3 ms·

When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? One of my biggest, if not my biggest, co

by oneJob 11y ago

When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? One of my biggest, if not my biggest, complaint about the OSS community it the lack of sympathy toward non technical users. If I was a point-and-click, non-technical user do you think I'd have any clue what you meant by 'mailing list'? Not likely. And if I was that user what are the chances that I understand that the Pocket application was a third-party application and that my data was not staying with Mozilla? Would I understand that removing the icon did not remove the code for my install? Bigger picture here, and the point I was trying to convey in my original comment, is that this is another instance in a string of instances that, when each taken on its own might not be a huge deal, together paint a picture. The writing is on the wall, as they say. I'm not a Mozilla hater. But before I am a Mozilla user, I'm a citizen of the Internet. So when a participant of the Internet begins to lose their way, I figure I should do what good partners do, which is to plainly speak my mind in a manner that is respectful and open to listening. I think Mozilla is great, and I think they'd value others being constructively honest with them.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
> When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? Except Pocket is still opt-in; you have to click the button for it to do anything. I think springing these integrations was a poor move strategically for Mozilla, but it's not like they installed Alexa toolbar on everybody's browser. The code for the extension is even open source.
bad_user 11y ago
I haven't seen any denouncing of Facebook in a long time, even though they keep getting worse every month. I assume it is because people accepted they are assholes, they won, they can't be replaced and that's that. And personally I consider the backlash against Pocket to be either undeserved kneejerk reactions, or a discreditation strategy sponsored by Mozilla's competition. Because seriously, why aren't we seeing the same backlash against Chrome, which includes proprietary bits not present in Chromium (like the PDF viewer) and that explicitly does not support extensions on Android because of Google's fear of losing ad revenue? Or maybe we should talk about how Chrome does not encrypt data by default, most users giving access to Google for their whole browsing history. We could talk about IExplorer^WEdge or Safari and how Apple and Microsoft are blocking alternative browser engines on their mobiles, but that's not as fun as bashing the only open browser that's backed by a non-profit without ulterior motives. But then lives without our double standards would be boring.
- EdiX 11y ago
  >Because seriously, why aren't we seeing the same backlash against Chrome Because people who don't like the things you listed use firefox, not chrome.
- toyg 11y ago
  The difference is that Google and Facebook have always been commercial entities with a profit motive, they are not public utilities. Exactly because Mozilla is (supposed to be) something else, it's held to a higher standard by its users and donors. > We could talk about [...] how Apple and Microsoft are blocking alternative browser engines But we do. In a way, Mozilla is what it is because a lot of people were pissed off at MS.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    A "public utility" has very specific meaning, being an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service, that is subject to forms of public control and regulation and for which you pay taxes. Is Mozilla subject to forms of public control and regulation? Do you pay taxes for Mozilla's existence? If not, then Mozilla does not qualify. My problem is actually twofold. On one hand bashing Mozilla is like bashing a charity and most people doing it have never donated or contributed anything. But also I don't understand what's the freaking deal with that Pocket button, which is nothing more than a shortcut that consumes nothing, that can be easily removed and for which Mozilla got nothing in return for the deal. This is why Free Software will never happen at scale. Far more aggravating than the problem of the business model is all the shit these people have to put up with.
    - toyg 11y ago
      The problem is that Mozilla really really would like you to believe that they're doing a public service. "We keep the web open! We defend your privacy! Donate now or Bad People will win!" That's their message. So yeah, it's a charity, but they make it sound like it's a charity that must exist, so it borders on being a utility. > most people doing it have never donated or contributed anything. Since when, in order to criticise something you use, you have to join it first? > But also I don't understand what's the freaking deal with that Pocket button I'll bite. Two issues: 1) Pocket is basically a centralized service to keep track of your reading. This goes quite clearly against Mozilla's own message of placing privacy and users' rights above everything else. Shipping such a feature as opt-out and fundamentally un-removeable is just bad on every possible level; it could have been worse only if Mozilla had started routing all your traffic through Microsoft servers. 2) There are umpteen services like Pocket, always have been, and none of them ever got a button in Firefox. So why Pocket? Why not one of the bazillion other services? Who chose it and why? Does that mean FF's toolbar is now open for business? Who do I bribe to get a button? ... That's a very opaque and fundamentally corrupt process, in an organisation constantly preaching openness. You can ask a priest how it feels having to constantly adhere to a higher moral standard; it's the price you pay for getting people to listen to you, trust your judgement, and give you free labor. At any time you can just stop preaching and go do your own thing, but then you can't expect other people to still follow you. > This is why Free Software will never happen at scale. Lol. Newsflash: it's already happened.

