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.
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?
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.
"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"
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?