Firefox Better Web with Scroll: experimental subscription-based service launches
Mozilla launched Firefox Better Web with Scroll today as an experimental service in the United States.
Firefox Better Web with Scroll is a subscription-based service that aims to provide an ad-free environment on the Internet without neglecting that publishers need to make money to provide content on the Web.
The newest Test Pilot project is only available in the United States and it requires a Firefox Account and the installation of a web extension. Interested users may sign-up for the plan, available at $2.49 for the first six months, to support participating publishers and get an ad-free environment on these sites in return. The money "goes directly to fund publishers and writers" according to Mozilla's announcement on the official blog of the organization.
Mozilla claims that publishers and writers make "at least 40% more money than they would have made from" showing advertisement to users.
The organization re-launched its Test Pilot project back in September 2019 to focus on privacy products.
Firefox Better Web with Scroll is an attempt to please Internet users and publishers alike. The majority of Internet users don't want to be tracked and that is one of the main reasons why content blockers are growing. As content blocking usage increases, revenue is going down; this is often countered by more aggressive ad-formats and styles, or more tracking.
Firefox Better Web with Scroll tries to break the cycle by providing users with protection against tracking and exposure to advertisement while providing revenue in form of subscription money to publishers who joined the service.
The money is divided between partner sites based on the time spend on these sites. The more time a subscriber spends on a property, the more of the subscription money is earned by that publisher. Some of the money is earned by Mozilla and Scroll, the two organizations that operate the service. Mozilla promises that partners will always earn more from the program than they would if they would run ads on their sites.
Firefox Better Web, unlike content blockers, will provide such an experience only on sites that have joined Scroll. Joining appears limited at the time of writing and requires that publishers request to be included.
Mozilla highlights some of the larger publishers on the "first look" page; the list includes Business Insider, The Verge, Salon, USA Today, and SBNation.
Closing Words
Success and failure for such a project depends on a number of factors including the number of publishers that joined the project and the number of users who want to spend some money for rewarding publishers.
In an ideal world, every publisher would have joined the project and the majority of users would subscribe to it. While it is certainly possible that Firefox Better Web with Scroll will see some success, it is hard to imagine that it will see a lot of traction in the beginning. Yes, some big mainstream sites have joined and users who spend a lot of time on these sites might subscribe to Better Web to reward these publishers for doing so.
Some users may not like that Scroll logs time spend on sites as it is used to divide the subscription money among publishers. A system like that of Brave, which puts users in control of giving BAT to sites or not, might be appreciated by some.
It will nevertheless be interesting to see how Firefox Better Web with Scroll fares in the coming six months and whether it will become something sustainable or wither away.
Now You: what is your take on this?
I think its a good idea, and may actually try it out, it’s only 0.0138888888889 cents a day. I been blocking ads for a very long time mostly because of security reasons and to save data since I have a 10 Gigabytes a month data cap (satellite). But I would like to see content creators get paid without having to deal with the ads.
@Martin will you join this program and I also have a request if you could write an article on the safest way to buy things and services online, eg rechargeable/disposable credit card, etc….
Thanks ; )
PS: I forgot to list some other interesting items of Scroll’s privacy policy:
“Additionally, we use Google Analytics and other similar services to help us analyze and understand usage of the Services and on our participating sites.”
Even better fighting for privacy: Google is in too.
“In addition, we may also share your information with law enforcement agencies. For example, to determine whether there has been misuse of the web site or other systems, we may report PII and other information shared with us to law enforcement officials.”
A classic, but the data that is not collected in the first place can not be shared with the police, willfully or not.
“We may transfer your information in the event of a sale, merger, assignment, or transfer of our assets.”
Another classic. Our privacy policy is bollocks because we’re in for the money and some day when we feel that it’s going to pay more than what we’re doing now we may want to sell your accumulated sensitive data to someone even less scrupulous than we are (if they can find one, which isn’t obvious in the current case where they collect every single URL you visited in their partner network and for how many seconds you were on each, and use this for targeted ads and unspecified features).
