zlacker

>>danShu+(OP)
Expected, but meaningless if we can't drive people towards Firefox and away from Chromium products. That's something of a responsibility we all have, especially those of us invested in the safety and security (collectively, trust) of the web.

I haven't seen anything yet on whether Brave will support it, though if I'm understanding correctly, they won't have a choice since they're using Chromium. Hopefully I'm misinformed.

>>eganis+s8
Judging by all the hate Mozilla gets around here, it would be nice to at least see some credit given where it is due.

Ultimately I think we must permanently return to browser ballots back by the law, like the IE bundling fallout. Otherwise friction and incentives will continue to entrench one dominant player.

>>paulry+N8
Mozilla gets hate because they say they're fighting for the user and then fail to live up to that standard. People expect Google to try and screw over users, so when it happens nobody is disappointed. I do agree that this results in oddly skewed reactions, but the emotional side makes sense.

>>yjftsj+2k
How do we define "failure"? Let's say we can measure how much Mozilla fights for the user and put it on a scale:

         |--------------------|
    anti-user              pro-user

Where on the scale is "failure"? Let's say Mozilla is on the M, and Google is on the G:

         |----G-------M-------|
    anti-user              pro-user

Is Mozilla failing?

The sentiment I seem to see is that anything short of perfect is failure.

>>zirak+0q
They take so many active anti user steps.

Pocket, cliq, Push Notifications for Mozilla Blog without user consent, Mr robot, Firefox Suggest etc they are littered with mistakes and scandals and have never improved their governance or process.

I can give them a pass on technical decisions like Thunderbird or breaking extensions but when it's purely commercial it has to be judged differently.

>>lozeng+Qy
The only one in that list that bothers me is the push notifications, and even that I can't care about too much.

Seems like a good record to me.

>>dontla+dL
Announcing that Pocket would be baked directly into the browser, against the will of users—rather than being a promoted extension and despite the fact that it was at the time a completely unrelated company selling closed source SaaS and in the business of collecting telemetry—and then proceeding despite the widespread backlash doesn't bother you? Issuing misleading PR statements carefully worded to strongly suggest that there was no money changing hands re Pocket integration while maintaining plausible deniability concerning the truth, which is that there was money changing hands—that doesn't bother you? That the subterfuge was so effective that Mozilla employees themselves who were not otherwise in the know took it as a statement that there were no kickbacks involved—and then showed up in places like HN comments outright saying that there weren't kickbacks—that doesn't bother you? The fact that when Pocket was bought, it was understood and even claimed that it would be open source (just like all the other Mozilla Foundation IP), and yet we are in our seventh year after the acquisition and it's no more open source today than it was then—this doesn't bother you?

Is there any threshold for mendacity that if crossed would bother you?

>>cxr+hb1
It's not that I'm cool with the Pocket bullshit. It's just that I can't bring myself to more than a shrug when I put it next to Google or Microsoft.

I mean, Chrome (including Chromium, IIRC) literally collects and ships a bunch of tracking data to Google THE FIRST FUCKING TIME YOU LAUNCH THE APPLICATION.

Context matters. If Firefox did the Pocket nonsense in an environment where we had multiple decent free (as in freedom) browsers, then I'd grab my pitchfork. As it stands, I just can't feel the righteous indignation your comment is trying to rouse. It's truly NOTHING compared to the other options.