6 ms·

The major problem is that they installed an add-on without properly communicating what it was. A somewhat smaller problem but still a big problem is that was a

The major problem is that they installed an add-on without properly communicating what it was. A somewhat smaller problem but still a big problem is that was an utterly frivolous add-on that shouldn't have been pushed to people who didn't explicitly want it. But the biggest problem is that Mozilla seems to have trouble understanding why any of those two would be a problem, I want my browser vendor to be serious and not play silly games that can so easily backfire. Yeah, add-ons from Mozilla merits the same trust as the browser. But this cuts both ways, this stuff undermines my and probably more people's trust in the browser.

john_moscow 9y ago
Being serious is quickly becoming a lost art. I don't know if the majority of the userbase really enjoys it, but I can't wait till the current fashion of treating your users like 3-year-olds blows through.
- sincerely 9y ago
  agreed. nothing is more frustrating to me than when my windows computer delivers an error message with a “ :( “
UmmNope 9y ago
The major problem was building a feature into the product that allowed for pushing add-ons without users knowledge much less active consent in the first place, there is no benign use for this kind of functionality.
- lenzm 9y ago
  You could use add-ons to manage optional functionality a la Atom. Users can enable and disable add-ons to customize their browser and some come enabled by default. If you were migrating to this method of customization it would absolutely make sense to push an enabled add-on that replaces functionality you took out of the main app.
  - akamaozu 9y ago
    Why is this downvoted? It sounds like a valid reason for being able to auto-install add-ons.
    - TooFastIndeed 9y ago
      Because this is not the scenario that is being denounced here. A brand new add-on with functionality unrelated to the product is being installed without consent or even notification - that's capital M Malware peddling.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Is this a thing ? History shows mozilla removing functionality but never replacing it. And then it's up to volunteers to make an extension to fill the gap, until mozilla breaks the extension or drops the extensions engine altogether. For exemple australis and classic theme restorer.
    - Sylos 9y ago
      This is bullshit and you know it. If you want to shittalk Mozilla, then at least try to be honest.
- TheRealPomax 9y ago
  you mean the automatic update process, which can change every single byte of every file in every directory under Firefox's control? Because unless you want to live in a world where your browser can't automatically apply security patches and upgrade critical components, the fact that the application can update itself is very much not the actual problem (and with the new web extension addon system rathern than the old XUL system, addons are actually way less security-compromising-in-potentio than updates to the actual browser itself)
  - okasaki 9y ago
    In Linux distributions you get it from the distribution repository, and automatic updates are disabled. So at least it's reviewed by a third party.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    The automatic update process fails because it does not have right to install software on my box. The power of setting permissions and not blindly trusting software just because it is floss. I would not want it to have this kind of power as the security patches and critical updates are provided by the kind people managing the distro repositories, and if it could update itself it would remove the third party patches required because mozilla has been refusing for 15 years to integrate correctly in my desktop environment but did integrate in the main competitor.
  - Zancarius 9y ago
    I'd argue there's a vast difference between an automatic update for something that was already manually installed, by the user, and automatically installing something without any indication to the user that it was installed. Worse, it's impossible to argue that this was even a useful extension. I don't watch television, and I don't keep up with any popular modern shows. I had no idea what Mr. Robot was until looking through this thread, and the description text for the addon was, at first glance, suspicious. This was a terrible idea and isn't even remotely analogous to applying security updates automatically. If I have something I specifically installed, fine, I can expect those addons to be updated automatically. I don't expect them to side load something I don't even want. "Delight fans" my ass. You have to be a fan first, and I'm not even sure most people who are fans of Mr. Robot would think this is a particularly good idea. Funny enough, the only thing I can think of that's even remotely similar to this is the "Hell, Dolly" plugin for WordPress, and that's installed out of the box as part of the distribution.
- TooFastIndeed 9y ago
  Automatically updating an already enabled add-on is hardly the same thing as silently pushing a new one. Security updates were and still are configurable to be installed after prompting, also when they are installed automatically I am notified that this has happened. There is also an implicit trust in the vendor that only security-related functionality should be changed in a security update.
Grollicus 9y ago
> I want my browser vendor to be serious and not play silly games that can so easily backfire. I would not care about silly stuff, like say a christmas easter egg. But this wasn't meant as a silly joke.
michel-slm 9y ago
Indeed. I'm seeing people recommending Chromium (not Chrome) instead of Firefox because of this.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Why not recommending waterfox[1] instead ? It's firefox without the mozilla nonsense. [1]:https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
  - michel-slm 9y ago
    I personally am fine with using Firefox (though after Looking Glass I've disabled the setting to allow experiments). IIRC the person that advocated for Chromium (instead of a third-party Firefox rebuild) base it on performance (they were dubious Quantum is actually better, I personally find it fast enough except when loading Facebook), as well as the alternative versions of Firefox not keeping up with the official version. Also, supposedly Chromium (as opposed to Chrome) settings are reasonably privacy-friendly out of the box. They did recommend installing uBO-Extra in addition to uBlock Origin on top of Chromium, which is revealing -- with Firefox, there is not even a need for uBO-Extra. My original point (which I didn't elucidate clearly enough) is that this Looking Glass experiment is resulting in unwarranted backlash against Mozilla -- whereas from the standpoint of preserving an open web and protecting user privacy it's actually one of the better players.
Drdrdrq 9y ago
This. I love Mozilla, but between automatic change of default search engine in 57.0.1, pushing changes that broke most of my extensions and now this, I am starting to feel anxious...
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Ever heard of waterfox ? https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
ryanisnan 9y ago
I completely agree. A browser sits on a bit of a higher plane than most other pieces of technology these days, as it is so important. I have no reason to doubt the ability or intent of the developers involved with this add-on, but there is zero reason for it to be pushed to everyone without consent. I use Firefox because I want to trust my browser and not have to worry about it doing dumb shit behind my back. This goes against that very notion.
kryptiskt 9y ago
So this is the first response from Mozilla in the Gizmodo article: “Firefox worked with the Mr. Robot team to create a custom experience that would surprise and delight fans of the show and our users. It’s especially important to call out that this collaboration does not compromise our principles or values regarding privacy. The experience does not collect or share any data,” Jascha Kaykas-Wolff, chief marketing officer of Mozilla, said in a statement to Gizmodo. “The experience was kept under wraps to be introduced at the conclusion of the season of Mr. Robot. We gave Mr. Robot fans a unique mystery to solve to deepen their connection and engagement with the show and is only available in Firefox.” This is horrible. They pushed out this crap under false pretenses as a study and obfuscated it. Don't talk the ethics talk if you're not prepared to do the ethics walk.
- avtar 9y ago
  I've been using Firefox for 90% of my browsing for a few years now and really want to continue to do so but I really wish Mozilla would stop shooting themselves in the foot already. This once again gives the impression that they have some teams that aren't in touch with the reality on the ground, that these types of initiatives hurt their chances of gaining more users.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Let me suggest you a browser aptly named waterfox, that could be described as firefox without mozilla nonsense. [1]: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
    - scrollaway 9y ago
      Waterfox is nonsense, no offense to the people behind it. Removing some stuff from Firefox and calling it a day does not make a better Firefox, it just makes for a preconfigured one. You might as well just run Chromium. The problem is that Mozilla is a good company, that has had a true net positive effect on the world, especially in tech, and continues to do so today with wonderful projects like Rust etc. If Mozilla were a shitty company, we could all simply dismiss Firefox and get on with our day. But Mozilla is not a shitty company and the fact they keep shooting themselves in the foot like GP said, the fact they are completely out of touch with their userbase, that they cannot see the OBVIOUS problems with this addon even after the Pocket debacle, is ridiculous.

