7 ms·

They didn't just screw up once . They've screwed up many times over the years with many projects and attempts that run counter to the core values that Mozilla

They didn't just screw up once . They've screwed up many times over the years with many projects and attempts that run counter to the core values that Mozilla claims to uphold. Bryan Lunduke articulated this very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMALm1VthGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMALm1VthGY At this point Mozilla has to prove to us that they are worthy of our usage

Vinnl 9y ago
Mozilla is in great parts its community, and so far, it has done a great job in keeping it in tow when it appeared to derail. The Mr. Robot thing has been retracted (although it was also largely portrayed as a privacy issue, which it wasn't), Pocket has been acquired, and the rest were mainly diversions that many people deem unnecessary but that aren't necessarily a threat to Mozilla's mission other than potentially distracting them. So I think the project is relatively healthy, and in any case, still miles and miles ahead in terms of worthiness than every other major browser out there.
- suby 9y ago
  If Mozilla was serious about repairing trust, they would make user studies opt-in instead of opt-out. As it stands now, they are performing experiments on users by default. When people say the Mr. Robot thing was a violation of privacy, I believe this is ultimately where they are coming from.
  - seanp2k2 9y ago
    I do agree. FWIW, most software companies do A/B test on their users these days. Most people probably don’t notice, and that’s a bit the point; you don’t want test cells to be distracting, you want them to be valid measures. Pocket and Looking Glass should have been regular add-ons available for people who want them (I’m an avid Pocket user and have had a paid sub with them in the past). Even with the Yahoo search deal, it would have been nice to have the first start go through a wizard that lets you choose Yahoo (as a default option), Google, Bing, or whatever else...though I guess they likely wouldn’t have been able to score as much funding from that arrangement (but that’s just an assumption). I’m very happy that Mozilla exists and have some friends who have worked there, but I can’t say that 100% of their decisions value users and privacy above all else.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    If your first line is also about the Mr. Robot thing: it was opt-in. Yes, the code was there, and it was listed as an extension (which reasonably caused people to think they caught a virus or something), but no code was actually being executed. You had to explicitly enable that yourself in about:config. (And because that is often not mentioned, it's portrayed as a privacy issue, which is a shame because it's inaccurate and damages trust more than it should.)
calcifer 9y ago
I'm not sure Bryan "Mozilla funds terrorists" Lunduke is a credible source, no matter how articulate he is.
trendia 9y ago
Lest we forget: A third party company (funded by venture capital) created something called "Pocket", which allowed you to save any article you were reading to their service. Pocket had an extension that you could choose to download & enable on your Firefox browser. For apparently no reason at all, in June 2015, Mozilla integrated the proprietary Pocket into their open source browser, not just as an optional extension but as part of the default installation. The only way to disable Pocket was to go into "about:config", as the option was not available in the "Extensions" toolbar. (Later, Mozilla Corporation purchased the company Pocket, though at the time Pocket was introduced as an inextricable part of Firefox, Pocket was a separate company.) The Mr. Robot addon had some similarities with the Pocket fiasco: 1. it was pushed to users without their knowledge or consent 2. it was integration of a plugin for a private company into an open-source project 3. it was a decision by marketing, and not development I am not quite sure how or when we can begin to trust Mozilla Firefox, and what they would need to do to regain that trust.
- calcifer 9y ago
  > The only way to disable Pocket was to go into "about:config", as the option was not available in the "Extensions" toolbar. This isn't exactly correct. The Pocket integration did absolutely nothing at all until and unless you tried to use it. So by "disabling" it from about:config all you did was to remove the icon.
  - yarrel 9y ago
    That isn't correct. Try the new mobile Firefox. Buying Pocket signalled that if you can take the right Mozillan to lunch, you can get an early exit. That did not solve the problem. It's still impossible to remove Pocket.
    - calcifer 9y ago
      I think you misunderstood me. The Pocket integration in Firefox does literally nothing (not even a single network request) if you don't actively try to use it. So by "remove Pocket" or "disable Pocket" all you really mean is "hide the icon" because there really is no difference.
ben_jones 9y ago
As an outsider it makes me feel like Mozilla has a few people at the top capable of bypassing core company values, QA, QC, and lower management, to force whatever releases or products they want. And that these individuals routinely use this power to the detriment of Mozilla and the Internet at large.
yoavm 9y ago
I don't really understand this attitude. Mozilla doesn't need to be everything I ever wanted from a browser in order to get my support. It only needs to be better than Google. Are all these people sticking with Chrome because Mozilla is not holding up to its values really think Google is better at taking care of our freedom?!
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  Chrome doesn't magically revert privacy or search engine settings in updates, but Firefox apparently does. To quote from https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-slope.html https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-... : > Not only are these experiments enabled by default, but updates have been known to re-enable it if you turn it off. Chrome has some troubling defaults but Google never decided to flip the default search engine or turn on any phone-home feature once it has been turned off. Even though they had/have the power to do so, they know people won't trust Chrome if they ever tried to do that. In my book that's more trustworthy than a vendor that decides to use updates to surreptitiously enable features that users disabled.
