3 ms·
As I tell everyone that tries to defend this, it's not about what the plugin did or didn't do. It could have literally been a copy of about:blank, it changes no
by Karunamon 8y ago
As I tell everyone that tries to defend this, it's not about what the plugin did or didn't do. It could have literally been a copy of about:blank, it changes nothing.
The entirely justified outrage was its purpose for being put there (which boils down to advertising) and the lack of consent for its being put there. That's it.
- bigiain 8y agoAgreed. (At the same time, how much of the automated Chrome updates end up being audited for their "boils down to advertising"ness?)
- Dylan16807 8y agoDoing nothing is not advertising. The only way for this to be used in advertisement was from Mr. Robot fans to Firefox. > lack of consent Pretend it was a copy of about:blank when you answer this question: What makes this different from the giant pile of patches merged into each release of firefox that you don't read?
- Karunamon 8y agoHow many of those Firefox patches are advertising references to then-popular media as opposed to new features, security fixes, and so forth? Again. Purpose.
- Dylan16807 8y agoThat's not answering why it would be wrong even if it was about:blank.
- Dylan16807 8y ago(I'm making this a separate post because I don't want any distractions in the other one.) If they had done it correctly, it would have been invisible and it would not have advertised anything to firefox users. That is the purpose. It showing up the way it did was an oversight.