but I won't say I
didn't expect it! Also the knife in my back will be placed by competent
people, keeping my bleeding to a minimum ^_^

~~~
codinger
I've switched because chrome manages my accounts seamlessly across my Android
phone and Desktop. It's an unfair advantage Google has. I don't know how
Mozilla can compete in the long run.

~~~
nvo
From your answer, I assume you own an Android phone. Mozilla could compete
because Firefox has Sync, but Firefox on Android is some seriously laggy shit
with built-in ads, so it's going to be hard for them to win.

~~~
rrrguy
While I agree ff on Android has big lag problems, where are the built in ads?

------
maxhetfeld
It's just a prank.

