zlacker

They could have hard coded it, would that have been better or worse in your view?

>>Dylan1+(OP)
Hmm...if you mean, would it be better or worse if they distributed the Looking Glass add-on in an automatically installed update, I think that would be...roughly equivalent? I feel like they're breaking some sort of implicit social contract: my browser shouldn't automatically install add-on software not foundational to its operation that I didn't ask for.

If you mean would it be better or worse if they did a more traditional pop-up ad promotion for Mr. Robot like they did for their VPN service...I dunno, unfortunately I've grown to expect new Firefox releases to have found excuses for promoting Mozilla services, even though I've done a fair amount of work to try to disable all that nonsense.

At the end of the day, it's all pretty gross really. What I'd really like is a way to pay Mozilla actual money in a way that ensured it was directed solely at development of Firefox in exchange for not doing any of this stuff to me. But for some reason this doesn't seem possible.

>>ilikep+k7
> my browser shouldn't automatically install add-on software

I mean if it wasn't an add-on at all. If it was a piece of javascript or even C++ contained directly inside the program, that triggered on the same about:config setting. A traditional easter egg.

>>Dylan1+me1
I would say that would be worse. Presumably there would be no way to remove it without patching the source.