3 ms·

I don't think any of this is necessary. I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize them", but that really only goes so far. On

by fwn 6y ago

I don't think any of this is necessary. I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize them", but that really only goes so far. On hindsight it looks like a balancing act where single features are evaluated for their danger, etc. Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it anymore", etc. We're pretty much at this point now regarding browsers on Android, where there's only Chrome and it's skins (that let you do nothing) and Firefox. I can't believe the sensible thing to do would be to cut uncurated, non-store extensions from Firefox as well. It would be a huge loss for the whole ecosystem just to make a few Firefox installs (from an already small install base) a tiny bit less compromisable.

realharo 6y ago
>I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize them", but that really only goes so far. It's not just a saying, it's supported by real-world situations that actually happened, and that you can be pretty sure will happen again. That's the context for the decisions that platform owners have to make. E.g. not too long ago, Dark Reader users received this notice https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/ https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/ about malware clones of the real extension that apparently thousands of people had installed (from the stores). It is events like this that influence these decisions. >Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it anymore", etc. That's basically the Apple mindset. It's a well known fact (e.g. his biography) that Steve Jobs didn't even want any third party apps (other than super limited web-"apps") on iOS initially, and had to be convinced otherwise.
- fwn 6y ago
  But I didn't argue that they shouldn't do it because we don't know whether people will compromise themselves. I argued they shouldn't do it despite knowing that people will have the ability to compromise themselves.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - realharo 6y ago
    Well, their goals are clearly different. From the FAQ linked above, it is clear they want to have some control over "the experience", which is mentioned a lot. If too many users install a crappy, buggy extension that slows everything down, they know they will get a reputation for being a buggy and slow browser, regardless of whether it's their fault or not. It also creates incentives for extension authors to follow best practices where possible. For people who really care about choices for themselves, it's an open source project, it's not that hard to make an unrestricted fork under a different name that automatically tracks the upstream (as long as Android sideloading stays intact, plus it could also be published in Play Store as long as you don't use any of their trademarks). As far as I know there is nothing unique in the official branch that you would miss out on (when compared to e.g. missing out on Netflix or voiding warranty with custom ROMs - there are no such tradeoffs with simply using a fork of a browser). It only creates a much higher barrier to adoption for unapproved extensions (because you now have to convince users to install another browser), so many developers simply won't bother, but that's not an issue if I understand your argument correctly.
    - fwn 6y ago
      > Well, their goals are clearly different. From the FAQ linked above, it is clear they want to have some control over "the experience", which is mentioned a lot. Even without the linked FAQ it appears to be pretty straightforward that Mozilla values control given that they're about to change an open, decentral system to a tightly controlled curated app store. It's just that this wasn't always the case. See, for example, point 5 of their manifesto where Mozilla states: "Individuals must have the ability to shape the Internet and their own experiences on the Internet." or in point 6 where they emphasize: "decentralized participation worldwide" > If too many users install a crappy, buggy extension ... they will get a reputation for being a buggy and slow browser ... I have two concerns with this argument: The first is practical: Is that a big problem? Are there numbers about large amounts of sideloaded extensions causing the reputation of firefox for android to drop? AFAIK sideloading is neither very common nor particularly rich of scandals. And even your earlier example was concerned with malicious extensions in Mozillas own extension store. The old "Firefox for Android" enjoys a 4,4 star Play Store rating, compared to Previews also excellent 4,2 Star rating. The second one is ethical: Mozilla does not try to be the most successful browser at any cost. They provide valuable capacities to the Android ecosystem and drastically increase software freedom on the platform. If their goal were popularity, they would be much more successful by adopting Chrome under the hood and spending all their money on marketing. Even your later argument features the condition "as long as Android sideloading stays intact" which itself already shows how dependent on a few central features the platforms freedom already is. > it's not that hard to make an unrestricted fork under a different name I don't see how trusting users to recompile an unrestricted firefox fork goes well together with not trusting users to sideload a browser extension. > As far as I know there is nothing unique in the official branch that you would miss out on. Right now it's soft paywall blockers that are left out. (They just change referrers and cookies for specific sites.) But potentially it's all extensions, since Mozilla the corporation can be pressured into legal compliance. In the future this might very well interfere with peoples ability to avoid censorship. At the time at which centralizing a system is suggested it's almost never problematic, because problems only get apparent after centralization went into effect.