john_moscow 9y ago

Being serious is quickly becoming a lost art. I don't know if the majority of the userbase really enjoys it, but I can't wait till the current fashion of treating your users like 3-year-olds blows through.

sincerely 9y ago
agreed. nothing is more frustrating to me than when my windows computer delivers an error message with a “ :( “

UmmNope 9y ago

The major problem was building a feature into the product that allowed for pushing add-ons without users knowledge much less active consent in the first place, there is no benign use for this kind of functionality.

lenzm 9y ago
You could use add-ons to manage optional functionality a la Atom. Users can enable and disable add-ons to customize their browser and some come enabled by default. If you were migrating to this method of customization it would absolutely make sense to push an enabled add-on that replaces functionality you took out of the main app.
- akamaozu 9y ago
  Why is this downvoted? It sounds like a valid reason for being able to auto-install add-ons.
  - TooFastIndeed 9y ago
    Because this is not the scenario that is being denounced here. A brand new add-on with functionality unrelated to the product is being installed without consent or even notification - that's capital M Malware peddling.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Is this a thing ? History shows mozilla removing functionality but never replacing it. And then it's up to volunteers to make an extension to fill the gap, until mozilla breaks the extension or drops the extensions engine altogether. For exemple australis and classic theme restorer.
  - Sylos 9y ago
    This is bullshit and you know it. If you want to shittalk Mozilla, then at least try to be honest.
TheRealPomax 9y ago
you mean the automatic update process, which can change every single byte of every file in every directory under Firefox's control? Because unless you want to live in a world where your browser can't automatically apply security patches and upgrade critical components, the fact that the application can update itself is very much not the actual problem (and with the new web extension addon system rathern than the old XUL system, addons are actually way less security-compromising-in-potentio than updates to the actual browser itself)
- okasaki 9y ago
  In Linux distributions you get it from the distribution repository, and automatic updates are disabled. So at least it's reviewed by a third party.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  The automatic update process fails because it does not have right to install software on my box. The power of setting permissions and not blindly trusting software just because it is floss. I would not want it to have this kind of power as the security patches and critical updates are provided by the kind people managing the distro repositories, and if it could update itself it would remove the third party patches required because mozilla has been refusing for 15 years to integrate correctly in my desktop environment but did integrate in the main competitor.
- Zancarius 9y ago
  I'd argue there's a vast difference between an automatic update for something that was already manually installed, by the user, and automatically installing something without any indication to the user that it was installed. Worse, it's impossible to argue that this was even a useful extension. I don't watch television, and I don't keep up with any popular modern shows. I had no idea what Mr. Robot was until looking through this thread, and the description text for the addon was, at first glance, suspicious. This was a terrible idea and isn't even remotely analogous to applying security updates automatically. If I have something I specifically installed, fine, I can expect those addons to be updated automatically. I don't expect them to side load something I don't even want. "Delight fans" my ass. You have to be a fan first, and I'm not even sure most people who are fans of Mr. Robot would think this is a particularly good idea. Funny enough, the only thing I can think of that's even remotely similar to this is the "Hell, Dolly" plugin for WordPress, and that's installed out of the box as part of the distribution.
TooFastIndeed 9y ago
Automatically updating an already enabled add-on is hardly the same thing as silently pushing a new one. Security updates were and still are configurable to be installed after prompting, also when they are installed automatically I am notified that this has happened. There is also an implicit trust in the vendor that only security-related functionality should be changed in a security update.

