5 ms·
> Of course, someone will probably have to audit their code to ensure they really are protecting our privacy Not doable, because despite declaring (at the time
by carussell 9y ago
> Of course, someone will probably have to audit their code to ensure they really are protecting our privacy
Not doable, because despite declaring (at the time that Mozilla merged with them) that Pocket would become open source, that never happened. To put it another way, we're a month away from the one year anniversary of the date that Mozilla decided to begin operating a closed source, for-profit service.
PS: This is your periodic reminder that the thing you're probably thinking of when you hear the name "Mozilla" actually went away years ago and doesn't exist anymore.[1] It's got the same name and looks kind of the same, like an alien in a human suit, but it's silly to give this any more weight than it deserves. If it helps, think of Mozilla as having undergone a reverse takeover. (It's more complicated than that, and most of it actually predates the Pocket stuff, but if it helps, it helps.)
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940727
- msla 9y agoYeah, the Mr Robot adware is more proof of that.
- Dylan16807 9y agoThe only advertising in that was directing people from Mr. Robot to Firefox. The extension was bungled to hell but it wasn't adware. It wasn't intended to be seen by anyone that didn't specifically enable[1] it. It also did nothing unless you specifically enabled[1] it. [1] To be very clear, the extension was 'enabled' by default, but only loaded a function to check for an about:config value. Without that value, it shut down and did nothing at all.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoI can only imagine the outrage if Google or Apple or Microsoft attempted to do the same. But for whatever reason, because it's Mozilla many people are willing to give them a pass in violating the core values that they allegedly believe in.
- PurpleRamen 9y ago> despite declaring (at the time that Mozilla merged with them) that Pocket would become open source https://github.com/Pocket https://github.com/Pocket
- gtf21 9y agoPocket itself isn't open source, they just have an org on GH which has some tools inside.
- PurpleRamen 9y agoThey started this some weeks ago, and it's supposed to retrieve the missing parts over time. I assume they are just busy checking which parts are legal to open source.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- carussell 9y agoDuckDuckGo has some open source extensions and SDKs to integrate with their service. DuckDuckGo itself, however, is not open source. Do you realize how misleading it would be if someone said this, and then I showed up with a link to their open source extensions, and how misleading it would be to try and appear as if I'm refuting something that I'm not actually refuting? That's exactly what you've done here with regard to my comment about Pocket. There's a reason why nobody else posted the link you did in the 12 hours between my comment and yours, including the dozens of Mozilla/Pocket employees who saw what I wrote. It's because that's not Pocket, and what I wrote about Pocket still not being open source is true.