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 fact that an easter egg about a TV show makes the list of the worst things they've ever done speaks volumes. It was a bad decision, but it was not malicious and it had negligible impact on users. Google does something 10x worse every single day.

>>TheCoe+2m1
I was about to post this comment. I can't BELIEVE people are still hung up on the Mr. Robot thing. This is exactly what we're talking about in this thread when we say that HN has a strong anti-Mozilla bias for some reason.

>>ragnes+BL1
In a situation like that, it's not just about any direct harm that may have arisen.

It's also about the loss of trust.

That particular incident, for example, was completely unnecessary. It involved a significant display of unbelievably poor judgment, and a total lack of foresight. It shouldn't have happened.

The fact that it did happen, despite it being such an obviously bad idea, raised a lot of questions and doubt.

It causes people to wonder what other incidents, which could potentially be far worse, might happen in the future.

It's remembered years later because it involved such a major loss of trust for so many people.

>>Vancou+m12
If anything, shouldn't the fallout reinforce trust that it won't happen again? Kind of like how plane crashes actually make planes safer.

>>skeake+Jo2
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way in this case. For example, there was an incident just a couple of months ago that was discussed here:

"Firefox displayed a pop-up ad for Mozilla VPN over an unrelated page" (>>36077360 )

"Mozilla stops Firefox fullscreen VPN ads after user outrage" (>>36085642 )

That's another incident that just shouldn't have ever happened to begin with, in my opinion.

>>Vancou+4H2
That's not great, but it's not the same as the Mr Robot thing. That much has already stopped. This is a different thing that similarly won't happen again now that backlash has occurred. A different cause of a plane crash that has now been analyzed to prevent in the future, going back to that analogy.