> 1) Demonstrated that Mozilla has the ability to silently push addons without any kind of notification to the user that their browser behavior has been patched

> 1) Demonstrated that Mozilla has the ability to silently push addons without any kind of notification to the user that their browser behavior has been patched. Wait, did someone assume that Mozilla didn't have this ability? How did people think that they got security updates? > 2) Demonstrated (allegedly) that there are privacy and security related preferences in Firefox that are reverting themselves to less-safe defaults without user interaction, aka Microsoft preferences. If that's the case, it's a bug. Bugs happen. Regardless, doesn't seem happen > 3) Demonstrated Mozilla's marketing department lacks the good sense to respect these capabilities for the loaded gun they are Fair enough, to some extent. > It's not about what they did, it's about what they could do. Mozilla doesn't need these tools, and these tools are dangerous. Why did they make them? Why shouldn't we ask Mozilla to remove them? Wait, what? Why does Mozilla have tools to distribute code? Because Mozilla uses it regularly to fix issues. This has been the case since Firefox 1.0, I assume. Why does Mozilla have tools that handles and/or updates and/or forgets preferences? Because preferences can't be handled anywhere else, since they are preferences for Mozilla tools. I haven't heard of preferences being force-changed until now, with the exception of fighting malware and switching stuff from experimental to mainstream. But, yeah, bugs happen. Why does Mozilla have a marketing department? I assume that's not a real question.