4 ms·

> They are simply no longer willing to disrupt the status quo, even to help their users. This is just false. I guess you're not aware of the content blocking

> They are simply no longer willing to disrupt the status quo, even to help their users. This is just false. I guess you're not aware of the content blocking work we've been focusing on lately?: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/30/17800714/mozilla-firefox-block-web-trackers-targeted-ads-cookies https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/30/17800714/mozilla-firefox-... Disclosure: I work for Mozilla on Firefox. I can say, without hesitation, that we definitely give a damn about protecting the user and protecting the health of the web.

nanna 8y ago
Thank you for all the work you and everyone at Mozilla do. Without you the web would be... oy gevalt.
- shrimp_emoji 8y ago
  >oy gevalt. There's no reason for this kind of dog whistling.
  - herpes 8y ago
    I don't understand the meaning of either this or the parent comment. Can someone please explain them for me?
stephenhuey 8y ago
Keep up the good work! I’m upset that Firefox is blocked in the corporation when I work, but glad you have some fighting spirit yet.
Endy 8y ago
Do more to show it then. Firefox has consistently been clamping down on user freedom and aping Chrome as closely as possible, instead of actually focusing on doing the right thing. Google is not the health of the web. Helping Google is contributing to the largest walled-garden that exists.
- tim1994 8y ago
  > Firefox has consistently been clamping down on user freedom Can you give an example? While I personally don't agree with everything Mozilla has done in the last couple of years (like the native pocket integration for example) I do not agree with that statement.
  - Endy 8y ago
    That's a recent part of it. Pocket integration, removal of about:config entries, moving to WebExtensions so that the user has less control over their browser both in terms of appearance and function, changing the appearance in a way the user has little way of altering to a more functional display, now removing Bookmark Descriptions, using random non-user-audited data transmitted from random Firefox installs to determine the focus and goals of the browser, etc.
    - chalst 8y ago
      The issue claimed by the parent is not just restricting user freedom, but not doing the right thing. Your points: Pocket integration: not the right thing, at least not the way they rolled it out in Germany, but not a restriction on user freedom. Removal of about:config entries: This changes in response to changes to the engine, and restrictions can make sense if they avoid mainstream users from being confused about their setup so they find it difficult to find help. The developers edition usually has a bit more flexibility here, for advanced users. Move to WebExtensions: This massively increases evolvability of Firefox, which I expect will result in better security, better performance, and less interference between extensions. Changing appearance: I guess things like this are a side-effect of moving to WebExtensions. Maybe they will be supported again as the API evolves. Dropping bookmark descriptions: these are identified as a possible attack vector in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1276819 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1276819 Transmitting user data: this really does help developers and I find the way Mozilla go about this not to be sneaky the way their rivals are.
      - ptx 8y ago
a_imho 8y ago
So what's been stopping moz://a for the last few years from integrating ~ubo into the browser like it did with Pocket?
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  I'm guessing time is money and developer time is lots of money.
  - a_imho 8y ago
    Not convinced, as following the links in GP leads to some sub par (as in the end user experience) home grown solutions. Further, we are not exactly talking rocket surgery here, this is an extension anyone can install with a few clicks and as many can attest this is some serious bang for the buck all across the board (performance, privacy, security). Not to mention in the meantime they had the resources to auto install addons like Looking Glass

nanna 8y ago

Thank you for all the work you and everyone at Mozilla do. Without you the web would be... oy gevalt.

shrimp_emoji 8y ago
>oy gevalt. There's no reason for this kind of dog whistling.
- herpes 8y ago
  I don't understand the meaning of either this or the parent comment. Can someone please explain them for me?

stephenhuey 8y ago

Keep up the good work! I’m upset that Firefox is blocked in the corporation when I work, but glad you have some fighting spirit yet.

Endy 8y ago

Do more to show it then. Firefox has consistently been clamping down on user freedom and aping Chrome as closely as possible, instead of actually focusing on doing the right thing. Google is not the health of the web. Helping Google is contributing to the largest walled-garden that exists.

tim1994 8y ago
> Firefox has consistently been clamping down on user freedom Can you give an example? While I personally don't agree with everything Mozilla has done in the last couple of years (like the native pocket integration for example) I do not agree with that statement.
- Endy 8y ago
  That's a recent part of it. Pocket integration, removal of about:config entries, moving to WebExtensions so that the user has less control over their browser both in terms of appearance and function, changing the appearance in a way the user has little way of altering to a more functional display, now removing Bookmark Descriptions, using random non-user-audited data transmitted from random Firefox installs to determine the focus and goals of the browser, etc.
  - chalst 8y ago
    The issue claimed by the parent is not just restricting user freedom, but not doing the right thing. Your points: Pocket integration: not the right thing, at least not the way they rolled it out in Germany, but not a restriction on user freedom. Removal of about:config entries: This changes in response to changes to the engine, and restrictions can make sense if they avoid mainstream users from being confused about their setup so they find it difficult to find help. The developers edition usually has a bit more flexibility here, for advanced users. Move to WebExtensions: This massively increases evolvability of Firefox, which I expect will result in better security, better performance, and less interference between extensions. Changing appearance: I guess things like this are a side-effect of moving to WebExtensions. Maybe they will be supported again as the API evolves. Dropping bookmark descriptions: these are identified as a possible attack vector in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1276819 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1276819 Transmitting user data: this really does help developers and I find the way Mozilla go about this not to be sneaky the way their rivals are.
    - ptx 8y ago

a_imho 8y ago

So what's been stopping moz://a for the last few years from integrating ~ubo into the browser like it did with Pocket?

bryanrasmussen 8y ago
I'm guessing time is money and developer time is lots of money.
- a_imho 8y ago
  Not convinced, as following the links in GP leads to some sub par (as in the end user experience) home grown solutions. Further, we are not exactly talking rocket surgery here, this is an extension anyone can install with a few clicks and as many can attest this is some serious bang for the buck all across the board (performance, privacy, security). Not to mention in the meantime they had the resources to auto install addons like Looking Glass