7 ms·

Mozilla files FTC comments calling for interoperability (2018)

92 points by juokaz 7y ago

jsnell 7y ago
(2018) The actual comments they submitted: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2018/08/Mozilla-FTC-filing-8-20-2018.pdf https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2018/08/Mozilla-FTC...
oftenwrong 7y ago
Headline should include "(2018)" Interesting. I agree in theory with the call for interoperability, but I am not clear on how such a policy would be implemented. It is also not clear which APIs Mozilla would like to see standardised or created. They do mention the ability to move user data between platforms, which seems like a reasonable suggestion. I am reminded of the effort in the EU to standardise phone chargers. It is difficult to craft a standard without closing some doors to future innovation. Also, this is the first time I've heard of Rocket (now Firefox Lite).
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > I am reminded of the effort in the EU to standardise phone chargers. It is difficult to craft a standard without closing some doors to future innovation. Not to mention standardizing phone chargers is dramatically simpler than standardizing an API like this.
ubercow13 7y ago
>A little loss of privacy seemed easy to accept (for an American audience in particular) in exchange for a new crop of emojis This reminds me of when the Rust developers dropped IRC for Discord
- microcolonel 7y ago
  A developer IM channel for a public open source project is not private in any sense.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodruffw 7y ago
    I'm guessing 'ubercow13 is referring to the tracking and analytics that Discord can do, not the fact that the channel (wherever it's hosted) is visible to the public. The former seems like a legitimate privacy concern.
  - ubercow13 7y ago
    Sure, but Discord may insist on collecting your phone number before you can use it, amongst other anti-privacy behaviours
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      Discord does not insist on these things. Discord knows the email address I gave them and that's about it for mandatory information. They could eventually ask for these things, sure; but they do not right now.
      - ubercow13 7y ago
        Well, they do for me.
  - ajross 7y ago
    Private side conversations are, though. Maybe you know someone you need to discuss something important with, but you can only remember how to find them on the Rust Discord (or wherever). Network effects are a real thing. A world in which only privacy nuts use IRC[1] is one in which no one has effective access to those tools. [1] Which, OK, for technical reasons is a really bad example for the issue of privacy specifically. But the point is general.
microcolonel 7y ago
This petty bureaucratic approach signals the saddest era in Mozilla's history. It used to be that they won by being better, now they hope to win by guilt-tripping people into using their software, and trying to get the government to impose on their competitors.
writepub 7y ago
Note that at least 90+% of Mozilla's revenue is from the big tech companies.

92 points by juokaz 7y ago

(2018) The actual comments they submitted: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2018/08/Mozilla-FTC-filing-8-20-2018.pdf https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2018/08/Mozilla-FTC...

oftenwrong 7y ago

Headline should include "(2018)" Interesting. I agree in theory with the call for interoperability, but I am not clear on how such a policy would be implemented. It is also not clear which APIs Mozilla would like to see standardised or created. They do mention the ability to move user data between platforms, which seems like a reasonable suggestion. I am reminded of the effort in the EU to standardise phone chargers. It is difficult to craft a standard without closing some doors to future innovation. Also, this is the first time I've heard of Rocket (now Firefox Lite).

microcolonel 7y ago
> I am reminded of the effort in the EU to standardise phone chargers. It is difficult to craft a standard without closing some doors to future innovation. Not to mention standardizing phone chargers is dramatically simpler than standardizing an API like this.

ubercow13 7y ago

>A little loss of privacy seemed easy to accept (for an American audience in particular) in exchange for a new crop of emojis This reminds me of when the Rust developers dropped IRC for Discord

microcolonel 7y ago
A developer IM channel for a public open source project is not private in any sense.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- woodruffw 7y ago
  I'm guessing 'ubercow13 is referring to the tracking and analytics that Discord can do, not the fact that the channel (wherever it's hosted) is visible to the public. The former seems like a legitimate privacy concern.
- ubercow13 7y ago
  Sure, but Discord may insist on collecting your phone number before you can use it, amongst other anti-privacy behaviours
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Discord does not insist on these things. Discord knows the email address I gave them and that's about it for mandatory information. They could eventually ask for these things, sure; but they do not right now.
    - ubercow13 7y ago
      Well, they do for me.
- ajross 7y ago
  Private side conversations are, though. Maybe you know someone you need to discuss something important with, but you can only remember how to find them on the Rust Discord (or wherever). Network effects are a real thing. A world in which only privacy nuts use IRC[1] is one in which no one has effective access to those tools. [1] Which, OK, for technical reasons is a really bad example for the issue of privacy specifically. But the point is general.

microcolonel 7y ago

This petty bureaucratic approach signals the saddest era in Mozilla's history. It used to be that they won by being better, now they hope to win by guilt-tripping people into using their software, and trying to get the government to impose on their competitors.

writepub 7y ago

Note that at least 90+% of Mozilla's revenue is from the big tech companies.