4 ms·

The problem, as usual, is one of user education. Some users fully comprehend every detail of the consequences of their actions, some users blindly do whatever a

The problem, as usual, is one of user education. Some users fully comprehend every detail of the consequences of their actions, some users blindly do whatever anyone tells them, or even just flip every switch the opposite way around to see what happens, and there are millions of users at every point on the spectrum between those extremes. It's not practical to ship different browsers tuned for different points on the spectrum, and even if it were, you couldn't guarantee that people would download the browser most appropriate for them, they'd download whatever looked nice at the time. So you have one browser distribution, with one set of defaults, and on one hand you want educated users to be able to configure things to their liking, while on the other hand you want to prevent uneducated users from screwing themselves over by accident, or because somebody told them to open the secret Developer Console and paste a funny-looking string to see a picture of a bunny. There aren't really any good answers.

userbinator 7y ago
It's not practical to ship different browsers tuned for different points on the spectrum For the longest time, that's how it was. The browser at one end was called Chrome, and the one at the other was called Firefox. while on the other hand you want to prevent uneducated users from screwing themselves over by accident As the saying goes, "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." The whole "protect the users" mentality is IMHO misguided and dangerous, because it's basically one individual or a small group making the argument that taking away individual freedom (and thus giving more control to those in power) is "better for everyone". The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Incidentally, that's how a lot of dystopian sci-fi looks like...
- thristian 7y ago
  > The browser at one end was called Chrome, and the one at the other was called Firefox. Firefox was originally the simplified, cut-down version of Seamonkey; Firefox has been on this trajectory of simplification since before Chrome or WebKit were invented. > The whole "protect the users" mentality is IMHO misguided and dangerous It's definitely dangerous - good intentions, dystopian sci-fi, etc. etc. - but I'm not sure if it's misguided. I don't mind being forced to follow road rules, even if I find them inconvenient, because I benefit more from other people following them (personal safety, etc.) than I would from being allowed to do what I want. I don't mind being forced to install security updates, even if I find them annoying, because I benefit more from other people installing security updates (more reliable infrastructure, fewer tech-support calls from family members) than I would from being allowed to do what I want. I expect browser security is similar - I don't have exact numbers to hand, but it wouldn't surprise me if I'm better off being a bit restricted than I would be if everybody did what they wanted.
4bpp 7y ago
> some users blindly do whatever anyone tells them, or even just flip every switch the opposite way around to see what happens So... let them? It's not like they typically wind up harming anyone other than themselves in the process. I don't understand why it is considered okay now to run the whole adult world like a kindergarten.
- nimih 7y ago
  Using computers is essential to the jobs and social lives of huge swaths of people, and providing safe tools to accomplish those goals is a very valuable social good. In particular, most people who use a computer don't have the time or the interest to really learn the details of computer security or how the internet/their web browser works, nor do they really have a choice as to whether they use these technologies in the first place. The upshot of this is that any time a browser vendor takes time and good-faith effort to try and keep the metaphorical gun pointed anywhere other than firmly at the user's foot, we (as folks who /do/ understand computer security to some degree) should honestly be celebrating it. It's not running the world like a kindergarten, it's building good and useful tools using sound engineering practices--something admittedly foreign to most web developers, but the rest of the adult world embraced the idea millennia ago.
  - eitland 7y ago
    By treating all users as hopelessly incompetent we are making great progress towards a society that is less tech literate than 10 or 20 years ago. Nice work guys, keep it up! Seriously: it is one thing to add airbags, seatbelts and all kinds of crash protections but at the point where you are geofencing the cars, weld the hood and limit max speed to 60km/h you know it isn't about safety even of each of those can be proposed as a safety feature for smaller or larger parts of the population. It is about control. Or I'm tempted to say it could also be about software designers who are more nannies than engineers and user advocates.
    - nimih 7y ago
      Please don’t lose sight of the fact that this discussion is occurring in the context of Mozilla reprimanding an extension developer for not putting a big enough warning label on what they view as an extremely dangerous—but ultimately allowed—action.

userbinator 7y ago

It's not practical to ship different browsers tuned for different points on the spectrum For the longest time, that's how it was. The browser at one end was called Chrome, and the one at the other was called Firefox. while on the other hand you want to prevent uneducated users from screwing themselves over by accident As the saying goes, "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." The whole "protect the users" mentality is IMHO misguided and dangerous, because it's basically one individual or a small group making the argument that taking away individual freedom (and thus giving more control to those in power) is "better for everyone". The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Incidentally, that's how a lot of dystopian sci-fi looks like...

thristian 7y ago
> The browser at one end was called Chrome, and the one at the other was called Firefox. Firefox was originally the simplified, cut-down version of Seamonkey; Firefox has been on this trajectory of simplification since before Chrome or WebKit were invented. > The whole "protect the users" mentality is IMHO misguided and dangerous It's definitely dangerous - good intentions, dystopian sci-fi, etc. etc. - but I'm not sure if it's misguided. I don't mind being forced to follow road rules, even if I find them inconvenient, because I benefit more from other people following them (personal safety, etc.) than I would from being allowed to do what I want. I don't mind being forced to install security updates, even if I find them annoying, because I benefit more from other people installing security updates (more reliable infrastructure, fewer tech-support calls from family members) than I would from being allowed to do what I want. I expect browser security is similar - I don't have exact numbers to hand, but it wouldn't surprise me if I'm better off being a bit restricted than I would be if everybody did what they wanted.

4bpp 7y ago

> some users blindly do whatever anyone tells them, or even just flip every switch the opposite way around to see what happens So... let them? It's not like they typically wind up harming anyone other than themselves in the process. I don't understand why it is considered okay now to run the whole adult world like a kindergarten.

nimih 7y ago
Using computers is essential to the jobs and social lives of huge swaths of people, and providing safe tools to accomplish those goals is a very valuable social good. In particular, most people who use a computer don't have the time or the interest to really learn the details of computer security or how the internet/their web browser works, nor do they really have a choice as to whether they use these technologies in the first place. The upshot of this is that any time a browser vendor takes time and good-faith effort to try and keep the metaphorical gun pointed anywhere other than firmly at the user's foot, we (as folks who /do/ understand computer security to some degree) should honestly be celebrating it. It's not running the world like a kindergarten, it's building good and useful tools using sound engineering practices--something admittedly foreign to most web developers, but the rest of the adult world embraced the idea millennia ago.
- eitland 7y ago
  By treating all users as hopelessly incompetent we are making great progress towards a society that is less tech literate than 10 or 20 years ago. Nice work guys, keep it up! Seriously: it is one thing to add airbags, seatbelts and all kinds of crash protections but at the point where you are geofencing the cars, weld the hood and limit max speed to 60km/h you know it isn't about safety even of each of those can be proposed as a safety feature for smaller or larger parts of the population. It is about control. Or I'm tempted to say it could also be about software designers who are more nannies than engineers and user advocates.
  - nimih 7y ago
    Please don’t lose sight of the fact that this discussion is occurring in the context of Mozilla reprimanding an extension developer for not putting a big enough warning label on what they view as an extremely dangerous—but ultimately allowed—action.