Web lists-archives.com

Re: Firefox, relic without a future

On 2017-09-14 11:16, The Real Bev wrote:
On 09/14/2017 07:36 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-12 16:35, The Real Bev wrote:
On 09/12/2017 08:47 AM, Wolf K. wrote:
IMO, FB would do better to offer a paid subscription service sans ads,
and with fine-grained control over posts/viewers. Sort Of like a private
mail service. I'd happily pay $10 a month for that.

I wouldn't.  AdblockPlus is free and works well.

I would because FB's algorithms for displaying posts are defective. Like
Google's, they over-value current read history.

FB is nowhere near as good as usenet.

For interest groups. yes, except that every now and then a Usenet group
is messed up by trolls or by flooders.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if I
didn't have to jump through hoops to view FB videos with firefox (Chrome
has no problems) and

??? No problems with FF on Win8.1 Pro/64.

Probably a slackware thing.  Lots of stuff just doesn't work right.  I have to open the video in a new tab, and click on the triangle twice -- and the spacing is important, sort of like a Venus flytrap.  Then I wait for it to open in the 'theater' (or whatever) mode and play.  Maybe 30 seconds after the first click before it starts.  Same thing in 'safe' mode.

if I could see ALL the posts I've chosen to see on
a timely (or "at all") basis.

That's precisely what I would pay for. All control at my end. You can't
control any ad-supported service. Blocking ads isn't the same as control.

If FB won't provide that service, maybe somebody else is smart enough to
do so.

Usenet :-(

Usenet is public broadcast.

The advantage of FB is that you can post for the public, or for friends, or for some group. Like having an automated email/listmail service. I'd like even more fine-grained control, and no ads.

Wolf K
"Wanted. Schrödinger’s Cat. Dead and Alive."
general mailing list