Many of the responders are in negation that the projects and the internet runs with money 💵. All these privacy conscious companies are trying to find solutions to balance having Ads with everything else. Remember most people online wants or expects everything to be free as in free beer. Innovation and coordination requires the Ads companies, which are mainly Google or Facebook.
What should be scrutinize is How they do it more than What they do, to the extent that is reasonable.
Curious, if every user paid a browser $5 a year for a subscription and every search engine $5 a year, would tht cover costs and allow for a small profit?
I realize that depends on how many users there are, but seems like if we can put a pigs heart in a human and have the human live (poor, poor pig) and have a human walk on the moon that we’s be able to find a private way for the individual to browse the internet.
We all deserve a salary for our work. But, what about profit? Are there shareholders, angel investors - how does the profit aspect of a browser or search engine work?
Could users buy early shares to later be paid back with future users’ payments? The browser would have to accept anonymous users/payments - such as money orders or the equivalent, I think.
This is a good question I also have. I think we do need to explore some monetization options. As an example, ads on youtube allowed for independent media to thrive. It was good.
But youtube, or alphabet as a publicly traded company, wants more money than just to pay the creators. They gotta increase profit to please the shareholders so we are seeing more ads.
I think we should normalize paying a subscription fee for content so that we don’t pay with it with our data. But it becomes a chicken and egg problem. Unless a creator or website is huge, not many ppl will subscribe for it initially. So what do creators or small websites do? Maybe there is room for ethical ads if we cant get enough users to pay or donate.
My eyes also popped out of my sockets, so I read the Mozilla blog source article. It is just a proposal to W3C, as it stands. And since this is NOT something proprietary like FLoC and particularly NOT meant as an alternative tracking method, there seems to be more to it than what the anti Mozilla and pro Chromium squads want to believe.
Why is this reactionary attitude going on? It happened with the “deplatforming” article, and now this.
How many people are not okay with USA Big Tech corpos submitting patches to Linux kernel? Did you stop using Linux and choose… Windows or MacOS due to it?
I don’t think there’s any anti-mozilla, pro-chromium squads roaming the wilds, but yeah, Mozilla has not fallen, they’re just working on a spec, with engineers from facebook, to enhance privacy.
The reason why I said it’s a good thing: do you honestly trust the likes of facebook/google to design something privacy oriented, even if their intentions are entirely honest? No, of course not. Regardless of their intention, they have been built, as companies on principles opposing such design. They had to be. They don’t have the people, the experience, the methodology, the principles etc.
So it’s great to see them joined by someone who does (Mozilla) who I’m sure they’ll respect if they want to have the proposal accepted not just by W3C, but the greater community.
GrapheneOS squad, for example, is anti Mozilla and pro Chromium, and is a massive internet troll group. There are some anti Mozilla stans with Chromium based recommendations on Lemmy doing the rounds too.
Many people are upset about this, but it is in my opinion an excellent thing. Mozilla and Facebook are working together to improve one aspect of Facebook’s privacy
It’s not like Mozilla is shilling and getting paid off, as some people seem to think.
This is how privacy is really improved, by working with the companies and governments that have power in the space, not by sitting in your cave using only librewolf and tor, and refusing to use anything you don’t build from source and self host.
That only helps you at best, and the privacy abusers (google, facebook) will just ignore you.
How is that supposed to work? Firefox’s own products in itself are not that reassuring for user privacy. It was better when Moxie collaborated with them to improve whatsapp code. At least that guy’s products were respected for privacy at that time.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !privacy@lemmy.ml
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don’t promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Many of the responders are in negation that the projects and the internet runs with money 💵. All these privacy conscious companies are trying to find solutions to balance having Ads with everything else. Remember most people online wants or expects everything to be free as in free beer. Innovation and coordination requires the Ads companies, which are mainly Google or Facebook. What should be scrutinize is How they do it more than What they do, to the extent that is reasonable.
Curious, if every user paid a browser $5 a year for a subscription and every search engine $5 a year, would tht cover costs and allow for a small profit? I realize that depends on how many users there are, but seems like if we can put a pigs heart in a human and have the human live (poor, poor pig) and have a human walk on the moon that we’s be able to find a private way for the individual to browse the internet.
We all deserve a salary for our work. But, what about profit? Are there shareholders, angel investors - how does the profit aspect of a browser or search engine work?
Could users buy early shares to later be paid back with future users’ payments? The browser would have to accept anonymous users/payments - such as money orders or the equivalent, I think.
This is a good question I also have. I think we do need to explore some monetization options. As an example, ads on youtube allowed for independent media to thrive. It was good.
But youtube, or alphabet as a publicly traded company, wants more money than just to pay the creators. They gotta increase profit to please the shareholders so we are seeing more ads.
I think we should normalize paying a subscription fee for content so that we don’t pay with it with our data. But it becomes a chicken and egg problem. Unless a creator or website is huge, not many ppl will subscribe for it initially. So what do creators or small websites do? Maybe there is room for ethical ads if we cant get enough users to pay or donate.
My eyes also popped out of my sockets, so I read the Mozilla blog source article. It is just a proposal to W3C, as it stands. And since this is NOT something proprietary like FLoC and particularly NOT meant as an alternative tracking method, there seems to be more to it than what the anti Mozilla and pro Chromium squads want to believe.
Why is this reactionary attitude going on? It happened with the “deplatforming” article, and now this.
How many people are not okay with USA Big Tech corpos submitting patches to Linux kernel? Did you stop using Linux and choose… Windows or MacOS due to it?
I don’t think there’s any anti-mozilla, pro-chromium squads roaming the wilds, but yeah, Mozilla has not fallen, they’re just working on a spec, with engineers from facebook, to enhance privacy.
The reason why I said it’s a good thing: do you honestly trust the likes of facebook/google to design something privacy oriented, even if their intentions are entirely honest? No, of course not. Regardless of their intention, they have been built, as companies on principles opposing such design. They had to be. They don’t have the people, the experience, the methodology, the principles etc.
So it’s great to see them joined by someone who does (Mozilla) who I’m sure they’ll respect if they want to have the proposal accepted not just by W3C, but the greater community.
GrapheneOS squad, for example, is anti Mozilla and pro Chromium, and is a massive internet troll group. There are some anti Mozilla stans with Chromium based recommendations on Lemmy doing the rounds too.
Many people are upset about this, but it is in my opinion an excellent thing. Mozilla and Facebook are working together to improve one aspect of Facebook’s privacy
It’s not like Mozilla is shilling and getting paid off, as some people seem to think.
This is how privacy is really improved, by working with the companies and governments that have power in the space, not by sitting in your cave using only librewolf and tor, and refusing to use anything you don’t build from source and self host.
That only helps you at best, and the privacy abusers (google, facebook) will just ignore you.
How is that supposed to work? Firefox’s own products in itself are not that reassuring for user privacy. It was better when Moxie collaborated with them to improve whatsapp code. At least that guy’s products were respected for privacy at that time.
Even if they don’t live up to your standards, you can agree they are way ahead of the competition.
Are you talking about Chrome?
Does Chrome allow editable user.js and userchrome.css? Does Chrome not leak IPs via WebRTC? Is Chrome used as base for Tor Browser?