7 ms·

I find Mozilla's editorializing in the little blurbs at the top of each page to be kind of problematic as well. It seems like they came up with an objective set

I find Mozilla's editorializing in the little blurbs at the top of each page to be kind of problematic as well. It seems like they came up with an objective set of standards, but it turns out those standards didn't quite fit the narrative they wanted to put forth. I'm no fan of Facebook, but if you want to point out their privacy shortcomings, come up with a stronger set of standards and apply them to all the products. Don't take cheap shots at them at the top of a page that gives them 5 stars.

evross 7y ago
I agree that the privacynotincluded site should have a broader set of standards but I really commend them for investing resources into tackling the truth of the huge amount of surveillance built in to a lot of these products these days. Hopefully they can improve the UI in future as it is a bit confusing. However the main takeaway at the bottom should be understood: "Facebook has a history of betraying users' privacy and trust. They've faced record fines for this and have been caught hiding privacy breaches from their users. This is the starting point for bringing a device with an AI-powered smart camera and always listening microphone that is sending data back to Facebook regularly. They also say they do human review of audio snippets unless you chose (and take the time to figure out how) to opt out. The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capable (*fixed typo) of collecting on you. In the past--from Cambridge Analytic and beyond--the answer to that question has way too often been, NO."