“PS: I forgot … Google Analytics …”
GA is blocked by default (Firefox 74.0) and not required for the ‘Reading activity’ feature of Scroll.
https://old.reddit.com/comments/fo5epd/-/flzyzq5/?context=1
“The money “goes directly to fund publishers and writers” according to Mozilla’s announcement”
“Some of the money is earned by Mozilla and Scroll, the two organizations that operate the service.”
Why bundle ublock origin when Mozilla can instead take money from the users and from the sites to hide ads ? Would a real non-profit do such a thing ?
And apparently, the way it works is that Scroll is going to remotely track in considerable detail (much more than their already ugly system would require in fact to split the payment) the time users spend on partner sites:
“As you visit sites in the Scroll network and Services, we will use cookies, browser storage, and similar technologies to capture the amount of time you spend and your completion percentage within each URL, article, video, or other content. We use this information to:
Determine how much of your payment should go to each participating site you visit.
Provide you a history of your reading across all devices.
Power recommendations and other features
Improve the provided Service using anonymous and aggregated data
Enforce our contractual rights with sites in the Scroll network.”
https://scroll.com/privacy
No matter how that data is used, collecting it (additionally, tied to the user’s email address) is already privacy hostile, a real nightmare. Imagine if they wanted this to become the future way to pay publishers, do we really want that ? But worse, it’s not just used to split the payment, also to “Power recommendations” (smells like targeted ads), “and other features”. What other features ? I read this as “We use this information any way we want”.
As a little bonus, they give great privacy advices too:
“AdBlock Plus
Scroll should work correctly, unless you have enabled “block additional tracking” in your settings. To disable, go to Settings > General > Privacy & Security and uncheck the box.”
https://scroll.help/en/articles/3344883-can-i-still-use-my-ad-blocker
They also advise a more specific exception in ublock origin, which is more ok if one accepted the principle of their tracking in the first place (which one shouldn’t), but this gives us another bad reason why commercial browser developers want to keep control on the content blocking instead of bundling ublock origin. I guess that the built-in tracking protection in Firefox is going to have it whitelisted without manual user action. Funny how they bragged about fighting tracking by third-party cookies, to do THAT now. They even managed to brag about privacy and their Scroll partnership on the same page.
“… apparently, … Scroll is going to … track … the time …”
I do hope so.
If I spend a relative large amount of my time with a provider’s content, I’ll want that provider to be rewarded appropriately.
“If I spend a relative large amount of my time with a provider’s content, I’ll want that provider to be rewarded appropriately.”
Then choose to pay them more yourself, instead of accepting their remote personal tracking, that even if you trust their privacy policy has undisclosed other uses of the data, and that exists for their benefit, not for yours. And that tracks way more data than necessary for the given excuse.
How about improving speed and security, which should be the priorities for any browser?
Oh no, we’d rather improve advertising income spyware and SJW s%#t instead.
“… spyware …”
But it’s not, Blanche – it’s not spyware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware
They’ve screwed up Firefox so bad it’s no longer worth downloading. Please write some articles about Brave Browser. It’s the best I ever used.
“… write some articles about Brave Browser. …”
Please begin by reading last month’s article about Brave Browser.
https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/25/study-finds-brave-to-be-the-most-private-browser/
This a really stupid idea that will fail.
Brave has already done this (incorporating an advertising model within their browser model), & no one wants this or cares.
Advertising does not belong in the browser.
uBlock Origin & uMatrix already allows you to have a virtually advertising free internet … for FREE.
Users shouldn’t have to pay to browser the internet.
If you want to support content creators/websites, that’s why Subscribestar exists.
> … SubscribeStar …
Thanks, I never heard of it but now I see https://www.subscribestar.com/ and (no disrespect) I suspect that there exist other laudable initiatives.
Re: https://old.reddit.com/comments/fo95cq/-/fm2h3ap/ I imagine that Mozilla chose wisely, given all possible alternatives (including SubscribeStar).
HTH
“This a really stupid idea … Advertising does not belong in the browser. …”
Stupid statements end conversation.
With Scroll: advertising is not in the browser.
