zlacker

[return to "Mozilla Standards Positions Opposes Web Integrity API"]
1. eganis+s8[view] [source] 2023-07-25 03:35:49
>>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.

◧◩
2. paulry+N8[view] [source] 2023-07-25 03:40:55
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. yjftsj+2k[view] [source] 2023-07-25 05:22:34
>>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.
◧◩◪◨
4. zirak+0q[view] [source] 2023-07-25 06:22:03
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. lozeng+Qy[view] [source] 2023-07-25 07:40:16
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. TheCoe+2m1[view] [source] 2023-07-25 13:55:10
>>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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. ragnes+BL1[view] [source] 2023-07-25 15:34:01
>>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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Vancou+m12[view] [source] 2023-07-25 16:23:59
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. ragnes+Vs2[view] [source] 2023-07-25 17:54:55
>>Vancou+m12
Here's the thing, though. You've used several key phrases in this comment: "a lot of questions and doubt," "wonder what other incidents [...] might happen in the future," and "major loss of trust."

All valid concerns, but why post about them on the internet? Especially when it's nothing concrete--you used the words "questions", "doubts", and "might happen"? If someone is taking the effort to post FUD (literally) about Mozilla and "trust", why the hell aren't they using that same effort to post about Google or Microsoft and "trust"? Aren't those obviously much bigger problems?

Again, it's not wrong, per se, but I feel like it's bordering on some kind of astroturfing for people to complain about the fucking Mr. Robot non-story that happened years ago when TFA is about Mozilla at least signalling the right thing while Google is trying to be overtly evil YET AGAIN. I can actually type "Fuck Google" faster than I can type "Mr. Robot", so I'd have to have some kind of weird agenda or priorities to bring up Firefox's Mr. Robot thing.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. Vancou+SN3[view] [source] 2023-07-26 00:37:02
>>ragnes+Vs2
While you may consider it to be a "non-story", for some of the Firefox users who experienced it first-hand, it was a significant betrayal that can't be easily forgiven. The implications go far beyond the incident itself.

I don't think that there's "a strong anti-Mozilla bias" here, as you put it earlier. The people affected by that incident, and by others, were probably among the most ardent Firefox supporters. After all, they were still using it long after so many others had already moved to Chrome.

Loss of trust is something that isn't easily forgotten, and it's a relevant factor worthy of bringing up in discussion.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. ragnes+Qi5[view] [source] 2023-07-26 13:34:05
>>Vancou+SN3
I'm sorry, but it's definitely a non-story, and all this talk about "betrayal" and "trust" is sophistry.

It's a non-story because you had to opt-in to Firefox's "experiments" feature to get the extension pushed to you. Opting in to the experiments feature is *literally* granting permission for Mozilla to change the behavior of your Firefox browser remotely in between official releases. So, Mozilla had your permission to change your browser. I simply will not shed a tear for anyone who felt betrayed by something they signed up for.

And, by the way, I was also "affected" by the Mr. Robot thing because I also opted in to the experiments feature.

Furthermore, the extension did nothing harmful. It didn't even collect any data as far as I know. You know why Mozilla pushed an extension that didn't even collect any data instead of one that does? Because they were acting in a trustworthy way!

Sure, it was a faux pax. Mozilla thought they could be cute the same way a lot of old school FLOSSy, hackery, software would include amusing Easter eggs and jokes. It was inappropriate and didn't land well for a variety of reasons, but there was no reason to lose trust in Mozilla at the time, and there's *certainly* no reason to even bring it up today, years later, when just about every other tech company and computer product is trying their damnedest to spy on you, sell your data, prevent you from having root control of your devices, and squeeze subscription money out of you.

Again, Chrome starts tracking you the instant you launch it for the first time. Microsoft tracks you when you log in to Windows and occasionally re-enables tracking features that you've disabled. Mozilla pushed a silly "fun" extension to users who opted in that didn't collect any data nor make Mozilla any money.

This discussion is nonsense. If you truly don't trust Mozilla after the harmless Mr. Robot extension was pushed to you after you chose to allow them to modify your browser remotely, then go ahead and stop using Firefox- I don't care. But please stop spreading FUD.

[go to top]