5 ms·

This looks like an authoritative answer from a Mozilla coworker, and it's totally incompatible with the message and tone of the linked article "Firefox is on a

This looks like an authoritative answer from a Mozilla coworker, and it's totally incompatible with the message and tone of the linked article "Firefox is on a slippery slope" which makes it sound like the extension was on by default. So who is telling the truth? The one thing I know is that I am writing from a Firefox right now and don't see headers, inversions etc. at all. The examples given in the article should have all been inverted, right?

mulmen 9y ago
> The one thing I know is that I am writing from a Firefox right now and don't see headers, inversions etc. at all. The examples given in the article should have all been inverted, right? "It involved sideloading a sketchy browser extension which will invert text that matches a list of Mr. Robot-related keywords like “fsociety”, “robot”, “undo”, and “fuck”, and does a number of other things like adding an HTTP header to certain sites you visit." Only if HN is on the list of "certain sites". It's also irrelevant because the extension offers me no value so Mozilla was not acting in my best interest.
- ifdefdebug 9y ago
  OK, so I got that wrong with the "certain sites". But still, the fact that the extension was not active unless you mess around in about:config is a crucial fact, which should not have been omitted in an highly critical article, specially if they use words like "Mozilla, you fucked up bad, and you still haven’t apologised. The study is still active and ongoing". I feel misinformed by that article, to say the less.
- fanon 9y ago
  > Only if HN is on the list of "certain sites". If that is the case (I'm not saying it's not, just that I don't know)... why did the extension even need to exist? Presumably "certain sites" are partner sites participating in the promotion. If they are participating and (I assume) they control their own content, why didn't they just invert those words or whatever else they wanted to do with the content when they served it? I'm very confused about why this needed to roll out as a browser extension at all.
  - Zarel 9y ago
    The articles on this whole controversy describe it as an ARG - an Alternate Reality Game. I don't know exactly how this ARG works, but ARGs in general are like scavenger hunts - players investigate what's causing the changes, which give them hints as to where to look next. So presumably it was implemented as a browser extension so game players would be able to find the browser extension, which would give them hints about what to do next.
callahad 9y ago
Even if the add-on is "enabled," it's doesn't initialize itself unless a specific about:config value is also manually flipped: https://github.com/mozilla/addon-wr/blob/59659431fd2a75c33ac70a0e6e3e193a01ff8f66/addon/bootstrap.js#L21-L24 https://github.com/mozilla/addon-wr/blob/59659431fd2a75c33ac... And, for good measure, here's an official quote confirming that we're pulling the add-on from Firefox: https://gizmodo.com/after-blowback-firefox-will-move-mr-robot-extension-t-1821354314 https://gizmodo.com/after-blowback-firefox-will-move-mr-robo...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- betterunix2 9y ago
  It would be easier to forgive if this was the first time Mozilla pulled this sort of thing. Instead, we see Mozilla making this same kind of mistake -- i.e. trying to turn what is otherwise a great browser into some kind of "platform" for things that do not actually serve users -- over and over again. It's great that it was pulled, but what about removing the ability to silently install add-ons? Give up the power to make this mistake in the future if you want forgiveness.
  - devcpp 9y ago
    Absolutely. The whole ordeal reminds me awfully of Ajit Pai's tone as he kills net neutrality, sounding as if everything was fine until net neutrality came along. Although different, this too brushes off this one instance as a mistake, and entirely disregards the rest of the article, not even trying to address or explain the rest of Mozilla's recent borderline malicious behavior. A serious fork is long overdue, if only it didn't take a corporation as big as Mozilla to undo their bad deeds.
    - callahad 9y ago
      I'm just one DevRel engineer on a layover; I'm not the right person to answer those broader questions. Not trying to be dismissive, just trying to engage in the areas where I'm most able.
lozenge 9y ago
The add-on doesn't do anything unless you go to about:config and turn it on.
christophilus 9y ago
This discussion on Reddit[0] would indicate that quite a few people saw this behavior unexpectedly, so even though it was off by default, it came as an unpleasant surprise to people who had opted in. It seems that they thought they were opting into Mozilla-lab-like experiments for improving the browser. Instead, they get an ad/easter egg that makes them think they-- or the site they are visiting-- have been hacked. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7k8pf7/firefox_is_on_a_slippery_slope/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7k8pf7/firefox...
- gcb0 9y ago
  mozilla has something called "system-extension" (the name changes over the years) that never shows up to the end user, and sole purpose is to enable/disable things in the users browsers. the use, as far as I know, has always been to disable broken features in older versions of users that do not update. pretty ok and necessary. but this makes me think they are using it to a/b test or capacity plan for marketing campaigns now :(
  - StillNope 9y ago
    > pretty ok and necessary. There is NEVER a ethical reason for a dark update channel to exist. Altering the functionality of installed software without consent or notification is an act of sabotage, even when done by the vendor. If you want to disable broken features you prompt the user to have them disabled. Worst case (say something that allows malware to propagate or puts them or others at active risk) you disable it and display a message telling exactly what has happened.
  - syshum 9y ago
    I agree it is useful to disable broken features, or other things in software that is not getting updates I completely disagree this need to be hidden from the end user, it should be FULLY and COMPLETELY transparent what is being disabled, added, or changed. There should be an "about/system-extension" page where a person could go and see everything that is doing or has done, and even optionally disable it if they desire.
- 9y ago

