only those who cannot change a setting. you miss the alternative is to go be tracked by google or microsoft with their own ads. just bc you are a user doesn't mean your experience is above the mass users'. Go test other browsers and see if firefox privacy is a real thing. Microsoft will track your dns and app cookies instead of web cookies. smart right? you successfully identified an issue now succeed in presenting a solution or alternative. otherwise keep complaining the rest of your life
your opinion is bad. its sad to see you've used Firefox since 2006 and not realize that they have to compete with one of the most insane companies of modern times. google. they have to do anything and everything they can to make money to compete. they are just staying in the business model. so what if they have an OPTIONAL sponsored tile on your home screen. actually insane that you have eyes and ears but aren't processing any information.
I’m going to ignore the the fact that you are mean and state something actually factual - Wikipedia (the largest, free online encyclopedia) is entirely run on the (mostly) $5 annual sponsors of the tiniest percentage of their users. I am one of them.
Hiding ads feels like a swan song.
I love how you reference a business model… Maybe they don’t need to compete with Google. Maybe they can have a niche, but loyal customer base and survive for decades. Maybe everything doesn’t need to be about capitalism.
you are right. sorry for being mean, but what i have said is true.
first of all you say "hiding ads" but its just false to even phrase it like that. A: it literally says sponsored. so there is no and/if/buts about it, its and ad. that's it. end of story. they aren't deceiving, they aren't misleading. if it says sponsored, it is an advertisement. B: IT IS OPTIONAL. you can remove it if you don't want it. like it is actually not forced upon you what so ever, simply on by default. if you don't like it, remove it? a quick *google* search will tell you how to remove it, or roaming around the settings for a few minutes. C: in addition to this point, ads shift the model to making money from other corporations instead of making money directly off users. you know can support mozilla for FREE instead of directly paying them out of pocket. there is a reason the advertisement model works too, users are way more likely to watch or click an ad than actually donate or give their money to a corporation. even if it is mozilla.
second of all comparing wikipedia to firefox is like comparing a library to a train station. completely different things with the only things in common being they are structures (websites) and they reside in a city (the internet). completely different things, totally different models of making them work. wikipedia is visited by millions a day searching for information, contains a good portion of all human knowledge, and the only purpose of their "model" is to keep the site up and running. mozilla, and by extension firefox, is a company that runs a browser, yes (operating on various different devices), but also does many different other things. one of which is fighting for your internet rights: privacy, security, free speech, availability, etc. they have a much larger scale operation going on here, with quite frankly a more active and larger outreach. wikipedia is probably more important (only because they literally dedicate the website to human knowledge), has no direct competitors, and is only interested in providing their website. mozilla is still important, providing all the things mentioned above requires more resources, especially in direct competition with one of the largest corporations in the history of mankind.
third, we live in a capitalistic society, you're right, so that is our lives. it dictates society. to think mozilla can run their operations AND fight for the rights of internet users with a "niche and loyal customer base" is pretty naive. look at the market share for browsers right now, google is not just in the lead, but dominating, and that's just one of google's many, many tentacles. the only reason they leave the last 20-30% of the market share alone is out of necessity, so they aren't chased back by the government like microsoft was in the early 2000s. it's kill or be killed. either fight as hard as you can against the top dog, or become irrelevant, or worse, collapse as a company. and mozilla is by far one of the better corporate entities in our world right now, you shouldn't think that they are trying to deceive you. they have to deploy capitalistic tactics to compete with a company that has practically beaten capitalism. that's just the way it is. and its not like the goal is to make the most amount of money as possible and leach off of your experience, it is to fund their endeavors outside of their business and into the lives of everyone as an internet user.
a better comparison of a company would be something like duckduckgo. they too directly compete with google, they too fight for your internet rights, and yes, they too rely on ads. its easier to get money from ads, and your revenue stream is other companies, not your user base. you are just wrong. accept it and move on. i get it. ads are annoying. if you aren't paying for the product, you are the product. it has been that way for a while now. it is annoying, and i wish we could get away from it. but that is the reality of our world. to fight the giants, you have to play their game.
I support the use of ads on blank firefox installations. Let the user have a reason to venture into the settings and give them psychological association by customization and then there are no more ads for the more invested user. And if firefox is used on any public/shared computer the ads are very welcome let them make diverse money rather than SE dictation sugar!