9 ms·

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 bett

by 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.
  - flyinghamster 9y ago
    Exactly. I ran the beta and when it became the release version, I changed my update channel to "release." It has not reverted any settings I've made. I also had the Shield stuff turned off (my choice), and it hasn't been reverted, nor did the Mr. Robot extension ever show up. I agree, though, that that was a Bad Idea.
- def_true_false 9y ago
  If you delete Chrome's shitty preset search engines, it adds them back with every update.
themistocle 9y ago
Mozilla is fighting an uphill battle, but that doesn't give them a free pass. The Pocket, Cliqz, and Mr. Robot controversies undermine Mozilla's core message. Whether or not they are simply failures of marketing and branding doesn't change the fact that they hurt the company. That being said, a lot of people will never know about these issues so the damage is not catastrophic. I would also argue that "just being better than X" was shown not to be effective in the last US Presidential election.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  Am I the only one looking at this and thinking that the so-called controversies are absurdly tame in comparison with the outcry associated with them? They're missteps, not trust breakers. Quantum was a massive step in the right direction. The Mr. Robot Easter Egg was non-malicious poor execution. I don't think it's a free pass to just contextualize how small their missteps have been in the grand scheme of things.
  - toxican 9y ago
    Despite the non-maliciousness of the easter egg, I do think the act of just installing an extension into a browser could be viewed as a trust-breaker. I think the other "controversies" are overblown, but them remotely installing an extension like that doesn't sit right with me.
    - Vinnl 9y ago
      But that's only because it's called an extension. Nobody is up in arms about Mozilla "just installing" about:mozilla.
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    I think you are wrong about them not being "trust breakers" and right about them being fairly tame. The reason the response seems outsized is because of the breach of trust involved, much more so than the technical impacts. Quantum is great, and I just like a lot of the UX decisions Firefox makes. But a major reason for my support of Mozilla is their stated mission. And regularly making bumbling moves that overtly compromise that stated mission makes you start to question their commitment to it. Is it really their mission, or is it just a thing it is good for them to keep saying? POSIWID and all that.
notyourday 9y ago
Google is transparent. I know what they are doing. I know why they are doing it. Mozilla became a shady character. It engages in "it depends on a meaning of the word 'is'" speak. Here's how Mozilla can get back into my graces - it needs to publicly FIRE whoever approved it and whoever advocated for this project.
- sgift 9y ago
  > Google is transparent. I know what they are doing. You do? Okay, I don't. Please, show me exactly how Google uses data they collect from their users. Every usage. Not just a few. And no "but they say they can use it for whatever they want!" - then we can talk about transparency.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Sure it is - it markets my information to advertisers via its own platform. It is my neighborhood drug dealer, and drug are pretty good - nicely packaged and no one fucks with me when i use its drug delivery service. Mozilla is pretending to be a health store. But we are starting to see that they are also peddling drugs. Not Google drugs - drugs with security and drugs with delivery system and drugs that we are pretty sure how they work - but some other drugs, from shady producers using shady means.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Can you specify which "shady drugs" are these? Because I'm not seeing it. In this particular case, the addon was written by Mozilla employees, and was completely harmless. I don't think Mozilla did well - and I've said so in the original thread - but calling it shady compared to Google ads? That's laughable. DoubleClick is one of the largest malware distribution platforms in history.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        Pocket. Mr. Robot. Google tells me - "Dude, for providing me your information you get gooodieeeees!" Mozilla tells me - "We respect your privacy. " In a micro-font : "except when we do things that you should not be concerned about"
allenz 9y ago
These past episodes show that Mozilla can be tempted by money to go against their core values of user choice and privacy. Only in small ways so far, but trust is easy to lose. If you don't like Google, you can always use Chromium or Brave. I trust them not to run marketing campaigns inside my browser.
- eitland 9y ago
  > I trust them not to run marketing campaigns inside my browser. Do you also trust them not to listen to your mic? I think debian had to have a discussion with them about that.
ptero 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. Having a Mozilla option is good, but when Mozilla screws up it needs to get a clear indication that it did. I think folks saying "down with Mozilla" do not really mean this 100%; but they do want Mozilla to know that it seriously screwed up in their view. And we should not treat it as a shrinking violet -- it is not a tiny startup; it is a large corporation with funding in hundreds of millions. > It only needs to be better than Google. This, IMO, is setting the bar way too low. It should aim to do what the users want and consumer technology easily allows. If there is a big gap between those we should encourage new entrants, not entrench Mozilla as "the" alternative to pick-your-evil. My 2c.