@notanon
I agree that this will fail, although I do not share your criticism of Brave. Brave implements this in a smarter manner, giving users the ability to earn money in the process. Mozilla expects users to pay for the service, why should anyone use this over uBlock Origin?
Also, I’d say a great many people care about Brave, it is rapidly growing, although admittedly I don’t know how many users of Brave actually have Brave Rewards enabled:
https://brave.com/brave-passes-10m-mau/
Not surprisingly it is spyware trash. Read the data collected section. They even use Google Analytics.
https://scroll.com/privacy
@No Thanks, CIA
What did you expect? Their mobile version of Firefox comes with trackers built-in, one of which is Google Analytics:
https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/blt6ft/mobile_firefox_app_shares_your_data_with/
They pretend to care about privacy, while doing the opposite, Google-friendly thing as usual. I am personally not at all surprised about this.
“… They even use Google Analytics.”
GA is blocked by default (Firefox 74.0) and not required for the ‘Reading activity’ feature of Scroll.
https://old.reddit.com/comments/fo5epd/-/flzyzq5/?context=1
“… They pretend to care about privacy, while doing the opposite, …”
Ridiculous exaggeration ends conversation.
@Graham Perrin
> Ridiculous exaggeration ends conversation.
If only it were an exaggeration, lol. Check out Firefox’s default privacy settings and then return to me.
By the way, aren’t you the textbook autist doing the Waterfox community support? If Firefox’s privacy settings were so great, then why does the project you support even exist? Questions…
So… You can now pay Mozilla for something uBlock Origin does better and for free? Cool. /s
I fully understand the need to find a healthy balance between content creators who have to fund their websites and users who would like to avoid obstrusive ads and being spied on…But this is clearly not how you do it. I am sure I will be roasted again for bringing up Brave again, but I do think that its model actually works. It blocks invasive ads and trackers by default, and gives the users an opt-in choice to allow Brave’s own ads, which are delivered locally as system notifications, i.e. in a privacy-respecting manner. Users then get to earn BAT for allowing up to five of these ads per hour. With the revenue accumulated, users can choose to reward content creators directly, unless they have opted out of donating to their favorite content creators. So in summary:
Mozilla:
– You need to pay for the service, and get no money in return.
– Firefox by default doesn’t block invasive ads.
– Offers no real alternative in the form of privacy-friendly ads.
– Can’t directly tip content creators you visit less often (maybe because they don’t publish content every single day), yet provide great content you want to support.
Brave:
– Brave comes with no price tag, users actually can earn money while using it.
– Brave by default blocks invasive ads.
– Offers a real alternative in the form of privacy-respecting ads.
– You can tip content creators you visit less often directly, if you want to support them.
Hmm, hard decision. I don’t see this Mozilla model succeeding in any shape or form.
With apologies for abbreviation:
“… blocks invasive ads and trackers by default, … reward content creators …”
Firefox (or Firefox Better Web) + Scroll.
Whilst I don’t doubt the goodness of Brave, we might also applaud Firefox for encouraging something that is not browser specific – I began using Scroll a few hours ago, with Firefox 74.0 in the UK.
—-
Re: the other responses, sorry, tl;dr
@Iron Heart – ” It blocks invasive ads and trackers by default”
But there is a problem as by default you have Facebook and Twitter trackers following you everywhere in Brave because they’re NOT blocked but rather whitelisted by Brave.
Who wants a browser that does that.
@Anonymous
You can’t imagine how often I have heard this… Most people don’t know the reason why Brave actually does that. Twitter and Facebook misuse tracking cookies for legitimate functionality, i.e. if you block certain Facebook trackers the login page will break, you won’t be able to successfully log in. Brave initially blocked all those trackers, but then whitelisted them due to a high number of user complaints. They are transparent about the whitelist and you can disable it with two clicks in the settings, in case you are not a Facebook or Twitter user.
By the way, even well-respected privacy extensions like uBlock Origin do not block these cookies by default, if they did, you wouldn’t be able to successfully log into Facebook / Twitter with uBlock Origin enabled.
Cheers.
