Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Per https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1414266#answer-1...

> Thank you for reaching out with your concern. Firefox is committed to creating an online experience that puts people first, as such we quickly stopped running the ad experience, and are reviewing internally.




I’m always glad that PR people can’t help but speak in such inhuman language that makes it obvious that it’s not a real sentiment but just part of the play.


Honestly, I thought it was a pretty strong statement. They basically said "we screwed up."


"Stopped running the ad experience" tells me the kind of language they've been using internally to describe projects like this, and it is not language that I'm okay with from Mozilla. Using the toxic language in the retraction doesn't breed confidence that they really understand what the error was.


It’s not an “error,” it’s an “ad experience misadventure.”


They used the words "stopped running" instead of "removed"...


I mean, I wouldn’t expect them to be able to pull the whole thing out of the code at the drop of a hat.


For a browser that claims to be privacy focused, I would expect them to tightly contain the code in an external module that can easily be turned off.

I would absolutely expect them to pull the whole thing out.


Then you are either a fool or extremely naive. The statement they made actually says "we expected the frog to be more used to the heat by now and will try again later when it is".


> Firefox is committed to creating an online experience that puts people first, as such we quickly stopped running the ad experience, and are reviewing internally.

Should read as:

> Oops, we got caught again doing stuff that our core users don't like. Let us remove this until we find a better way to make you angry


> Firefox is committed to creating an online experience that puts people first

This phrase is approaching a Betteridge's law level tell for who’s at the wheel - nobody needs to insist they’re putting people first unless it’s really obvious they’re not.

“My corporate doublespeak has a lot of people asking questions already answered by my corporate doublespeak.”


> Firefox is committed to creating an online experience that puts people first, as such we quickly stopped running the ad experience, and are reviewing internally.

That says to me that Firefox is aware the ad experience did not put people first, and that Firefox broke their commitment. They are discussing internally how this was allowed to happen.


Is there a single normal human being outside a corporate environment that would even talk about an "ad experience"? Ads by definition do not put people first, putting ads over unrelated content in your app is definitionally user hostile, and nobody in any context outside an advertising department would ever think otherwise. To even get to the point where you're having to assert your 'people first' bonafides over something so transparently anti-people requires the kind of utter blindness to the entirely of the human experience that can only occur in an organization who's priorities absolutely put ads in front of people.


It’s absolutely possible to do ads in a way that puts people first. This just isn’t it.


Absolutely not. Advertisements are a malignant cancer of capitalism, and will show up anywhere they are allowed or encouraged. And in a short time, they will crowd out human voices to the fake voice of "buy this shit"... And soon, even those fake voices are crowded out by louder signs of "buy this shit".

There is no ethical advertisement. At the root of advertisements are intentional psychological engineering used to manipulate people.


I am rather belligerently anti-ad, but when I sit quietly to contemplate alternatives I must admit that in certain limited contexts, I found advertising incredibly useful in the [relatively] distant past: I would pick up the computer paper specifically for the ads, as they provided the cost lists for items sold by the various vendors on College St (Toronto), and without them such information was essentially unattainable. There were also occasions when Google's original search-relevant text ads were exceptionally welcome.

Given that there has been a context previously where it was welcome, there may well be contemporaneous contexts where ads could exist in harmony with independently motivated user objectives. Basically all of what I see today, though, ain't it.


I'm not entirely convinced of it being impossible: https://vimeo.com/233586784


Most people on HN rely on the adtech industry for their paycheck, you won’t see much agreement here.


> Advertisements are a malignant cancer of capitalism

I'm stealing this.


I'm guessing that you don't like capitalism and believe humans can actually have a nice egalitarian non-capitalistic society where everyone shares across the entire planet?


Ok, I’ll bite. How?


This rule doesn't hold in general though... eg. "putting the customer first" is code for treating employees as interchangeable cogs without any voice. But it does mean that they are actually putting the customer ahead of employees.


I just saw this a half hour ago... it's still happening.

I was on reddit, and couldn't be sure that it wasn't reddit doing it. Though I half-suspected Firefox. Imagine my surprise when I saw this post.

Nothing about this seems "quickly stopped". The timestamp on your link says nearly 7 hours ago.


It was edited later:

May 25, 2023 at 3:56:49 PM PDT


Well, then it was still going strong an hour and a half later, if not 6 hours.


They are certainly putting people first --- those people being precisely the bastards who came up with this crap.

I still remember when the slogan was something like "putting users in control of their online experience", got silently changed to "individuals" instead of "users" at some point, and apparently it's just "people" now.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: