Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Dec 2017 19:39 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

For a long time, it was just setting the default search provider to Google in exchange for a beefy stipend. Later, paid links in your new tab page were added. Then, a proprietary service, Pocket, was bundled into the browser - not as an addon, but a hardcoded feature. In the past few days, we’ve discovered an advertisement in the form of browser extension was sideloaded into user browsers. Whoever is leading these decisions at Mozilla needs to be stopped.

Mozilla garnered a lot of fully deserved goodwill with the most recent Firefox release, and here they are, jeopardising all that hard work. People expect this kind of nonsense from Google, Apple, or Microsoft - not Mozilla. Is it unfair to judge Mozilla much more harshly than those others? Perhaps, but that's a consequence of appealing to more demanding users when it comes to privacy and open source.

Thread beginning with comment 652206
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I wonder how much the Firefox wage and overheads bill is Vs the Wikipedia one.

Of course the latter will be less expensive head count and more server and bandwidth cost skewed but do we think the overall could be in the same ballpark.

As Wiki seem to make do (just) with their annual donation drive. Maybe Firefox could do something similar

Another idea is that I think mozilla could be in a favorable position to implement a viable microtransaction model in the browser that could work not only for themselves but for websites around the web. These would be tiny low overhead payments that the credit card companies have mostly failed to cater to.

This could be a browser plugin that the user explicitly sends donations through, or in an alternate form the user might have an account where the user can set a low spending cap ($1-5 a month) and participating websites could collect a share based on how much the user used them.

Whether or not users would trust mozilla's management would be a different question, but it's just an idea.

Reply Parent Score: 3

knightrider Member since:

I think something like that is already incorporated into the Brave browser.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:


I think something like that is already incorporated into the Brave browser.

Interesting. I've used the browser before but wasn't aware of this feature. That page overemphasizes "youtube", which doesn't interest me much, and I couldn't tell whether the feature worked with other websites until I registered. It sounds neat but their website leaves me with more questions than answers. How am I supposed to know if a website is participating? Is this an open standard, or something proprietary? How do I pay for tokens and who manages it? What's the status? Is it being used today? It refers to "basicattentiontokens" and the ethereum block chain, but the relationship to the brave browser is not spelled out clearly. Is the brave browser using P2P?

Do you know of a better website with (alot) more details? The project seems like it could have merit, but they need to provide more information for people to become interested. Also part of the reason I said mozilla was in a good position to do micropayments is because the FF webbrowser still has a large userbase. Do you have any idea about brave's marketshare? The truth is it'll be a lot harder to gain traction with an unknown browser.

Thanks for mentioning it, I'll try to learn more about how it works!

Edited 2017-12-19 22:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

mistersoft Member since:

Not a bad idea yep.
I'd trust Mozilla as much as any other company. Maybe more than some

Reply Parent Score: 2

ssokolow Member since:

So, basically, integrate Flattr?

Reply Parent Score: 2