Mozilla is introducing advertisements into Firefox, which they are calling “enhanced tiles“.

They recently parted ways with (dumped by) Google, who was funneling $300 million a year (90% of revenue) into Mozilla for making Google the default search engine. Now that this revenue is gone, I suppose Mozilla figures they can offset some of these loses by including ADs in the browser. They also inked a deal with Yahoo! to be the new default search engine.

It's supposed to be easy to opt out of these ADs but in my opinion, this is just another step in the wrong direction for a so called "non-profit" (cough). There is a large discussion thread on the Fedora Devel List, in which many are urging Fedora to replace Firefox as the default browser. I agree with this move. Users can always install Firefox from the repos but it would not be the default.

Firefox is still the best browser for my purposes, but combine this with questionable GUI changes and other privacy/tracking concerns the user must "opt-out" of, I'm growing increasingly disenchanted with the Firefox project.

Yep, unless you opt out.

Chrome has a less intrusive "cousin" (forked, since Chrome is OSS) called Chromium. It could be time to do the same with FF.

Yes, Chromium is available for Fedora but there are issues with it as well. It still contains obfuscated call home code.

There is a fork of Chromium called SRWare Iron, which supposedly has all the tracking code removed. I tested it in Fedora but it didn't work. When compared to FF, the Chromium browser also has some limitations that prevent me from using it. If there was a true equivalent for noscript available for another browser, I'd consider switching (notscript ain't it).

You're right, though. I'd would like to see a fork of Firefox with all the junk stripped out.

Firefox is still #1 for me, until I am convinced otherwise.

Choosing "Blank" is the best approach for those concerned about tracking and privacy.

I use enhanced because I don't mind it. I also set my options in privacy to not tell sites about my tracking preferences. I also clear everything and use cc cleaner before I shut my laptop down once I'm done using it. I also have the AdBlock plus extensions so they help.

I am using the latest Firefox and have not seen any ads. This is probable because I use the "Adblock Plus" extension. In fact I hardly ever see ads on any sites.

Also a non-profit needs funding to go around. Whereas there are certainly bad and very annoying ways to get ad revenue I think it's wrong to consider all ads as some sort of universal evil for the same reason I am also conflicted when it comes to ad-blocking.

On one hand, from the user perspective, ads are generally no fun. Without ad-blockers and noscript some sites are just nightmares of popups and strange blocking panes. On youtube it takes up to twenty seconds before you get to watch the video you wanted. There is a reason ads are hated - the step to spam is often very short.

But on the other hand, ads are to a large extent paying for the free content we have avalable. Much freely accessible content out there is freely accessible because people expect to be able to make a living from hosting advertisments (and get paid by the advertisers).

Take youtube videos for example. The more popular youtube channels create content as a profession. We access this without any need for a subscription or micropayment. Must just take this for granted. But how we "pay" for it is actually by us watching a few seconds of commercial, hopefully clicking through to whatever is sold. This is how the channel gets their money and can keep going. By ad-blocking we are effectively watching their stuff without jumping through that hoop. So for that reason I turn off ad-blocking for youtube most of the time.

Another example is when reading web comics, especially those which are self-hosted by a lonely artist. Those often try to monetize a little by allowing google adspace on their page. Me blocking (and thus not even having a chance of clicking the ad) is now directly hurting that artist. Deactivating ad-blocking on that site is an act of courtesy to an individual.

Few people actually consider the purpose of ads from the other side, as annoying as they may be when being too intrusive. Maybe because relatively few actually ever experience creating something online and trying the hard chore to make money off it. If seeing ads as a form of payment to the site hosting, then ad-blocking becomes less of a clear-cut thing to do.
.
Griatch

I tend to agree with you when it comes to ADs, Griatch. There is nothing wrong with the concept of running ADs to offset your expenses or to make a profit. The problem I have is that most of the ADs (especially Google ADs) are vectors for installing malware, ADware and tracking toolbars.

In terms of Firefox, so far, they have made nearly $400 million per year without running ADs. Personally, I see Mozilla as a commercial enterprise. Their claiming non-profit status is simply a way to avoid paying corporate taxes. I believe one co-founder is worth around $100 million dollars. Some people are certainly making a profit.

What really bothered me about Firefox this time, is that I have it set to notify me of updates but not install them. This has always worked in the past. This time, after twice choosing not to install the update, Firefox installed it anyway.

Yes i don't like having updates if i shut them off. Firefox is a culprit for auto installing anyway.
I use Iron but i have to say i wish you could auto import passwords from Chrome.