6 ms·

Because 1% of users is still probably an order of magnitude higher than however many would opt-in and because they want as broad of a user-base. If you only hav

Because 1% of users is still probably an order of magnitude higher than however many would opt-in and because they want as broad of a user-base. If you only have people that opt-in, you'll pretty much only have power-users.

floatingatoll 9y ago
Several orders of magnitude.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Not if you lose all your users over this.
hysan 9y ago
But is that worth the damage to the brand? I tried to support Firefox for as long as I could, but their mixed messages about what they stood for + poor performance (at the time) eventually forced my hand in switching browsers. However, they did apologize after the huge backlash post-Pocket. Combined with all the news about FF 57 and Quantum, I was intrigued enough to consider giving them a second chance. This move though... it is so much worse than any other misstep they've done. From my point of view, this just seems like an opportunistic attempt at slipping something by right before one of their biggest releases / PR pushes. I cannot see myself ever believing in Mozilla the organization anymore.
- 482794793792894 9y ago
  If you actually look into it, there's basically nothing that you can accuse them of here. There's the possibility that Cliqz does actually start collecting the data, i.e. breaks the contract, commits a crime, and that then Mozilla, which owns parts of Cliqz and therefore has insight, does not notice right away. Other than that, there's nothing. No serious journalist will pick this up, because it would in turn damage their reputation to accuse Mozilla of mishandling user data here. Yes, it is still going to damage Mozilla's brand, because people prefer conspiracy theories over actually reading up on what they're doing, but it's going to stay isolated to first-hand news discussion forums, like HN, Reddit, Slashdot. This is simply an investment that Mozilla is willing to take to potentially improve search in their browser and to decrease the internet's dependence on classic web search engines, which is to say Google.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    > and to decrease the internet's dependence on classic web search engines Which seems like a worthy objective. However automatically enroling users as pawns in that strategy is not noble. Create a strategy, advertise it and discuss it on the Mozilla mailing lists before launching the feature. This 'feature' doesn't involve Mozilla financial or proprietary data. Quite the contrary it involves the data of their end-users who, through their indifference to the Cliqz add-on, have already shown that they're not interested in the deal.
  - jasonkostempski 9y ago
    Its really fucking simple, NO TRUST! If something reqires that I have take someones word for it, then the feature does not belong in a privacy focused application, no exceptions.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      And that's really fucking unworkable as a principle. Because you rely on trust thousands of times every day, if you want it or not.
      - pdkl95 9y ago
        > Because you rely on trust thousands of times every day, Of course; everyone makes countless decisions about who to trust every day, as we adapt to our changing knowledge, environment, and situation. These decisions are necessarily unique to each person. Trust is not transitive. You can recommend some{one,thing} as trustworthy, and you an explain why you trust some{one,thing}. However, you cannot get other people to trust a 3rd party - even if they do trust you - simply by fiat. Trust is earned, and betraying existing trust is very hard recover. This attitude that asks users to believe that trust is transitive but risk is not transitive is misguided, rude, and possibly sociopathic.
        rrix2 9y ago
        > Trust is not transitive. So you only browse sites whose SSL cert was issued by Mozilla? Or do you trust the SSL root Store provided by Mozilla and your OS and, transitively, everyone they trust?
shevy 9y ago
That explains nothing at all. Are you working for Mozilla per chance?

floatingatoll 9y ago

Several orders of magnitude.

kuschku 9y ago
Not if you lose all your users over this.

hysan 9y ago

But is that worth the damage to the brand? I tried to support Firefox for as long as I could, but their mixed messages about what they stood for + poor performance (at the time) eventually forced my hand in switching browsers. However, they did apologize after the huge backlash post-Pocket. Combined with all the news about FF 57 and Quantum, I was intrigued enough to consider giving them a second chance. This move though... it is so much worse than any other misstep they've done. From my point of view, this just seems like an opportunistic attempt at slipping something by right before one of their biggest releases / PR pushes. I cannot see myself ever believing in Mozilla the organization anymore.

482794793792894 9y ago
If you actually look into it, there's basically nothing that you can accuse them of here. There's the possibility that Cliqz does actually start collecting the data, i.e. breaks the contract, commits a crime, and that then Mozilla, which owns parts of Cliqz and therefore has insight, does not notice right away. Other than that, there's nothing. No serious journalist will pick this up, because it would in turn damage their reputation to accuse Mozilla of mishandling user data here. Yes, it is still going to damage Mozilla's brand, because people prefer conspiracy theories over actually reading up on what they're doing, but it's going to stay isolated to first-hand news discussion forums, like HN, Reddit, Slashdot. This is simply an investment that Mozilla is willing to take to potentially improve search in their browser and to decrease the internet's dependence on classic web search engines, which is to say Google.
- dingaling 9y ago
  > and to decrease the internet's dependence on classic web search engines Which seems like a worthy objective. However automatically enroling users as pawns in that strategy is not noble. Create a strategy, advertise it and discuss it on the Mozilla mailing lists before launching the feature. This 'feature' doesn't involve Mozilla financial or proprietary data. Quite the contrary it involves the data of their end-users who, through their indifference to the Cliqz add-on, have already shown that they're not interested in the deal.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  Its really fucking simple, NO TRUST! If something reqires that I have take someones word for it, then the feature does not belong in a privacy focused application, no exceptions.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    And that's really fucking unworkable as a principle. Because you rely on trust thousands of times every day, if you want it or not.
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      > Because you rely on trust thousands of times every day, Of course; everyone makes countless decisions about who to trust every day, as we adapt to our changing knowledge, environment, and situation. These decisions are necessarily unique to each person. Trust is not transitive. You can recommend some{one,thing} as trustworthy, and you an explain why you trust some{one,thing}. However, you cannot get other people to trust a 3rd party - even if they do trust you - simply by fiat. Trust is earned, and betraying existing trust is very hard recover. This attitude that asks users to believe that trust is transitive but risk is not transitive is misguided, rude, and possibly sociopathic.
      - rrix2 9y ago
        > Trust is not transitive. So you only browse sites whose SSL cert was issued by Mozilla? Or do you trust the SSL root Store provided by Mozilla and your OS and, transitively, everyone they trust?

shevy 9y ago

That explains nothing at all. Are you working for Mozilla per chance?