  - paulryanrogers 9y ago
    While that may be true, defaults matter too. Even as a privacy conscious techie it's possible to forget the X different settings one must change with each new install or device. And for some dissidents or researchers those defaults could be life or career ending.
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    I don't think that it can be argued that Chrome is privacy-friendly. There are dark patterns built into the browser.
  - j605 9y ago
    Prove it or show code! This statements sounds like a conspiracy theory.
    - 9y ago
pweissbrod 9y ago
I'm not familiar with Bryan Lunduke but that video was supposed to pass as any form of reporting then it was absolutely cringe-worthy. Lots of inflated controversy and hyperbolic statements. Its ironic seeing a company making questionable decisions being reported by someone getting paid for questionable reporting.
drvortex 9y ago
Well, what can you do? Mozilla has a very unique problem. It's most ardent and loyal users are technically savvy. They expect a high quality, privacy-respecting, ad-free product. But, here's the catch, they will not pay for it. How does Mozilla survive? Google finances Chrome through its Search/Ad business. Safari and IE costs are bundled in the cost of the devices/OS they are on. How should Mozilla survive? Should they go the shareware route and have a paid copy for 20$ ? They have to make money somehow.
Digital-Citizen 9y ago
That video ("Mozilla is Not Trustworthy") is remarkably inarticulate and inchoate all in pursuit of something we don't need to do in the first place -- trust Mozilla. And Mozilla certainly doesn't owe us. Software freedom (the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software) means we don't need to trust Mozilla's free software because we have permission to inspect the code to see what the software does, change the code if we don't like what the software does, distribute the improved software (or a verbatim copy at our choice) even commercially, and run the software anytime we wish for any reason. These principles place us in control of our computers to the extent we're willing and able to put in the work. We can even hire other people to do this work if we don't do the work ourselves. Lunduke complained about incorporation and non-profit status but never articulated an argument explaining how these things are a problem. Around 7m53s he said this "doesn't make them [Mozilla] untrustworthy" leaving me wondering why this was brought up in the first place. He consistently mispronounced the word "Mozilla" as "Motzilla" (there's no "t" in their name), and directly contradicted his own thesis (around 6m30s) in neighboring sentences: "This is not an opinion on my part. I guess that my opinion is that they're not trustworthy based on these facts...". He did that again in his own ignorance of the terms "foundation" and "corporation" around 7m where he seemed to have a problem with the difference between what he read into the terms he didn't define versus what he described to be the case (thus vaguely complaining that Mozilla made money and published free software for hire). I think it comes down to not having a good argument to raise in the first place but feeling a need to say something about a situation he found irksome. But I think his disorganized view built on a non-issue is typical of the published reaction to this situation. This entire kerfuffle comes off to me as manufacturing a controversy out of very little. The main beneficiaries of this indignance are the software proprietors -- organizations that make nonfree browsers you can't trust because you never really know what they're doing when those programs run. It's telling that vanishingly little of the commentary on this situation brings people to understand what software freedom is or how its practical consequences read directly on this situation by explaining how the other programs to do the same job (mostly nonfree user-subjugating programs) are not alternatives at all because they don't respect a user's software freedom. It's not clear how this issue with Looking Glass (the Firefox add-on in question) rises to something more serious than a bungled PR effort and poor communication from Mozilla. Source code analysis shows that Looking Glass did nothing unless activated and that add-on was off by default; hardly something to get so worked up over and largely a purposefully-missed opportunity to teach people about software freedom. There's no reason to limit this examination to web browsers. Justifying use of any nonfree browser in light of security problems hinges on trusting the proprietor (which you should never do) precisely because those programs are nonfree. Users don't have other information on which to make an informed decision and the information they have is inadequate to make an informed decision. These browsers are also published by known NSA partners. There's no good reason to defend switching to any nonfree program to do any job, particularly if you're going to have a discussion centered on privacy and security. I see the lacking discussion on this topic as a consequence of pushing for "open source" instead of insisting on software freedom. Open source development methodology was founded to separate the ethics-based principles on which the free software movement is based (the free software movement is a social movement) from the practical outcome of software freedom -- lots of useful software -- while talking chiefly to businesses about the gratis programming labor those businesses can use. This approach purposefully skips past an ethical understanding of how to treat people with regard to computers. This approach requires talking at length about this situation without drawing users' attention to what software freedom is or how it matters. But there's no substance in that approach so proponents raise ill-formed non-issues (with a heavy dose of entitlement ("Mozilla has to prove to us that they are worthy of our usage") to make it seem like Mozilla has become a persistent problem instead of seeing a long-time free software publisher make a relatively minor communication mistake that posed no threat to Firefox users. Quite the contrary is the case: we can and should continue to run and build new programs on Mozilla's free software just as we do with any other free software. Thanking them for their work and not taking an entitled attitude is also right and proper.

