3 ms·

Mozilla has a conflict of interest. It pays its developers indirectly from internet ad revenue through deals with companies that sell ads. More importantly it

by 3xblah 7y ago

Mozilla has a conflict of interest. It pays its developers indirectly from internet ad revenue through deals with companies that sell ads. More importantly it seeks to compete with a browser controlled by ad sales company. Giving the users commenting negatively the privacy they want would mean that Firefox would not implement the "features" that its developers believe are necessary for a "good browser".1 What "good browser" really means to these developers is a browser that does what the "competing" browser does first and foremost, not the ideal browser some vocal group of ad-loathing, privacy-conscious users want. That is how Mozilla defines "good". "Good" to them means "competitive". To the users who comment on Firefox flaws, "good" means something else. It does not necessarily mean one that "competes" with Chrome. The honest response from Mozilla to negative comments would be to acknowledge they do not exist primarily for all users. They exist primarily for the developers who work there, as part of a project to be "competitive" with commercially-driven browsers. Cutting ties to the revenue stream of internet advertising and the browsers that it finances is not an option for Mozilla. It is not volunteer-driven like many open source projects. It has to pay developers a competitive salary. The idea of "something we all want: privacy" is at odds with developers who are being paid to support the internet ad business. The pervasive advertising found on the internet would not be possible without the cooperation of browser authors. 1 "Without the Yahoo ad deal, or "the ability to inject code remotely in your browser" i.e. automatic updates, or reliable telemetry from the majority of Firefox users, it would have been impossible to build a good browser." - Mozilla employee

sequoia 7y ago
> The honest response from Mozilla to negative comments would be to acknowledge they do not exist primarily for all users. They exist primarily for the developers who work there, as part of a project to be "competitive" with commercially-driven browsers. I don’t understand- how is trying to offer a competitive, viable product not “for all users”? Are you suggesting that if they focus on a non-competitive product that’s better for “all users”?
- 3xblah 7y ago
  Assuming all users do not want what the commenters giving feedback on HN want, then it would not be better for "all users".
ziddoap 7y ago
I think you fundamentally misunderstand my message. The point I was trying to get across is this: Companies do bad things, sometimes intentionally, sometimes by accident, and sometimes because they were misguided. Companies also do good things, sometimes intentionally, sometimes by accident. How are we, as users, able to communicate our thoughts with the company in question in these cases? One method is by calling out the negatives and applying pressure so that, hopefully, the company feels some obligation to act or risk user exodus. This is an example of what you are doing - and it is a valid way of communicating displeasure with a company when they have made a decision the users don't agree with. Negative reinforcement absolutely has its place. However, an often forgotten method of communication is positive reinforcement. This is how we can tell a company "Hey, good job on this specific thing. It's in a direction we would like to see you keep moving in.". This signals to the company that they are on the right track and, hopefully, encourages them to continue developing that way. In the specific context of Mozilla, this means that I try to encourage them when they do positive things (blocking fingerprinting) while still expressing my displeasure over the certificate fiasco and other issues. However, my original post was not meant to be read only in the context of Mozilla, nor was it meant to be read in a way that makes you think that you cannot also raise your concerns. There is a time and place for both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. It just seems like people forget about the positive one.
roca 7y ago
FORMER Mozilla employee, FWIW. Mozilla doesn't exist for its developers. Most of its developers could make a lot more money working elsewhere. The reality is that if Firefox isn't competitive in performance, security, and Web compatibility, very few people will use it, in which case why even bother? There's more at stake here than just privacy, too. An open platform that isn't controlled by a single vendor, that doesn't have gatekeepers, that has lots of content AND lots of clients is really important. The standards-based Web is the only candidate at this point. Mozilla cares a lot about that, and they need a competitive browser with significant marketshare or they have no leverage.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- a_imho 7y ago
  What is an easier solution to improving browsing experience, performance and security than blocking ads? Don't you think a simple extension like ublock demonstrates a whole paradigm shift in browsing experience? One that moz://a should be striving for?
sjwright 7y ago
> Mozilla has a conflict of interest. Irrelevant. Conflicts of interest aren't a problem in and of themselves. Most people and companies have conflicts of interest all over the place—if you're prepared to look hard enough. It could be as simple as the conflict between retaining good employees and turning a profit. Conflicts are everywhere. The question is whether the conflict is causing the company to make decisions which you think are bad—and whether you can convince others to agree with you that they're bad. The remainder of your post is an equivocation fallacy between the ability to deeply track individual people and the ability to run advertisements at all. You don't need deep tracking in order for advertising to work well. (...unless perhaps you're relying on a fully automated algorithm to do all the work...)

