• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12 years ago

    Sorry, this is a terrible and senseless pontification. They could have always bundled an ad-blocker without having it enabled out-of-the-box.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      Sure they could have.

      But why would they?

      Just because you, clearly, disagree with my opinion doesn’t make it terrible or senseless.

      The strength of your conviction, or in which you convey it, isn’t a stand-in for rational arguments and logic based debate.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        But why would they?

        Because it would be one very interesting marketing point? For a browser that promotes itself as “focused on protecting users” and “not selling you out”, having a built-in (even if not enabled by default) ad-blocker would make a lot more sense than adding integration with Pocket.

        rational arguments and logic based debate.

        There is nothing logical about claiming “Firefox is a browser and browser need to render the page as is”. First, even that were true it does not require them to enable the ad-block by default. Second, this definition is contrived and seems picked up just to give a rationalization that gives them some moral ground about their omission. We could just as easily say something like “a web browser is the user agent to access the www and as such it can always modify the web page in favor of the user”. Why is that you choose to go for a definition that just happens to favor the business of their biggest source of revenue?