Vinnl 9y ago

Mozilla is in great parts its community, and so far, it has done a great job in keeping it in tow when it appeared to derail. The Mr. Robot thing has been retracted (although it was also largely portrayed as a privacy issue, which it wasn't), Pocket has been acquired, and the rest were mainly diversions that many people deem unnecessary but that aren't necessarily a threat to Mozilla's mission other than potentially distracting them. So I think the project is relatively healthy, and in any case, still miles and miles ahead in terms of worthiness than every other major browser out there.

suby 9y ago
If Mozilla was serious about repairing trust, they would make user studies opt-in instead of opt-out. As it stands now, they are performing experiments on users by default. When people say the Mr. Robot thing was a violation of privacy, I believe this is ultimately where they are coming from.
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  I do agree. FWIW, most software companies do A/B test on their users these days. Most people probably don’t notice, and that’s a bit the point; you don’t want test cells to be distracting, you want them to be valid measures. Pocket and Looking Glass should have been regular add-ons available for people who want them (I’m an avid Pocket user and have had a paid sub with them in the past). Even with the Yahoo search deal, it would have been nice to have the first start go through a wizard that lets you choose Yahoo (as a default option), Google, Bing, or whatever else...though I guess they likely wouldn’t have been able to score as much funding from that arrangement (but that’s just an assumption). I’m very happy that Mozilla exists and have some friends who have worked there, but I can’t say that 100% of their decisions value users and privacy above all else.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  If your first line is also about the Mr. Robot thing: it was opt-in. Yes, the code was there, and it was listed as an extension (which reasonably caused people to think they caught a virus or something), but no code was actually being executed. You had to explicitly enable that yourself in about:config. (And because that is often not mentioned, it's portrayed as a privacy issue, which is a shame because it's inaccurate and damages trust more than it should.)

