zlacker

>>ReadCa+(OP)
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.

>>imnotj+q6
> 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.”

>>roughl+z9
> 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.

>>Wowfun+Hb
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.

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

>>Aeolun+Cg
Ok, I’ll bite. How?