Firefox In 2018: We'll Tackle Bad Ads, Breach Alerts, Autoplay Video, Says Mozilla (zdnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: Firefox maker Mozilla has outlined its 2018 roadmap to make the web less intrusive and safer for users. First up, Mozilla says it will proceed and implement last year's experiment with a breach alerts service, which will warn users when their credentials have been leaked or stolen in a data breach. Mozilla aims to roll out the service around October. Breach Alerts is based on security consultant Troy Hunt's data breach site Have I Been Pwned. Firefox will also implement a similar block on autoplay video to the one Chrome 66 will introduce next month, and that Safari already has. However, Dotzler says Firefox's implementation will "provide users with a way to block video auto-play that doesn't break websites". This feature is set to arrive in Firefox 62, which is scheduled for release in May.

After Firefox 62 the browser will gain an optional Chrome-like ad filter and several privacy-enhancing features similar to those that Apple's WebKit developers have been working on for Safari's Intelligent Tracking Prevention. By the third quarter of 2018, Firefox should also be blocking ad-retargeting through cross-domain tracking. It's also going to move all key privacy controls into a single location in the browser, and offer more "fine-grained" tracking protection. Dotzler says Mozilla is in the "early stages" of determining what types of ads Firefox should block by default. Also on the roadmap is a feature that arrived in Firefox 59, released earlier this month. A new Global Permissions feature will help users avoid having to deny every site that requests permission for location, camera, microphone and notifications. Beyond security and privacy, Mozilla plans to build on speed-focused Quantum improvements that came in Firefox 57 with smoother page rendering.

Comments

What other revenue source?

[tepples]

Let's say the web were to lose all advertisements tomorrow. What replacement for the lost revenue would you prefer as a way to cover the cost of writing and hosting the articles that you read?

A. Paywalls on most websites, causing your web searches to result in a lot more clicks on the back button
B. Shutting down commercial websites in favor of those run on hobbyists' pocket money
C. Some other option, which you plan to explain

Re:What other revenue source?

[goose-incarnated]

Let's say the web were to lose all advertisements tomorrow. What replacement for the lost revenue would you prefer as a way to cover the cost of writing and hosting the articles that you read?

A. Paywalls on most websites, causing your web searches to result in a lot more clicks on the back button B. Shutting down commercial websites in favor of those run on hobbyists' pocket money C. Some other option, which you plan to explain

HOSTING:Hosting a website with almost all text-based content like /. is possible on the $5/m droplet from digital ocean. I'd be surprised if this site needs more than a 100GB of storage for its archive. A less popular site with less history should do fine on a 25GB droplet. If a site's owner cannot afford $5/m, then maybe they shouldn't host the site. If more processing power is required you can selectively spin up more VMs.

The reason for the high hosting costs is due to the serving of ads - you need a fancy backend that auctions each user for ad delivery, you need to use ad-delivery frameworks written in cycle-wasting interpreted languages, you need to provide unnecessary images just so that you have at least some images that aren't ads, you need to use a client-side framework that is compatible with the ad network, your backend needs to talk to some tracking site for users, you need facebook, twitter, G+ integration .... for ad purposes.

Take the ads away and your need for space and complexity goes away.

CONTENT:You don't need full-time staff to generate content for the sites I read. In fact, the best quality content is user generated content not full-time writer content. I'd rather read a forum for comparative shopping when looking for a new car/computer/sewing-machine than a clickbait "Ten Things You Need To Know When Buying A New Car (#4 Will Shock You!)". All the most popular sites on the internet, the most visited, are the ones with user-generated content. If the site has a few hundred thousand users on some stable forum software you don't need *any* full-time staff. A few part-timers will keep things going. If you have more than a few million registered users, a 1% donation-rate of $1 per month will let you have *ONE* fulltime staff, and that person should ideally be ensuring that everything continues running.

You only need full-time staff for generating content when that content is worthless. When you need to generate "content" that pushes some particular political view, you need to pay people to write those views. When you generate content about the top 5 document editing tools, you'll need to *PAY* people to generate that content. When you need to generate content about stripping and reassembling a Chevy V8, people will (and already have) generate that content for you. How to do $FOO? Yeah, experts have chimed in on some forum somewhere already.

Frankly, the only reason it costs to run a site is because ads have driven up the costs. Sure, ads bring in (say) $10000/m, but you're essentially spending more than that just to support the fact that you want to run ads.

Taking away ads and ad-supported sites will, ironically, leave us with better content. The ads arms race has resulted in every second site needing to use clickbait links and ads just to keep the users they have, because then they can advertise to those users.

I will not miss the demise of ad-supported sites. Only advertisers will.