calcifer 9y ago

I'm not sure Bryan "Mozilla funds terrorists" Lunduke is a credible source, no matter how articulate he is.

trendia 9y ago

Lest we forget: A third party company (funded by venture capital) created something called "Pocket", which allowed you to save any article you were reading to their service. Pocket had an extension that you could choose to download & enable on your Firefox browser. For apparently no reason at all, in June 2015, Mozilla integrated the proprietary Pocket into their open source browser, not just as an optional extension but as part of the default installation. The only way to disable Pocket was to go into "about:config", as the option was not available in the "Extensions" toolbar. (Later, Mozilla Corporation purchased the company Pocket, though at the time Pocket was introduced as an inextricable part of Firefox, Pocket was a separate company.) The Mr. Robot addon had some similarities with the Pocket fiasco: 1. it was pushed to users without their knowledge or consent 2. it was integration of a plugin for a private company into an open-source project 3. it was a decision by marketing, and not development I am not quite sure how or when we can begin to trust Mozilla Firefox, and what they would need to do to regain that trust.

calcifer 9y ago
> The only way to disable Pocket was to go into "about:config", as the option was not available in the "Extensions" toolbar. This isn't exactly correct. The Pocket integration did absolutely nothing at all until and unless you tried to use it. So by "disabling" it from about:config all you did was to remove the icon.
- yarrel 9y ago
  That isn't correct. Try the new mobile Firefox. Buying Pocket signalled that if you can take the right Mozillan to lunch, you can get an early exit. That did not solve the problem. It's still impossible to remove Pocket.
  - calcifer 9y ago
    I think you misunderstood me. The Pocket integration in Firefox does literally nothing (not even a single network request) if you don't actively try to use it. So by "remove Pocket" or "disable Pocket" all you really mean is "hide the icon" because there really is no difference.

ben_jones 9y ago

As an outsider it makes me feel like Mozilla has a few people at the top capable of bypassing core company values, QA, QC, and lower management, to force whatever releases or products they want. And that these individuals routinely use this power to the detriment of Mozilla and the Internet at large.

yoavm 9y ago

I don't really understand this attitude. Mozilla doesn't need to be everything I ever wanted from a browser in order to get my support. It only needs to be better than Google. Are all these people sticking with Chrome because Mozilla is not holding up to its values really think Google is better at taking care of our freedom?!

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
Chrome doesn't magically revert privacy or search engine settings in updates, but Firefox apparently does. To quote from https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-slope.html https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-... : > Not only are these experiments enabled by default, but updates have been known to re-enable it if you turn it off. Chrome has some troubling defaults but Google never decided to flip the default search engine or turn on any phone-home feature once it has been turned off. Even though they had/have the power to do so, they know people won't trust Chrome if they ever tried to do that. In my book that's more trustworthy than a vendor that decides to use updates to surreptitiously enable features that users disabled.
- paulryanrogers 9y ago
  While that may be true, defaults matter too. Even as a privacy conscious techie it's possible to forget the X different settings one must change with each new install or device. And for some dissidents or researchers those defaults could be life or career ending.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  I don't think that it can be argued that Chrome is privacy-friendly. There are dark patterns built into the browser.
- j605 9y ago
  Prove it or show code! This statements sounds like a conspiracy theory.
  - 9y ago

pweissbrod 9y ago

I'm not familiar with Bryan Lunduke but that video was supposed to pass as any form of reporting then it was absolutely cringe-worthy. Lots of inflated controversy and hyperbolic statements. Its ironic seeing a company making questionable decisions being reported by someone getting paid for questionable reporting.

drvortex 9y ago

Well, what can you do? Mozilla has a very unique problem. It's most ardent and loyal users are technically savvy. They expect a high quality, privacy-respecting, ad-free product. But, here's the catch, they will not pay for it. How does Mozilla survive? Google finances Chrome through its Search/Ad business. Safari and IE costs are bundled in the cost of the devices/OS they are on. How should Mozilla survive? Should they go the shareware route and have a paid copy for 20$ ? They have to make money somehow.