Lol I can’t even get a Twitter account because I do not own a cell phone. Facebook I don’t want anything to do with them.
Brave’s model isn’t based on not displaying advertisements. Brave’s model is based on showing you different advertisements. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
You can only earn money from Brave if you provide all sorts of personal identifying details. Even if someone is crazy enough to do that, the amount of money they can possibly “earn” is paltry.
Brave is dependent on the world’s biggest advertising company, Google, to develop most of their code. Any fantasy of Brave forking that code and going a different direction from Google is delusional. They are Google’s bitch, and they know it.
Unlike Brave, Firefox’s code is independent of Google. Google has absolutely no say in the Firefox codebase.
Mozilla, with Firefox, is offering a way to view parts of the internet without any ads or trackers.
It’s an easy decision. I’ve already signed up for Mozilla’s new service and am enjoying it’s benefits.
@The General
> Brave’s model isn’t based on not displaying advertisements. Brave’s model is based on showing you different advertisements.
Brave’s model is based on showing you privacy-respecting ads via system notification, which allow you to partake in the revenue. Fixed that for you. And yeah, that is its business model. I don’t see anything wrong with it.
> You can only earn money from Brave if you provide all sorts of personal identifying details.
In the browser itself, nope. You need to identify yourself if you want to cash out, in this case you have to register at Uphold. That being said, Brave is going to partner with multiple companies here, Uphold is just the first one they partnered with. And their willingness to provide privacy in the process of users cashing out on their revenue might be hampered by the legal requirements of most countries regarding opening bank accounts. Most countries require you by law to identify yourself in the process of opening up a bank account.
> Even if someone is crazy enough to do that, the amount of money they can possibly “earn†is paltry.
“Paltry” depends on the overall time you use Brave, and depends on how many devices you use Brave on.
> Brave is dependent on the world’s biggest advertising company, Google, to develop most of their code. Any fantasy of Brave forking that code and going a different direction from Google is delusional. They are Google’s bitch, and they know it. Unlike Brave, Firefox’s code is independent of Google. Google has absolutely no say in the Firefox codebase.
First off, Chromium is open source software that has many contributors (among others Microsoft, Opera, Samsung, Intel etc.), Google is just its biggest contributor. They don’t “own” Chromium, they only own Chrome, which is a major offshoot of Chromium. Therefore, they can’t “end” the development of Chromium. Furthermore, Google relies on Chromium for its own products, they have a vital interest in keeping it healthy.
Brave is by no means Google’s “bitch”, they can and do revert, or circumvent changes they don’t view as beneficial. One example? Adblocking will continue to work in Brave via its native adblocker, no matter whether or not Google goes ahead with Manifest V3.
The Mozilla Corporation, developer of Firefox, depends on Google’s money for its very existence. 80%+ of their annual revenue comes from a search engine deal they negotiated with Google. Since Mozilla develops its own engine, they need far more money than Brave does in order to function. If Google should decide that they are no longer of use, then Mozilla will just shut down.
In a way, Brave is more independent from Google than Mozilla, as they are not financially reliant on Google, nor do they need loads of cash to keep this thing going in the first place. Google also has a vital interest to keep the Chromium codebase, which Brave is based on, going.
> It’s an easy decision. I’ve already signed up for Mozilla’s new service and am enjoying it’s benefits.
This thing will fail as the users have no real incentive to use it. One can earn money while using Brave, and one has the ability to support specific content creators in it. You earn no money while using Mozilla’s service, quite the contrary, you pay them a monthly fee for it. You also can’t support specific content creators. No reason to use Mozilla’s service over free offerings like uBlock Origin. Enjoy being part of the few hundred people that will use this over uBlock Origin, lol.
@Iron Shart
> Brave’s model is based on showing you privacy-respecting ads… blah blah blah… I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I do. I don’t want to be subjected to advertising. And yes, I’m willing to pay for quality content.
Modern day advertising is the cause of some of the world’s problems. Are you aware of how much of the world is currently drowning in debt because they bought advertised crap they couldn’t actually afford? Despite what people think, advertising is very powerful. Heck, in the USA they voted a reckless idiot into the presidency largely because of false advertising.
