[adangert]

If adblocking is left up to the browser than companies who own the browser have a financial incentive to let certian ads from paying companies through, as has been seen by adblock plus, and the proposed built in chrome ad blocking (which would obviously never block Google's own ads for any reason). Conflicts of interest should be separated into different independent organizations.

Chrome mobile not allowing extensions and therefore adblockers is a crime. There are different revenue sources other than ads (patreon or crypto micropayments for instance) which might evolve as the next means of payment for the internet and search engines. Google purposefully stopping the growth of new technology in order to grasp at an increasingly shrinking past is hurting the end user and is evil.

[onyva]

I don't see that with Firefox. Google "blocking" ads in Chrome is of course not serious and not something that's done to protect users. Mozilla is not an ad company like Google (or the wanna be new Google, Brave). But I do think it's a core service a browser should offer, both for privacy reasons, but also environmental and esthetics. We've seen the carbon footprint of processing spam mail, I'm sure ads (which nobody wants or even pays attention to) are even worse.

[Synaesthesia]

Mozilla gets a lot of money from its partnership with google. That’s why google search is the default on Firefox. Google probably wouldn’t want them to block all their ads.