zlacker

I’m always glad that PR people can’t help but speak in such inhuman language that makes it obvious that it’s not a real sentiment but just part of the play.

>>Waterl+(OP)
Honestly, I thought it was a pretty strong statement. They basically said "we screwed up."

>>Wowfun+t3
They used the words "stopped running" instead of "removed"...

>>candid+q6
I mean, I wouldn’t expect them to be able to pull the whole thing out of the code at the drop of a hat.

>>Wowfun+t3
"Stopped running the ad experience" tells me the kind of language they've been using internally to describe projects like this, and it is not language that I'm okay with from Mozilla. Using the toxic language in the retraction doesn't breed confidence that they really understand what the error was.

>>lolind+09
It’s not an “error,” it’s an “ad experience misadventure.”

>>Aeolun+C8
For a browser that claims to be privacy focused, I would expect them to tightly contain the code in an external module that can easily be turned off.

I would absolutely expect them to pull the whole thing out.

>>Wowfun+t3
Then you are either a fool or extremely naive. The statement they made actually says "we expected the frog to be more used to the heat by now and will try again later when it is".