by 3xblah 7y ago

sequoia 7y ago

> The honest response from Mozilla to negative comments would be to acknowledge they do not exist primarily for all users. They exist primarily for the developers who work there, as part of a project to be "competitive" with commercially-driven browsers. I don’t understand- how is trying to offer a competitive, viable product not “for all users”? Are you suggesting that if they focus on a non-competitive product that’s better for “all users”?

3xblah 7y ago
Assuming all users do not want what the commenters giving feedback on HN want, then it would not be better for "all users".

ziddoap 7y ago

I think you fundamentally misunderstand my message. The point I was trying to get across is this: Companies do bad things, sometimes intentionally, sometimes by accident, and sometimes because they were misguided. Companies also do good things, sometimes intentionally, sometimes by accident. How are we, as users, able to communicate our thoughts with the company in question in these cases? One method is by calling out the negatives and applying pressure so that, hopefully, the company feels some obligation to act or risk user exodus. This is an example of what you are doing - and it is a valid way of communicating displeasure with a company when they have made a decision the users don't agree with. Negative reinforcement absolutely has its place. However, an often forgotten method of communication is positive reinforcement. This is how we can tell a company "Hey, good job on this specific thing. It's in a direction we would like to see you keep moving in.". This signals to the company that they are on the right track and, hopefully, encourages them to continue developing that way. In the specific context of Mozilla, this means that I try to encourage them when they do positive things (blocking fingerprinting) while still expressing my displeasure over the certificate fiasco and other issues. However, my original post was not meant to be read only in the context of Mozilla, nor was it meant to be read in a way that makes you think that you cannot also raise your concerns. There is a time and place for both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. It just seems like people forget about the positive one.

roca 7y ago

FORMER Mozilla employee, FWIW. Mozilla doesn't exist for its developers. Most of its developers could make a lot more money working elsewhere. The reality is that if Firefox isn't competitive in performance, security, and Web compatibility, very few people will use it, in which case why even bother? There's more at stake here than just privacy, too. An open platform that isn't controlled by a single vendor, that doesn't have gatekeepers, that has lots of content AND lots of clients is really important. The standards-based Web is the only candidate at this point. Mozilla cares a lot about that, and they need a competitive browser with significant marketshare or they have no leverage.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
a_imho 7y ago
What is an easier solution to improving browsing experience, performance and security than blocking ads? Don't you think a simple extension like ublock demonstrates a whole paradigm shift in browsing experience? One that moz://a should be striving for?

sjwright 7y ago

> Mozilla has a conflict of interest. Irrelevant. Conflicts of interest aren't a problem in and of themselves. Most people and companies have conflicts of interest all over the place—if you're prepared to look hard enough. It could be as simple as the conflict between retaining good employees and turning a profit. Conflicts are everywhere. The question is whether the conflict is causing the company to make decisions which you think are bad—and whether you can convince others to agree with you that they're bad. The remainder of your post is an equivocation fallacy between the ability to deeply track individual people and the ability to run advertisements at all. You don't need deep tracking in order for advertising to work well. (...unless perhaps you're relying on a fully automated algorithm to do all the work...)