[NamTaf]

In addition to this:

Even though the link claims that it is not a paid placement, it's still an advertisement. If Mozilla really wants to provide more value to me, they'll tell me how to permanently disable it. Its presence provides negative value to me.

[lugg]

What.. Have you even used FF in the last decade? It comes with tracker and 3rd party cookie blocking built in. Your accusation is a bit of a stretch.

I guess you think I should use chrome? Because that has zero to do with serving me up more profitable advertising at all..

But aside from that, you do know you can disable everything on the home page under general preferences - including the ad section.

And worst case if they remove the option, ublock will still block it and if it can't you can just disable it's display in userChrome.css.

[NamTaf]

How is an accusation of it being an ad at all a stretch? It’s a placement offering a deal for a company, whether or not it was paid for. That seems to fit the definition of an ad to me.

Furthermore, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I am telling you to move to chrome or indeed do anything at all, given the comment to which you replied says “me” 3 times in it. I was quite evidently purely asking about my own situation.

Their argument, per the GP’s link, is that they want to provide their users additional value. This does not achieve that for me, hence I want to remove it.

I have not yet had a chance to upgrade and try to disable it, as I am not near my computer right now to upgrade to the latest release. Hence why I asked for them to provide a means of removing it. If that already exists, fantastic! It achieves precisely the outcome I’m after.

[lugg]

It's not in the latest release it's from a release or two ago so you probably already have it disabled.

But its not only ads they serve up, it's closer to the Google Now feed you see on chrome new tabs in android or Google now.

The accusation was that they're not adding value or in fact negating it. My complaint was that Google or alternatives don't do nearly as much as they could to ad value - so to call out Firefox like this just makes no sense.

I will mention they're pushing pocket hard and I think this sis the route they're going for monetary gains. It's gross but it's pretty easy to remove it all from context menus via user chrome CSS anyway.

[x0x0]

I would suggest you consider this: with Microsoft moving Edge to chromium, there are now only 3 engines standing: Chromium, webkit, and gecko. Therefore Firefox is important to deny Google enormous control over the browser and therefore the internet.

Firefox desperately needs a revenue stream that is independent from Google. Although Google has not done so yet -- it's imo very valuable to Google to preserve the illusion of not having a browser monopoly -- a huge amount of their revenues come from their Google search deal. Google can, for example, cut that deal at any time: Firefox is selling into a monopsony.

I don't love advertising, but we need Firefox to have a non-google revenue source.

[NamTaf]

I completely understand the need for the Mozilla org to diversify its funding sources. If that’s the case, they should be honest and upfront with it. Come out and say that you want to try ad revenue, rather than this “giving back” nonsense. If Mozilla are honest about it then we as the Firefox community can have a more realistic conversation about what this means and how it’s best implemented.

[Wowfunhappy]

Does the Mozilla foundation accept private donations? Even if they do, they clearly don't push it enough.

I have no idea if it would bring in enough revenue, but it would presumably help? I'd much prefer a Wikipedia-esque donation request on the new tab page than any of Mozilla's other partnerships.

[jfk13]

> Does the Mozilla foundation accept private donations?

Try https://donate.mozilla.org/

[dblohm7]

They do, but donations are not put toward Firefox development.

[artificial]

Just to clarify Chromium (browser) uses Blink, which is a fork of Webkit. IMO the consolidation demonstrates the complexity involved.

The alternative is subscription. That hasn't fared too well traditionally in browser space for a few decades. Maybe the Brave approach might work, where a fraction goes to the browser vendor akin to a transaction fee?

[oosjc9a5]

Of course they paid for it... Do you really think the Mozilla Corporation has sent an ad to millions of users for free? Whether that money went to the corporation or to the pocket of an executive, that's another matter.

[x0x0]

Or it can be a deal to see what returns the ad gets. If Mozilla is serious about selling ad space there, they're going to need case studies. In the early stages, that is something you would give away for free. Particularly because the ad providers are going to get a lot less data than they are accustomed to, you will need some case studies that show someone getting great returns on their ad spend even without tracking data.

[NamTaf]

Then the statement "It was not a paid placement or advertisement." is blatantly false. they simply say whether it was paid, not whether it was paid to a specific entity.

[acdha]

Read the statement more carefully:

> This snippet was an experiment to provide more value to Firefox users through offers provided by a partner. It was not a paid placement or advertisement. We are continually looking for more ways to say thanks for using Firefox. In a similar vein, earlier this month we offered Firefox users a free opportunity to enjoy a live concert from Phosphorescent.

It could be that they are knowingly making public statements which are untrue and will expose themselves to legal liability for that or it could be that the statement means exactly what it says and that Mozilla is experimenting with promotions for using Firefox which do not involve money changing hands, especially if they're just gauging interest to see whether people even click on those regions. The concert was definitely promoted as a “Thanks for using Firefox” deal so I would not be at all surprised to learn that Booking.com gave a modest discount as part of a deal where no money changed hands as per the statement.

[bscphil]

> This snippet was an experiment to provide more value to Firefox users through offers provided by a partner. It was not a paid placement or advertisement.

I don't know about legal liability, but you don't really need to look further than this to know that Mozilla lied because these two statements are already inconsistent. "Offers provided by a partner" are advertisements. The quid pro quo in this case wasn't money, but rather a link on booking.com to download Firefox.

[jfk13]

Unless you can back up that statement with some kind of evidence, I'd say it looks awfully close to libel.