> You need to identify yourself if you want to cash out [any BAT “currency”]… blah blah blah…
Exactly. You just can’t admit it when something sucks about the Brave ecosystem, can you? You’re nothing more than a fanboy troll that can’t be taken seriously. You obviously want people to take you seriously, so you may want to consider stopping that behavior. Yes, it’s past time you learn this sort of thing.
> “Paltry†depends on the overall time you use Brave, and depends on how many devices you use Brave on.
Is Brave doing nothing about that type of fraud? A person can only look at one browser at a time, and people need to sleep. If you’re gaming the Brave system with multiple systems set up and running 24/7, you’re destroying the Brave ecosystem. Advertisers and marketers will catch onto this quickly and refuse to do business with Brave. As a favor to you, I’ve taken a screenshot of your comments and am forwarding them to contacts at several large advertising and marketing firms so they are informed about how easily the system can potentially be gamed (assuming you’re correct; I’m include a qualifying note that many of your other posts include blatantly false information).
> blah…Google is just its biggest contributor… blah
Exactly. Brave is mostly repackaged Google code with support for more ads.
> Brave is by no means Google’s “bitchâ€.
Thou doth protest too much.
> The Mozilla Corporation, developer of Firefox, depends on Google’s money for its very existence. 80%+ of their annual revenue comes from a search engine deal they negotiated with Google. Since Mozilla develops its own engine, they need far more money than Brave does in order to function. If Google should decide that they are no longer of use, then Mozilla will just shut down.
So much false information. How do you come up with this nonsense? As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your ignorance is staggering. It is only exceeded by your willingness to repeatedly post false information. As the producer of one of the world’s most popular web browsers, search engine companies want to pay Mozilla to be a default search engine within Firefox. Google currently is the high bidder. A few years ago, it was Yahoo. The number of Firefox users is large enough that the value of this exposure is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to search engine companies. Mozilla is in no risk of shutting down. Even if Google went completely out of business, Mozilla would be fine. There is a long line of companies wanting to be a default search engine in Firefox.
> In a way, Brave is more independent from Google than Mozilla, as they are not financially reliant on Google… blah blah blah…
Completely wrong. Google writes most of the Brave web browser’s code. They don’t write Mozilla’s Firefox code. Mozilla is not financially dependent on Google. See above. You remind me of an American president that thinks he can repeat lies over and over again hoping everyone will think those lies are true. Why model your behavior after such a dysfunctional creep?
> No reason to use Mozilla’s service over free offerings like uBlock Origin.
Once again, wrong. Some content providers want to get paid for their efforts. There’s one reason. Also uBlock Origin sometimes breaks pages. Mozilla’s system won’t break any pages. There’s another reason.
@The Gooneral
> I do. I don’t want to be subjected to advertising.
Brave Rewards are off by default.
> And yes, I’m willing to pay for quality content.
You can’t support specific content creators with Firefox.
> Modern day advertising is the cause of some of the world’s problems. (blah blah blah)
No, it’s not. It causes problems for idiots who don’t question anything only.
> Exactly. You just can’t admit it when something sucks about the Brave ecosystem, can you?
I hinted at the legal requirements of most countries regarding the opening of bank accounts. There is nothing Brave can do about that if it’s required by law. Get real.
> You’re nothing more than a fanboy troll that can’t be taken seriously.
Coming from the guy who ignores that Mozilla is almost entirely funded by its sugar daddy “competitor”, lol. What a joke.
> You obviously want people to take you seriously, so you may want to consider stopping that behavior. Yes, it’s past time you learn this sort of thing.
How many people take you seriously after this comment, I wonder?
> Is Brave doing nothing about that type of fraud?
It’s not fraud, don’t be silly. You can connect multiple devices to the same Wallet, Brave officially allows that. You can’t use them all at once anyway, and Brave does monitor that offline by checking whether or not your finger / cursor is being moved, and whther or not your device is unlocked.
