Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 107

Thread: Mozilla To Begin Pushing Ads To The New Tabs Page

  1. #81
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomyne View Post
    It is correct to call them ads.



    I will not use a browser that shows any kind of sponsored content.

    Your website is where sponsored content belongs. Your search engine is where sponsored content belongs. The software running on my system is NOT where sponsored content belongs.
    Sorry to burst your bubble buddy, but firefox already includes sponsored content. google search and default homepage, google pays mozilla for this.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    639

    Default An ad-supported browser reminds me of Gator.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Mozilla To Begin Pushing Ads To The New Tabs Page

    Mozilla will begin pushing sponsored ads/sites into the directory tiles when entering the new tabs page where traditionally it has showed the most frequently visited sites...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTYwMTY
    Might be grounds to purge Firefox and install IceWeasel, I doubt Debian will tolerate sponsored anything. Sorry guys, I'll take legacy code or experimental code any time over ad-supported. If this was not a common opinion, Gator would still be selling ads on ad-supported Windows software! I've got Firefox 26 now, I will probably pin this until the cows come home or switch to Iceweasel.

    I don't THINK this garbage would show up under an update, but it's one more thing you have to disable on a new install. I already remove the search engines, disable prefetch, keyword, social networking support and do this before a browser from a default install is permitted online. Then I install Ghostery and NoScript, removing most of NoScript's whitelists and adding code to further block social network sharing buttons. I do not like the direction Firefox is moving, if it wasn't for browser fingerprinting I would long ago have switched to Rekonq.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12

    Question

    I liked the opt-in idea. Seems better. Less backhanded.
    I also think the it wouldn't hurt Firefox. Much. Only in the geek userbase. Probably gonna be pushed down to AUR in Arch. That sort of stuff. But for the lay people who use it, especially in poorer countries where people access internet in rundown net centers, it wouldn't matter much. They don't care about ads, nor what browser they're using. For all the complaints, America is still using IE for the most part, I doubt doing something like this would matter for the rest of the world. Point, click and surf the web.
    But hey, but what do I know?

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Straximus View Post
    There's only two way you are seeing that. 1) You haven't updated Chrome in a long time. 2) You explicitly re-enabled the Apps page in chrome://flags after Google disabled it.

    The default new tab view in Chrome now is a list of your most-visited sites.
    Well, i don't know what's going on, but it's chrome 32 and i definitely never enabled some chrome flag behind the scenes. It is on windows, so maybe that's different on linux, although i wouldn't think so.

    I hardly ever use chrome, so there probably wouldn't be enough sites to even fill up the full list, but i do notice that a handful of sites i've gone to aren't showing up. So maybe there's something blocking that for some reason.

    Anyway, if the current status is supposed to be that those google sites are there by default but get replaced by what sites you visit - that's exactly the same as what firefox is proposing.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    76

    Default

    This is disgusting. Someone fork it please.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ihatemichael View Post
    This is disgusting. Someone fork it please.
    "Someone" with 300M$ annually. Would be nice of him.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    "Someone" with 300M$ annually. Would be nice of him.
    Meanwhile at Google:
    "Hey man, why are we paying for Firefox when we have Chrome?"
    "To control the competition, see they have us as starting page and default search engine"
    "Can't we just let them die?"
    "Yea,tell them we stop sponsering, they should use ads instead"

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    "Someone" with 300M$ annually. Would be nice of him.
    How much of that goes to Firefox OS and other crap no one needs?

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    1) So what will human do? Unemployed people are paid here, for a long time. To do nothing. Mostly, they do not seem happy.
    2) If I have only my arms to produce goods for improving my life, I'll use my arms. If I have a robot and my arms to produce good for improving my life, I'll use the robot and my arms. There is no magical level where humanity has "enough" (unless it's when needs are fulfilled, and experience shows that most people do not stop there when they reach that) that it can stop using available capital without making any difference. There can be a point though where most of human workforce becomes uncompetitive (compared to robotic workforce), and at that point, because of 1, all these people feeling useless may not feel like living the utopia you paint.
    Huxley's Brave New World, the ultimate in human happiness.

    We're not in post-scarcity world yet, the unemployed money is barely enough to live, and comes with strings. If it were basic income enough to live on, no strings attached, would the people not be happier?

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Chrome is much MUCH faster than Firefox right now. This new "feature" is just another one reason to avoid Firefox...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •