5 ms·

The SHIELD policies they promulgated after that incident has to do with studies. This was not a study. This was an emergency band-aid to help as many users as p

by clucas 7y ago

The SHIELD policies they promulgated after that incident has to do with studies. This was not a study. This was an emergency band-aid to help as many users as possible get their browsers back to the way they (the users) chose to make them work by re-enabling their add-ons, using the fastest avenue available. This was a user-friendly move, and while it's unfortunate that it was necessary in the first place, your criticism reads like a "gotcha."

chrisseaton 7y ago
> This was not a study. I don’t get it. Distributing something that was not a study as a study was what upset people last time. So they promised not to do it again. And they have just done it again.
- clucas 7y ago
  Perhaps people were upset last time because it was for commercial purposes, rather than as an emergency fix to help people to get their browser working.
- bwat49 7y ago
  The outrage over looking glass was because it was an unwanted advertisement/promotion being pushed as a 'study' In this case, they were pushing a hotfix for a critical issue effecting all firefox users. It was only pushed through the studies system because it was the best option to get the fix to as many users as possible while they worked on a firefox update. Implying that this is in any way equivalent to looking glass is completely disingenuous.
- jancsika 7y ago
  > Distributing something that was not a study as a study was what upset people last time. People got upset because an add-on for a commercial TV series auto-magically installed itself in their browser without their manual intervention. You can't just abstract that out into an ethics framework of, "If Firefox sends non-X over a channel reserved for X, then users get upset." I mean, you can, but you're going to be rightly confused and misunderstood.

5 ms·

The SHIELD policies they promulgated after that incident has to do with studies. This was not a study. This was an emergency band-aid to help as many users as p

by clucas 7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago
> This was not a study. I don’t get it. Distributing something that was not a study as a study was what upset people last time. So they promised not to do it again. And they have just done it again.
- clucas 7y ago
  Perhaps people were upset last time because it was for commercial purposes, rather than as an emergency fix to help people to get their browser working.
- bwat49 7y ago
  The outrage over looking glass was because it was an unwanted advertisement/promotion being pushed as a 'study' In this case, they were pushing a hotfix for a critical issue effecting all firefox users. It was only pushed through the studies system because it was the best option to get the fix to as many users as possible while they worked on a firefox update. Implying that this is in any way equivalent to looking glass is completely disingenuous.
- jancsika 7y ago
  > Distributing something that was not a study as a study was what upset people last time. People got upset because an add-on for a commercial TV series auto-magically installed itself in their browser without their manual intervention. You can't just abstract that out into an ethics framework of, "If Firefox sends non-X over a channel reserved for X, then users get upset." I mean, you can, but you're going to be rightly confused and misunderstood.