> As a favor to you, I’ve taken a screenshot of your comments and am forwarding them to contacts at several large advertising and marketing firms so they are informed about how easily the system can potentially be gamed (assuming you’re correct; I’m include a qualifying note that many of your other posts include blatantly false information).
You won’t be taken seriously at all, Brave OFFICIALLY allows more than one device which you personally use (e.g. your PC and your smartphone) to be connected to the same wallet. And you can’t physically use more than one device at once, Brave actively checks for interactions of the cursor / finger, and also checks whether the device you use is unlocked. Stupidity of the degree you display should be illegal.
> Exactly. Brave is mostly repackaged Google code with support for more ads.
What makes you think that Google will “end” Chromium development? (As I said, they can’t really “end” development as there are many other contributors and as the code can be easily forked.)
> It is only exceeded by your willingness to repeatedly post false information.
Projecting the very thing you do at others, lol.
> As the producer of one of the world’s most popular web browsers,
Is that the power of 5% market share? Oops, I forgot, a jump from 5% market share to 6% market share is also a 20% gain in the user base, lol.
> Even if Google went completely out of business, Mozilla would be fine.
Nope, Mozilla would shut down, because…
> There is a long line of companies wanting to be a default search engine in Firefox.
…the other search engine providers realize that most users would switch the default search engine back to Google anyway, as that is what they want to use. Funnily enough, when Yahoo replaced Google as Mozilla’s sugar daddy for some time, Yahoo’s market share didn’t significantly increase, as most users switched back the default engine back to Google the very moment they saw the Yahoo logo, lol. Nobody aside from Google will fund Mozilla.
> Completely wrong. Google writes most of the Brave web browser’s code.
This code is also included in their own web browser (Chrome), they have a vital interest in keeping it going.
> They don’t write Mozilla’s Firefox code.
Google pays the bills of the developers who do, though.
> Mozilla is not financially dependent on Google.
Around 80% of their annual income is directly coming from Google, lol.
> Also uBlock Origin sometimes breaks pages.
Most are willing to risk a 0.001% likelihood of breakage with uBlock Origin, haha.
> Heck, in the USA they voted a reckless idiot into the presidency largely because of false advertising. (…) You remind me of an American president that thinks he can repeat lies over and over again hoping everyone will think those lies are true. Why model your behavior after such a dysfunctional creep?
Intermingling every topic with politics, even if it is totally unrelated (like in this case here), is a sign of totalitarianism. I am not a US citizen, why should I give a fuck whom they elect over there? It would be of interest to me if said dude or girl decided to fuck up my own country, short of that not so much. As for Trump, if you think he is the first US president lying to your face, then I suggest reading up on some basic US history. I mean, take a look at is immediate predecessors, says it all. But then again, not a US citizen, don’t care.
https://scroll.com/privacy
>When you log in to scroll.com on any browser (e.g. Chrome, Safari, Facebook, Twitter), Scroll will set a cookie or cookies identifying the logged-in account by token (“login cookies”).
>As you visit sites in Scroll’s network, your login cookies will be used to obtain per-site identifiers (“site tokens”) stored in cookies or browser storage on partner sites.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Wait, it gets better the more you Scrorr (get it? Scroll? HAA):
>What information we collect and how we use it
>Power recommendations and other features
You’re paying them for the priviledge of seeing their own ads. My oh my, this might be a new record low for moz://a.
>> … Power recommendations and other features
> … My oh my, …
Oh my giddy aunt. Et cetera, now do please excuse me whilst I collapse in shock on cheap carpet at the mere prospect of features and recommendations.
I shall, without delay, write a letter to my local M.P. demanding that paid-for services must be featureless. Yes, I’ll do that, Now, Blanche. A letter to my Member of Parliament written in thick pink lipstick on overpriced toilet paper.
Come on gHacks… you are reporting Mozilla’s every single breath lately. There has been a significant Pale Moon release, but “Firefox will soon do this, Firefox may do that, Firefox experiment is launched” is being treated as breaking news.
” … treated as breaking news.”
Not so.
This article refers to the 2019 news; it’s no secret that the Firefox study ended; and so on.
