5 ms·

This is fine if the user is fully informed in advance and has your consent before using the software. It is absolutely unacceptable to do this behind their back

This is fine if the user is fully informed in advance and has your consent before using the software. It is absolutely unacceptable to do this behind their backs. If this was a feature that was shown to be highly beneficial to your users, then why deploy it to just 1%? Super shady. This is Pocket all over again. Will this be something that can be fully disabled? Not something I ever expected to see out of privacy-focused Mozilla. Are we going to need a world with unmozillad-firefox, à la https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium ? Sad day.

482794793792894 9y ago
> If this was a feature that was shown to be highly beneficial to your users, then why deploy it to just 1%? Super shady. They've seen this on a small scale, and only among power users. They're now rolling it out to this 1% to test further how users like it and especially also to see how average users like it. Besides that, they're trying to improve the data set to see how well it works with enough data. 1% of users is plenty to get that data set up. So, in case they decide to not roll the feature out, they only have to take it away from that 1% of users. Lastly, they are aware that this opens up potential ways to infringe on user privacy and more-so will spin up conspiracy theorists that have now discovered that Mozilla was evil all along. It's just something that can harm their image, even if it is done in an entirely privacy-respecting way. So, they're testing the waters. If users like it a lot, they might be willing to take that reputation damage. If the feedback is good, but not overwhelming, then they might backpedal, just to get those conspiracy theorists back into the boat.
Vinnl 9y ago
Reading over the technical description [1], I agree that this does not live up to the standards I expect from Mozilla (although it's not as bad as some people make it out). That said, rolling out new features to 1% of users first is not that extraordinary. Especially considering that we (or at least, I) hadn't heard of this experiment earlier, and that there's only now erupting some fuss over this, it seems like a good idea to still consider it in the experimental phase and thus just roll it out to an initial batch. And hopefully back out of it later. [1] https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885e5 https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885...
- Feniks 9y ago
  Surely you know how search engines make money? They need users. Can't sell adspace without users. Were Mozilla says recommendations I say payed referrals ;) I mean yeah search engines started as charitable organizations long ago but now? Tangentially related I noticed how it is impossible to remove all the embedded search engines in Firefox...
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I don't really remember search engines being charitable? My first exposure to the online search arena was human-powered, slow, and expensive. As in, you paid someone to scour the 'net for you and return the results to you. DMOZ is the only charitable search that I really know of, and I think they are shutting down.
- leeoniya 9y ago
  i understand that it's a gradual rollout. i dont think this is something that will be backed out. the only way it would be backed out is if no one used it or there was some public outcry, which is impossible because there isnt an informed choice being made to opt in and users are not told what's going on.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    Well, I feel like there's some public outcry already. Source: this thread :)
earenndil 9y ago
> Are we going to need a world with unmozillad-firefox Waterfox or palemoon?
- creatonez 9y ago
  Isn't one explicit goal of these projects to diverge from Firefox's new "Quantum" rewrite of the core browser engine? Trying to continue to support XUL is going to seriously leave these browsers in the past if there isn't a strong effort to replicate what Mozilla is doing in a way compatible with traditional addons. I like the idea of an unmozillad-firefox (right now I compile firefox without DRM and pocket) but I don't think these two projects are the answer

482794793792894 9y ago

> If this was a feature that was shown to be highly beneficial to your users, then why deploy it to just 1%? Super shady. They've seen this on a small scale, and only among power users. They're now rolling it out to this 1% to test further how users like it and especially also to see how average users like it. Besides that, they're trying to improve the data set to see how well it works with enough data. 1% of users is plenty to get that data set up. So, in case they decide to not roll the feature out, they only have to take it away from that 1% of users. Lastly, they are aware that this opens up potential ways to infringe on user privacy and more-so will spin up conspiracy theorists that have now discovered that Mozilla was evil all along. It's just something that can harm their image, even if it is done in an entirely privacy-respecting way. So, they're testing the waters. If users like it a lot, they might be willing to take that reputation damage. If the feedback is good, but not overwhelming, then they might backpedal, just to get those conspiracy theorists back into the boat.

Vinnl 9y ago

Reading over the technical description [1], I agree that this does not live up to the standards I expect from Mozilla (although it's not as bad as some people make it out). That said, rolling out new features to 1% of users first is not that extraordinary. Especially considering that we (or at least, I) hadn't heard of this experiment earlier, and that there's only now erupting some fuss over this, it seems like a good idea to still consider it in the experimental phase and thus just roll it out to an initial batch. And hopefully back out of it later. [1] https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885e5 https://gist.github.com/solso/423a1104a9e3c1e3b8d7c9ca14e885...

Feniks 9y ago
Surely you know how search engines make money? They need users. Can't sell adspace without users. Were Mozilla says recommendations I say payed referrals ;) I mean yeah search engines started as charitable organizations long ago but now? Tangentially related I noticed how it is impossible to remove all the embedded search engines in Firefox...
- KGIII 9y ago
  I don't really remember search engines being charitable? My first exposure to the online search arena was human-powered, slow, and expensive. As in, you paid someone to scour the 'net for you and return the results to you. DMOZ is the only charitable search that I really know of, and I think they are shutting down.
leeoniya 9y ago
i understand that it's a gradual rollout. i dont think this is something that will be backed out. the only way it would be backed out is if no one used it or there was some public outcry, which is impossible because there isnt an informed choice being made to opt in and users are not told what's going on.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  Well, I feel like there's some public outcry already. Source: this thread :)

earenndil 9y ago

> Are we going to need a world with unmozillad-firefox Waterfox or palemoon?

creatonez 9y ago
Isn't one explicit goal of these projects to diverge from Firefox's new "Quantum" rewrite of the core browser engine? Trying to continue to support XUL is going to seriously leave these browsers in the past if there isn't a strong effort to replicate what Mozilla is doing in a way compatible with traditional addons. I like the idea of an unmozillad-firefox (right now I compile firefox without DRM and pocket) but I don't think these two projects are the answer