by yoavm 9y ago

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.
- flyinghamster 9y ago
  Exactly. I ran the beta and when it became the release version, I changed my update channel to "release." It has not reverted any settings I've made. I also had the Shield stuff turned off (my choice), and it hasn't been reverted, nor did the Mr. Robot extension ever show up. I agree, though, that that was a Bad Idea.
def_true_false 9y ago
If you delete Chrome's shitty preset search engines, it adds them back with every update.

themistocle 9y ago

Mozilla is fighting an uphill battle, but that doesn't give them a free pass. The Pocket, Cliqz, and Mr. Robot controversies undermine Mozilla's core message. Whether or not they are simply failures of marketing and branding doesn't change the fact that they hurt the company. That being said, a lot of people will never know about these issues so the damage is not catastrophic. I would also argue that "just being better than X" was shown not to be effective in the last US Presidential election.

ABCLAW 9y ago
Am I the only one looking at this and thinking that the so-called controversies are absurdly tame in comparison with the outcry associated with them? They're missteps, not trust breakers. Quantum was a massive step in the right direction. The Mr. Robot Easter Egg was non-malicious poor execution. I don't think it's a free pass to just contextualize how small their missteps have been in the grand scheme of things.
- toxican 9y ago
  Despite the non-maliciousness of the easter egg, I do think the act of just installing an extension into a browser could be viewed as a trust-breaker. I think the other "controversies" are overblown, but them remotely installing an extension like that doesn't sit right with me.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    But that's only because it's called an extension. Nobody is up in arms about Mozilla "just installing" about:mozilla.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  I think you are wrong about them not being "trust breakers" and right about them being fairly tame. The reason the response seems outsized is because of the breach of trust involved, much more so than the technical impacts. Quantum is great, and I just like a lot of the UX decisions Firefox makes. But a major reason for my support of Mozilla is their stated mission. And regularly making bumbling moves that overtly compromise that stated mission makes you start to question their commitment to it. Is it really their mission, or is it just a thing it is good for them to keep saying? POSIWID and all that.

notyourday 9y ago

Google is transparent. I know what they are doing. I know why they are doing it. Mozilla became a shady character. It engages in "it depends on a meaning of the word 'is'" speak. Here's how Mozilla can get back into my graces - it needs to publicly FIRE whoever approved it and whoever advocated for this project.

sgift 9y ago
> Google is transparent. I know what they are doing. You do? Okay, I don't. Please, show me exactly how Google uses data they collect from their users. Every usage. Not just a few. And no "but they say they can use it for whatever they want!" - then we can talk about transparency.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Sure it is - it markets my information to advertisers via its own platform. It is my neighborhood drug dealer, and drug are pretty good - nicely packaged and no one fucks with me when i use its drug delivery service. Mozilla is pretending to be a health store. But we are starting to see that they are also peddling drugs. Not Google drugs - drugs with security and drugs with delivery system and drugs that we are pretty sure how they work - but some other drugs, from shady producers using shady means.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Can you specify which "shady drugs" are these? Because I'm not seeing it. In this particular case, the addon was written by Mozilla employees, and was completely harmless. I don't think Mozilla did well - and I've said so in the original thread - but calling it shady compared to Google ads? That's laughable. DoubleClick is one of the largest malware distribution platforms in history.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      Pocket. Mr. Robot. Google tells me - "Dude, for providing me your information you get gooodieeeees!" Mozilla tells me - "We respect your privacy. " In a micro-font : "except when we do things that you should not be concerned about"

allenz 9y ago

These past episodes show that Mozilla can be tempted by money to go against their core values of user choice and privacy. Only in small ways so far, but trust is easy to lose. If you don't like Google, you can always use Chromium or Brave. I trust them not to run marketing campaigns inside my browser.

eitland 9y ago
> I trust them not to run marketing campaigns inside my browser. Do you also trust them not to listen to your mic? I think debian had to have a discussion with them about that.

ptero 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. Having a Mozilla option is good, but when Mozilla screws up it needs to get a clear indication that it did. I think folks saying "down with Mozilla" do not really mean this 100%; but they do want Mozilla to know that it seriously screwed up in their view. And we should not treat it as a shrinking violet -- it is not a tiny startup; it is a large corporation with funding in hundreds of millions. > It only needs to be better than Google. This, IMO, is setting the bar way too low. It should aim to do what the users want and consumer technology easily allows. If there is a big gap between those we should encourage new entrants, not entrench Mozilla as "the" alternative to pick-your-evil. My 2c.