4 ms·

How is "not installing unused software" considered to be "outrage"?

by stonogo 11y ago

pjc50 11y ago
It's a minor browser feature. Most people will never use e.g. the mozilla developer tools.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  I find it hard to believe that someone with significant karma on HN doesn't understand surveillance-as-a-business-model. Just being a yet another Service As A Software Substitute[1] is bad enough, but in this case these rent-seekers are exploiting user ignorance (it's a "dark pattern"). Firefox has always been a local app, with remote features requiring the user to opt-in to an extension. The distinction between Mozilla "only providing a button" and the actual feature that loads from the remote SaaSS only exists for people that understand these technologies. Mozilla is being especially hypocritical with the integration of these features. During their previous projects (e.g. Australis) Mozilla pushed a lot of previously-integrated features into extensions. This caused problems for a LOT of people, but I reluctantly supported it because a minimal core with most features as plugins is generally a good design. For them to turn around an integrate a plugin that baits people into using spyware is outrageous - and somewhat suspicious. That button needs to be removed because it's an attractive nuisance[2]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    >This caused problems for a LOT of people, but I reluctantly supported it because a minimal core with most features as plugins is generally a good design. For them to turn around an integrate a plugin that baits people into using spyware is outrageous - and somewhat suspicious. Bah. It's basically a lightweight extension, and will soon get packaged as one. It's not integrated into the core, which means the main anti-bloat principles are still upheld. And it's not like it hides the process of making an account. If you want to sync things, you need a server. Not suspicious.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      > If you want to sync things, you need a server. So why not use about:reader and Firefox Sync?
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        If pocket is "spyware", I'm not sure Firefox Sync is going to be considered all that much better.
        pdkl95 11y ago
        Sync was useful in it's original form that was encrypted entirely client-side. With the recent(-ish) changes, Sync should be considered spyware (or at least having the potential to be hijacked into spyware).

How is "not installing unused software" considered to be "outrage"?

by stonogo 11y ago

How is "not installing unused software" considered to be "outrage"?

pjc50 11y ago

It's a minor browser feature. Most people will never use e.g. the mozilla developer tools.

pdkl95 11y ago
I find it hard to believe that someone with significant karma on HN doesn't understand surveillance-as-a-business-model. Just being a yet another Service As A Software Substitute[1] is bad enough, but in this case these rent-seekers are exploiting user ignorance (it's a "dark pattern"). Firefox has always been a local app, with remote features requiring the user to opt-in to an extension. The distinction between Mozilla "only providing a button" and the actual feature that loads from the remote SaaSS only exists for people that understand these technologies. Mozilla is being especially hypocritical with the integration of these features. During their previous projects (e.g. Australis) Mozilla pushed a lot of previously-integrated features into extensions. This caused problems for a LOT of people, but I reluctantly supported it because a minimal core with most features as plugins is generally a good design. For them to turn around an integrate a plugin that baits people into using spyware is outrageous - and somewhat suspicious. That button needs to be removed because it's an attractive nuisance[2]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  >This caused problems for a LOT of people, but I reluctantly supported it because a minimal core with most features as plugins is generally a good design. For them to turn around an integrate a plugin that baits people into using spyware is outrageous - and somewhat suspicious. Bah. It's basically a lightweight extension, and will soon get packaged as one. It's not integrated into the core, which means the main anti-bloat principles are still upheld. And it's not like it hides the process of making an account. If you want to sync things, you need a server. Not suspicious.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    > If you want to sync things, you need a server. So why not use about:reader and Firefox Sync?
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      If pocket is "spyware", I'm not sure Firefox Sync is going to be considered all that much better.
      - pdkl95 11y ago
        Sync was useful in it's original form that was encrypted entirely client-side. With the recent(-ish) changes, Sync should be considered spyware (or at least having the potential to be hijacked into spyware).