Well, the website is German, by a German owner, they really seem to like privacy there and Firefox has been “deemed” by some German organization as the most private browser, so I’m starting to see a connection here.
I might start following this website soon if this continues really. There are other browsers too – Pale Moon, Opera, Brave, there is a Japanese browser base on Chromium called Kinza which adds extra features, there is another one on the same principle called Cent… I don’t see anyone reporting them here…
There was a good website that specialized in simply reporting all browsers called FavBrowser: http://www.favbrowser.com/
But the owner quit updating it due to health issues and it can be seen in the latest article from 2016. It used to report all browsers really well and objectively, it’s a shame Ghacks is the way it is – vouching for one and ignoring the rest (or bad-mouthing them).
@Allwynd: gHacks does report on Opera and Brave, and occasionally on Pale Moon.
@Anonymous,
Yes, but not as often as Firefox and Chrome apparently. I mean, the owner can write whatever articles they want, but favoring X over Y and Z is what’s called subjectivity. A lack of objective journalism is a red flag when it comes to the credibility of a certain website.
Also not to mention how the commenting system works – you can just input a random name and a fake e-mail address and you can shit talk all you want. This website needs a comment section tied to a master website account so that it will reduce the number of shit posts.
@George
I am sure the five people actually using Pale Moon will be devastated at @Martin Brinkmann not reporting about it.
@Iron Heart you are the perfect example of how someone’s entire credibility can be revealed -and destroyed- in one short sentence. So, thank you for that- and please, keep going.
@George
You are a known Pale Moon troll, again trolling here in an off-topic manner. Making any claims regarding “credibility” is not something that should be coming from you. And by the way, what I said is true, Pale Moon only has a very small user base, much smaller than even that of other niche browsers.
Three reasons why I will never subscribe to any website ever.
1. They will take the liberty to charge me 10 times what they would otherwise be earning through ad impressions. Read: dollars to cents.
2. Five years from now I will be paying 3 times what I initially agreed to pay. Ask Comcast and AT&T about this, because they mastered this game decades ago.
3. As soon as websites get enough people subscribing, the tracking and advertising will come back, only this time it’s worse, since websites now have your name and payment details and can more easily uniquely identify you and there’s nothing you can do to stop this, short of discontinuing the service and never visiting again. Ask your cable company about this one too, they track everything you watch via their mandatory spyware set-top boxes that you can’t use their services without and sell the data to the highest bidder. Even TV manufacturers are getting in on the action now.
> … charge me 10 times …
I don’t imagine Scroll raising the non-discounted cost to $50 per month in the near future.
“The majority of Internet users don’t want to be tracked and that is one of the main reasons why content blockers are growing.”. One of, the other being malvertisement and both having followed the insanity of exponential rise of advertisement, on the Web as everywhere.
I wouldn’t pay a dime for the availability of a legitimate quest, that of a web not necessarily ad-free but of an ad environment which respects the user. No tracking is a good start, would be because i remain skeptical when ad-tracking is the very natural component of the aim of a better ROI (Return On Investment); no tracking is not enough, remains malicious advertisement (malvertisement), remains the display, rising, more when better should be the only quest. Better ads would mean a better ROI but a substantial loss for advertisers : the reality IMO is that the ad business willingly continues to serve bad ads because it’s their very advantage : less ROI means more ads.
From there on, personally I remain determined to adopt a zero-ad policy and will change ONLY when the ad business changes, not before.
I won’t fall in the trap which is that when worse than worse is abolished, worse remains acceptable. Worse is advertisement as we know it, worse than that is ad tracking.
Oh dear, it never stops…….
It’s a browser, not a brainwashing device.
“… brainwashing …”
Please elaborate.
“… It’s a browser …”
True. No less a browser with Scroll than without.
“No less a browser with Scroll than without.”
You really need to think clearly, $2.49/month, data collection and MoxCo want an email address when signing up for sites many seldom visit, I’d say that’s a lot more.
‘You will be assimilated’., what’s next implants?
“… what’s next implants?”
No. Maybe another inexplicable comment about brainwashing.