by oneJob 11y ago

johncolanduoni 11y ago

> When Facebook forces a user to opt-out it's acceptable to denounce their actions. How is the Pocket example different? Except Pocket is still opt-in; you have to click the button for it to do anything. I think springing these integrations was a poor move strategically for Mozilla, but it's not like they installed Alexa toolbar on everybody's browser. The code for the extension is even open source.

bad_user 11y ago

I haven't seen any denouncing of Facebook in a long time, even though they keep getting worse every month. I assume it is because people accepted they are assholes, they won, they can't be replaced and that's that. And personally I consider the backlash against Pocket to be either undeserved kneejerk reactions, or a discreditation strategy sponsored by Mozilla's competition. Because seriously, why aren't we seeing the same backlash against Chrome, which includes proprietary bits not present in Chromium (like the PDF viewer) and that explicitly does not support extensions on Android because of Google's fear of losing ad revenue? Or maybe we should talk about how Chrome does not encrypt data by default, most users giving access to Google for their whole browsing history. We could talk about IExplorer^WEdge or Safari and how Apple and Microsoft are blocking alternative browser engines on their mobiles, but that's not as fun as bashing the only open browser that's backed by a non-profit without ulterior motives. But then lives without our double standards would be boring.

EdiX 11y ago
>Because seriously, why aren't we seeing the same backlash against Chrome Because people who don't like the things you listed use firefox, not chrome.
toyg 11y ago
The difference is that Google and Facebook have always been commercial entities with a profit motive, they are not public utilities. Exactly because Mozilla is (supposed to be) something else, it's held to a higher standard by its users and donors. > We could talk about [...] how Apple and Microsoft are blocking alternative browser engines But we do. In a way, Mozilla is what it is because a lot of people were pissed off at MS.
- bad_user 11y ago
  A "public utility" has very specific meaning, being an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service, that is subject to forms of public control and regulation and for which you pay taxes. Is Mozilla subject to forms of public control and regulation? Do you pay taxes for Mozilla's existence? If not, then Mozilla does not qualify. My problem is actually twofold. On one hand bashing Mozilla is like bashing a charity and most people doing it have never donated or contributed anything. But also I don't understand what's the freaking deal with that Pocket button, which is nothing more than a shortcut that consumes nothing, that can be easily removed and for which Mozilla got nothing in return for the deal. This is why Free Software will never happen at scale. Far more aggravating than the problem of the business model is all the shit these people have to put up with.
  - toyg 11y ago
    The problem is that Mozilla really really would like you to believe that they're doing a public service. "We keep the web open! We defend your privacy! Donate now or Bad People will win!" That's their message. So yeah, it's a charity, but they make it sound like it's a charity that must exist, so it borders on being a utility. > most people doing it have never donated or contributed anything. Since when, in order to criticise something you use, you have to join it first? > But also I don't understand what's the freaking deal with that Pocket button I'll bite. Two issues: 1) Pocket is basically a centralized service to keep track of your reading. This goes quite clearly against Mozilla's own message of placing privacy and users' rights above everything else. Shipping such a feature as opt-out and fundamentally un-removeable is just bad on every possible level; it could have been worse only if Mozilla had started routing all your traffic through Microsoft servers. 2) There are umpteen services like Pocket, always have been, and none of them ever got a button in Firefox. So why Pocket? Why not one of the bazillion other services? Who chose it and why? Does that mean FF's toolbar is now open for business? Who do I bribe to get a button? ... That's a very opaque and fundamentally corrupt process, in an organisation constantly preaching openness. You can ask a priest how it feels having to constantly adhere to a higher moral standard; it's the price you pay for getting people to listen to you, trust your judgement, and give you free labor. At any time you can just stop preaching and go do your own thing, but then you can't expect other people to still follow you. > This is why Free Software will never happen at scale. Lol. Newsflash: it's already happened.