mike22223333

It should be illegal to do that.

As a publisher, most of us do not care about Firefox either. They have done us no good. So we don't even bother to test on it.

Their so called "Tracking Protection" is nothing more then a gimmick. It can be bypassed easily using methods other then cookies. All it did was reduce the revenue from ads because of no cookies (the legitimate way to track id's). It did an insignificant harm to Google. But it reduced the revenue from Firefox users by a huge percentage for publishers.

Firefox is losing because it favors the wrong demographics. Firefox offers nothing much exclusive to users and neither to developers. Most people using ad blockers, use Firefox on mobile.

Sad to see it the way it is. Safari did the same. But the market share is still relevant, but it is declining as well. Once it reaches a certain point, no one will bother to test for it either.

DNT was a shit show. DNT should have always required manual user intervention to be respected.

Google's interests apart from their AMP project aligns with the publishers. If we win, they win.

But there is very little left to innovate. Almost all kinds of apps are there. AGI is only possible by large corps because of the massive compute requirement.

The next Google/Facebook will be made when either of the following criteria are met:

1. They mess up hard, causing a critical mass to boycott it (highly unlikely)

2. New world changing communication technology is invented, similar to the internet. With similar applications AND government regulations delaying them from developing on the new technology

3. Processing chips become so fast that the average person is able to afford and run a 1 petaflop computer just like the cost of buying and running a PC's today.

Amazon was possible because of the internet. Facebook will remain the King until some communication related world changing technology arrives.

The low hanging fruit is already picked.

There are exceptions for paywalls.

Not any more. There were changes.

Larger ad dependent publishers have to push out click bait because smaller publishers push it out. If larger publishers would not do clickbait if smaller publishers do, they go out of business, because smaller ones steal the share of money.

Ad revenue is a zero sum game.

Too many small publishers are not good. The small publishers which gain revenue because of Google are too dependent on it. Hence they cannot criticize Google else indirectly their SEO is affected. Larger independent publishers have to compete with smaller clickbaity non professional publishers and also have to serve clickbait. Because Ad revenue is mostly a zero sum game. The smaller publishers who do not have many journalists just make clickbait titles eat into professionals who are also dependent on Ads.

It is in Google's interest to have multiple small publishers instead of few large publishers, because Google can blackmail the smaller ones more easily and multiple publisher speaking against something is more difficult then few grouped publishers.

If the publishers and Google's interest clash, it is a good thing for the readers. If they align, it is a very good thing for Google, a little good for publishers and bad for readers.

Headlines are exempted from link tax. Any part of body text is not.

No. This means less click bait. Ad revenue is a zero sum game mostly. The shit news site are no longer able to clickbait in Google news. More share of money goes to publishers despite less traffic. Clicbaiters lose.

Faraday cage.

The government should outlaw the link between them.