Grollicus 9y ago

> I want my browser vendor to be serious and not play silly games that can so easily backfire. I would not care about silly stuff, like say a christmas easter egg. But this wasn't meant as a silly joke.

michel-slm 9y ago

Indeed. I'm seeing people recommending Chromium (not Chrome) instead of Firefox because of this.

bigbugbag 9y ago
Why not recommending waterfox[1] instead ? It's firefox without the mozilla nonsense. [1]:https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
- michel-slm 9y ago
  I personally am fine with using Firefox (though after Looking Glass I've disabled the setting to allow experiments). IIRC the person that advocated for Chromium (instead of a third-party Firefox rebuild) base it on performance (they were dubious Quantum is actually better, I personally find it fast enough except when loading Facebook), as well as the alternative versions of Firefox not keeping up with the official version. Also, supposedly Chromium (as opposed to Chrome) settings are reasonably privacy-friendly out of the box. They did recommend installing uBO-Extra in addition to uBlock Origin on top of Chromium, which is revealing -- with Firefox, there is not even a need for uBO-Extra. My original point (which I didn't elucidate clearly enough) is that this Looking Glass experiment is resulting in unwarranted backlash against Mozilla -- whereas from the standpoint of preserving an open web and protecting user privacy it's actually one of the better players.

Drdrdrq 9y ago

This. I love Mozilla, but between automatic change of default search engine in 57.0.1, pushing changes that broke most of my extensions and now this, I am starting to feel anxious...

bigbugbag 9y ago
Ever heard of waterfox ? https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/

ryanisnan 9y ago

I completely agree. A browser sits on a bit of a higher plane than most other pieces of technology these days, as it is so important. I have no reason to doubt the ability or intent of the developers involved with this add-on, but there is zero reason for it to be pushed to everyone without consent. I use Firefox because I want to trust my browser and not have to worry about it doing dumb shit behind my back. This goes against that very notion.

kryptiskt 9y ago

So this is the first response from Mozilla in the Gizmodo article: “Firefox worked with the Mr. Robot team to create a custom experience that would surprise and delight fans of the show and our users. It’s especially important to call out that this collaboration does not compromise our principles or values regarding privacy. The experience does not collect or share any data,” Jascha Kaykas-Wolff, chief marketing officer of Mozilla, said in a statement to Gizmodo. “The experience was kept under wraps to be introduced at the conclusion of the season of Mr. Robot. We gave Mr. Robot fans a unique mystery to solve to deepen their connection and engagement with the show and is only available in Firefox.” This is horrible. They pushed out this crap under false pretenses as a study and obfuscated it. Don't talk the ethics talk if you're not prepared to do the ethics walk.

avtar 9y ago
I've been using Firefox for 90% of my browsing for a few years now and really want to continue to do so but I really wish Mozilla would stop shooting themselves in the foot already. This once again gives the impression that they have some teams that aren't in touch with the reality on the ground, that these types of initiatives hurt their chances of gaining more users.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Let me suggest you a browser aptly named waterfox, that could be described as firefox without mozilla nonsense. [1]: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    Waterfox is nonsense, no offense to the people behind it. Removing some stuff from Firefox and calling it a day does not make a better Firefox, it just makes for a preconfigured one. You might as well just run Chromium. The problem is that Mozilla is a good company, that has had a true net positive effect on the world, especially in tech, and continues to do so today with wonderful projects like Rust etc. If Mozilla were a shitty company, we could all simply dismiss Firefox and get on with our day. But Mozilla is not a shitty company and the fact they keep shooting themselves in the foot like GP said, the fact they are completely out of touch with their userbase, that they cannot see the OBVIOUS problems with this addon even after the Pocket debacle, is ridiculous.