Digital-Citizen 9y ago

That video ("Mozilla is Not Trustworthy") is remarkably inarticulate and inchoate all in pursuit of something we don't need to do in the first place -- trust Mozilla. And Mozilla certainly doesn't owe us. Software freedom (the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software) means we don't need to trust Mozilla's free software because we have permission to inspect the code to see what the software does, change the code if we don't like what the software does, distribute the improved software (or a verbatim copy at our choice) even commercially, and run the software anytime we wish for any reason. These principles place us in control of our computers to the extent we're willing and able to put in the work. We can even hire other people to do this work if we don't do the work ourselves. Lunduke complained about incorporation and non-profit status but never articulated an argument explaining how these things are a problem. Around 7m53s he said this "doesn't make them [Mozilla] untrustworthy" leaving me wondering why this was brought up in the first place. He consistently mispronounced the word "Mozilla" as "Motzilla" (there's no "t" in their name), and directly contradicted his own thesis (around 6m30s) in neighboring sentences: "This is not an opinion on my part. I guess that my opinion is that they're not trustworthy based on these facts...". He did that again in his own ignorance of the terms "foundation" and "corporation" around 7m where he seemed to have a problem with the difference between what he read into the terms he didn't define versus what he described to be the case (thus vaguely complaining that Mozilla made money and published free software for hire). I think it comes down to not having a good argument to raise in the first place but feeling a need to say something about a situation he found irksome. But I think his disorganized view built on a non-issue is typical of the published reaction to this situation. This entire kerfuffle comes off to me as manufacturing a controversy out of very little. The main beneficiaries of this indignance are the software proprietors -- organizations that make nonfree browsers you can't trust because you never really know what they're doing when those programs run. It's telling that vanishingly little of the commentary on this situation brings people to understand what software freedom is or how its practical consequences read directly on this situation by explaining how the other programs to do the same job (mostly nonfree user-subjugating programs) are not alternatives at all because they don't respect a user's software freedom. It's not clear how this issue with Looking Glass (the Firefox add-on in question) rises to something more serious than a bungled PR effort and poor communication from Mozilla. Source code analysis shows that Looking Glass did nothing unless activated and that add-on was off by default; hardly something to get so worked up over and largely a purposefully-missed opportunity to teach people about software freedom. There's no reason to limit this examination to web browsers. Justifying use of any nonfree browser in light of security problems hinges on trusting the proprietor (which you should never do) precisely because those programs are nonfree. Users don't have other information on which to make an informed decision and the information they have is inadequate to make an informed decision. These browsers are also published by known NSA partners. There's no good reason to defend switching to any nonfree program to do any job, particularly if you're going to have a discussion centered on privacy and security. I see the lacking discussion on this topic as a consequence of pushing for "open source" instead of insisting on software freedom. Open source development methodology was founded to separate the ethics-based principles on which the free software movement is based (the free software movement is a social movement) from the practical outcome of software freedom -- lots of useful software -- while talking chiefly to businesses about the gratis programming labor those businesses can use. This approach purposefully skips past an ethical understanding of how to treat people with regard to computers. This approach requires talking at length about this situation without drawing users' attention to what software freedom is or how it matters. But there's no substance in that approach so proponents raise ill-formed non-issues (with a heavy dose of entitlement ("Mozilla has to prove to us that they are worthy of our usage") to make it seem like Mozilla has become a persistent problem instead of seeing a long-time free software publisher make a relatively minor communication mistake that posed no threat to Firefox users. Quite the contrary is the case: we can and should continue to run and build new programs on Mozilla's free software just as we do with any other free software. Thanking them for their work and not taking an entitled attitude is also right and proper.