by fwn 6y ago

realharo 6y ago

>I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize them", but that really only goes so far. It's not just a saying, it's supported by real-world situations that actually happened, and that you can be pretty sure will happen again. That's the context for the decisions that platform owners have to make. E.g. not too long ago, Dark Reader users received this notice https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/ https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/ about malware clones of the real extension that apparently thousands of people had installed (from the stores). It is events like this that influence these decisions. >Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it anymore", etc. That's basically the Apple mindset. It's a well known fact (e.g. his biography) that Steve Jobs didn't even want any third party apps (other than super limited web-"apps") on iOS initially, and had to be convinced otherwise.

fwn 6y ago
But I didn't argue that they shouldn't do it because we don't know whether people will compromise themselves. I argued they shouldn't do it despite knowing that people will have the ability to compromise themselves.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- realharo 6y ago
  Well, their goals are clearly different. From the FAQ linked above, it is clear they want to have some control over "the experience", which is mentioned a lot. If too many users install a crappy, buggy extension that slows everything down, they know they will get a reputation for being a buggy and slow browser, regardless of whether it's their fault or not. It also creates incentives for extension authors to follow best practices where possible. For people who really care about choices for themselves, it's an open source project, it's not that hard to make an unrestricted fork under a different name that automatically tracks the upstream (as long as Android sideloading stays intact, plus it could also be published in Play Store as long as you don't use any of their trademarks). As far as I know there is nothing unique in the official branch that you would miss out on (when compared to e.g. missing out on Netflix or voiding warranty with custom ROMs - there are no such tradeoffs with simply using a fork of a browser). It only creates a much higher barrier to adoption for unapproved extensions (because you now have to convince users to install another browser), so many developers simply won't bother, but that's not an issue if I understand your argument correctly.
  - fwn 6y ago
    > Well, their goals are clearly different. From the FAQ linked above, it is clear they want to have some control over "the experience", which is mentioned a lot. Even without the linked FAQ it appears to be pretty straightforward that Mozilla values control given that they're about to change an open, decentral system to a tightly controlled curated app store. It's just that this wasn't always the case. See, for example, point 5 of their manifesto where Mozilla states: "Individuals must have the ability to shape the Internet and their own experiences on the Internet." or in point 6 where they emphasize: "decentralized participation worldwide" > If too many users install a crappy, buggy extension ... they will get a reputation for being a buggy and slow browser ... I have two concerns with this argument: The first is practical: Is that a big problem? Are there numbers about large amounts of sideloaded extensions causing the reputation of firefox for android to drop? AFAIK sideloading is neither very common nor particularly rich of scandals. And even your earlier example was concerned with malicious extensions in Mozillas own extension store. The old "Firefox for Android" enjoys a 4,4 star Play Store rating, compared to Previews also excellent 4,2 Star rating. The second one is ethical: Mozilla does not try to be the most successful browser at any cost. They provide valuable capacities to the Android ecosystem and drastically increase software freedom on the platform. If their goal were popularity, they would be much more successful by adopting Chrome under the hood and spending all their money on marketing. Even your later argument features the condition "as long as Android sideloading stays intact" which itself already shows how dependent on a few central features the platforms freedom already is. > it's not that hard to make an unrestricted fork under a different name I don't see how trusting users to recompile an unrestricted firefox fork goes well together with not trusting users to sideload a browser extension. > As far as I know there is nothing unique in the official branch that you would miss out on. Right now it's soft paywall blockers that are left out. (They just change referrers and cookies for specific sites.) But potentially it's all extensions, since Mozilla the corporation can be pressured into legal compliance. In the future this might very well interfere with peoples ability to avoid censorship. At the time at which centralizing a system is suggested it's almost never problematic, because problems only get apparent after centralization went into effect.