Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Sets Out Its Proposed Principles For Content Blocking (mozilla.org)

Posted by timothy on from the block-everything-but-pinyin dept.

Mark Wilson writes: With Apple embracing ad blocking and the likes of AdBlock Plus proving more popular than ever, content blocking is making the headlines at the moment. There are many sides to the debate about blocking ads — revenue for sites, privacy concerns for visitors, speeding up page loads times (Google even allows for the display of ads with its AMP Project), and so on — but there are no signs that it is going to go away. Getting in on the action, Mozilla has set out what it believes are some reasonable principles for content blocking that will benefit everyone involved. Three cornerstones have been devised with a view to ensuring that content providers and content consumers get a fair deal, and you can help to shape how they develop.

9 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'll block every single ad you force down my throat

    1. Re:No thanks by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. Even the courts agree - what comes onto my system is my choice. I can block whatever the @$#$ I don't want, i can twist and control the data that is on my system for personal use. Does this harm the sites I visit? Sure, they don't get the ad revenue. That's not my problem that's their problem. Not getting enough ad revenue? Find a different business model.

  2. Don't RTFA by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you'd like to avoid the ad-infested miasma that is TFA over at BetaNews, you can go straight to the proposal here:

    https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/10/07/proposed-principles-for-content-blocking/

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Don't RTFA by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For me, the issue is safety. The rest of the issues, while not unimportant, are secondary.

      I won't allow some third-party advertisement company to run arbitrary scripting on my machine - or more accurately, allow them to run scripting that allows someone else who allows some criminal to run scripting on my machine. Until these ad-serving companies can make firm guarantees about the safety of the ads they serve, I'm not going to allow them. This point is simply non-negotiable to me.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Don't RTFA by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, Mozilla, since when are advertisements called content? The content is what we're trying to get to. The ads are in the way of the content, sometimes literally.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  3. Fuck off, I decide what's fair by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many websites only exist because of user generated content (like /.).

    Don't impose your idea of what's fair to the content I provide for your site.

    Web sites had the chance to go the NPR route and be low key about advertising but by and large they went the obnoxious way and embraced pop ups, pop unders, Flash, animation, and widespread invasive tracking.

    Fuck that, I'm not participating in your scheme to get rich off my content, at least the part where I provide you with content and am then expected to be shouted at by ads and tracked. That's not even remotely fair.

  4. Consumers reject advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What this is really about (and what a lot of people are finding hard to accept) is that for the most part, people don't want to see or consume ads. With TV, we never got the chance to opt out except for "ad skip" and "fast forward." The advertising industry never really took notice of that because the numbers weren't there. With the Internet, it is possible to both block ads and measure how many ads are accepted/blocked.

    Now people that deliver advertising are starting to see what customers really think: they don't like advertising. This is proving hard for business folks, especially those whose business is advertising, to stomach. How do they sell products?

    Sure there are a token few that say "I'll allow advertising to support this site" but if you look in slashdot polls, those people are not a majority.

    But lets face it, if there was no impact to a website and people had the choice to either accept ads or reject them, most people are going to select reject.

    The main problem with advertising is that it is given to us when we're not looking to buy (or rent) something. If I'm watching Star Wars then I really don't want to hear about your latest car. If I'm reading slashdot, I don't want to see an ad for your latest cloud offering.

    When I want to see ads is when I'm shopping for something - specifically when I click on the "shopping" tab in Google search. Then and at no other time.

  5. the timing of this is suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mozilla, remember when you transitioned to requiring all addons to be signed, and then assured everyone you wouldn't use this as a mechanism to set policy on what addons can and cannot do? Well, you'd better have meant it, because this blog post looks very suspicious coming so soon after that transition.

  6. Re:And this is what that means: by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if you want a content limited, pay-walled, countermeasure-riddled web -- just stick with that childish attitude. But if you want a sustainable, awesome web ecosystem -- then start proposing acceptable limitations that nurture the publishers we all love.

    I remember the horrible, awful, web before advertising brought us to the Brave New World of 'content' that exists solely to make money from ads.

    I'd like it back, please.