mulmen 9y ago

> The one thing I know is that I am writing from a Firefox right now and don't see headers, inversions etc. at all. The examples given in the article should have all been inverted, right? "It involved sideloading a sketchy browser extension which will invert text that matches a list of Mr. Robot-related keywords like “fsociety”, “robot”, “undo”, and “fuck”, and does a number of other things like adding an HTTP header to certain sites you visit." Only if HN is on the list of "certain sites". It's also irrelevant because the extension offers me no value so Mozilla was not acting in my best interest.

ifdefdebug 9y ago
OK, so I got that wrong with the "certain sites". But still, the fact that the extension was not active unless you mess around in about:config is a crucial fact, which should not have been omitted in an highly critical article, specially if they use words like "Mozilla, you fucked up bad, and you still haven’t apologised. The study is still active and ongoing". I feel misinformed by that article, to say the less.
fanon 9y ago
> Only if HN is on the list of "certain sites". If that is the case (I'm not saying it's not, just that I don't know)... why did the extension even need to exist? Presumably "certain sites" are partner sites participating in the promotion. If they are participating and (I assume) they control their own content, why didn't they just invert those words or whatever else they wanted to do with the content when they served it? I'm very confused about why this needed to roll out as a browser extension at all.
- Zarel 9y ago
  The articles on this whole controversy describe it as an ARG - an Alternate Reality Game. I don't know exactly how this ARG works, but ARGs in general are like scavenger hunts - players investigate what's causing the changes, which give them hints as to where to look next. So presumably it was implemented as a browser extension so game players would be able to find the browser extension, which would give them hints about what to do next.

callahad 9y ago

Even if the add-on is "enabled," it's doesn't initialize itself unless a specific about:config value is also manually flipped: https://github.com/mozilla/addon-wr/blob/59659431fd2a75c33ac70a0e6e3e193a01ff8f66/addon/bootstrap.js#L21-L24 https://github.com/mozilla/addon-wr/blob/59659431fd2a75c33ac... And, for good measure, here's an official quote confirming that we're pulling the add-on from Firefox: https://gizmodo.com/after-blowback-firefox-will-move-mr-robot-extension-t-1821354314 https://gizmodo.com/after-blowback-firefox-will-move-mr-robo...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
betterunix2 9y ago
It would be easier to forgive if this was the first time Mozilla pulled this sort of thing. Instead, we see Mozilla making this same kind of mistake -- i.e. trying to turn what is otherwise a great browser into some kind of "platform" for things that do not actually serve users -- over and over again. It's great that it was pulled, but what about removing the ability to silently install add-ons? Give up the power to make this mistake in the future if you want forgiveness.
- devcpp 9y ago
  Absolutely. The whole ordeal reminds me awfully of Ajit Pai's tone as he kills net neutrality, sounding as if everything was fine until net neutrality came along. Although different, this too brushes off this one instance as a mistake, and entirely disregards the rest of the article, not even trying to address or explain the rest of Mozilla's recent borderline malicious behavior. A serious fork is long overdue, if only it didn't take a corporation as big as Mozilla to undo their bad deeds.
  - callahad 9y ago
    I'm just one DevRel engineer on a layover; I'm not the right person to answer those broader questions. Not trying to be dismissive, just trying to engage in the areas where I'm most able.

lozenge 9y ago

The add-on doesn't do anything unless you go to about:config and turn it on.

christophilus 9y ago

This discussion on Reddit[0] would indicate that quite a few people saw this behavior unexpectedly, so even though it was off by default, it came as an unpleasant surprise to people who had opted in. It seems that they thought they were opting into Mozilla-lab-like experiments for improving the browser. Instead, they get an ad/easter egg that makes them think they-- or the site they are visiting-- have been hacked. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7k8pf7/firefox_is_on_a_slippery_slope/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7k8pf7/firefox...

gcb0 9y ago
mozilla has something called "system-extension" (the name changes over the years) that never shows up to the end user, and sole purpose is to enable/disable things in the users browsers. the use, as far as I know, has always been to disable broken features in older versions of users that do not update. pretty ok and necessary. but this makes me think they are using it to a/b test or capacity plan for marketing campaigns now :(
- StillNope 9y ago
  > pretty ok and necessary. There is NEVER a ethical reason for a dark update channel to exist. Altering the functionality of installed software without consent or notification is an act of sabotage, even when done by the vendor. If you want to disable broken features you prompt the user to have them disabled. Worst case (say something that allows malware to propagate or puts them or others at active risk) you disable it and display a message telling exactly what has happened.
- syshum 9y ago
  I agree it is useful to disable broken features, or other things in software that is not getting updates I completely disagree this need to be hidden from the end user, it should be FULLY and COMPLETELY transparent what is being disabled, added, or changed. There should be an "about/system-extension" page where a person could go and see everything that is doing or has done, and even optionally disable it if they desire.
9y ago