4 ms·

I really don’t understand the negative sentiment. You’re trusting Mozilla to run code on your machine, and automatically push updates. Is there a substantive di

• detaro 9y ago
  Why do you think adding this through a regular update would not lead to negative reactions? Remember Pocket? (Which in contrast to this was well-communicated and an actual feature)
• nkozyra 9y ago
  Because it was arbitrary and opaque? It was not apparent that there was a promotion being implemented by a feature of the browser not explicitly used for marketing. It introduces an trust problem.
  • kfrzcode 9y ago
    So, who can we trust with our web browsing, if not Mozilla? In your opinion, of course. Just curious.
    • nkozyra 9y ago
      I think that's the point, isn't it? This is one of those groups we felt somewhat confident with.
• jdbernard 9y ago
  > You're trusting Mozilla to run code on your machine Right, and that's the problem: trust. I trust them to be responsible with the unfettered access I've given them. I trust them to only use that access for the things we've agreed upon: updates to the core browser and some specific data-collection to help them understand and improve how the product is being used. Now they are using that channel to push advertisements onto my system without asking. They are overstepping the intended use of the update channel we had agreed upon in a very non-transparent manner. Makes me wonder if I can trust them. I only gave them the ability to push automatic updates because I trusted them. If I can't trust them not to abuse the privilege I need to think about revoking the privilege and uninstalling Firefox.