3 ms·

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 tha

by 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.
  - realharo 6y ago
    >Are there numbers about large amounts of sideloaded extensions causing the reputation of firefox for android to drop? I'm not aware of any, but that could be because alternative browsers are not that popular on mobile in general. The reputation of Android itself has definitely suffered due to sub-par apps (battery draining, slowdowns etc.) and downright malware (sometimes promoted via Google's own ad network). >And even your earlier example was concerned with malicious extensions in Mozillas own extension store. It seems they disabled sideloading on their desktop browser some time ago, so that was the only way it could've happened anyway. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/31/firefox-to-discontinue-sideloaded-extensions/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/31/firefox-to-discon... https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/03/10/support-for-extension-sideloading-has-ended/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/03/10/support-for-exten... I don't know whether they currently do any review for extensions in the store (even automated one), or just manually ban bad actors. (There is an additional reason to disable sideloading on desktop that I mentioned in a previous comment - other destkop apps installing shit without user action/approval, which cannot happen on mobile due to app isolation). >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. - Their name wouldn't be on it. To publish in Play Store, a fork would have to scrub all Firefox branding from the app (see Iceweasel), and would then assume all responsibility. - Let's be honest, in practice, such a fork would be mostly used by highly technical users who are more likely to know what they're doing. Non-technical users would be far less likely to install it than some random 3rd party extension they come across. The Firefox name is fairly well known outside of tech circles. The name of some random fork would not be. >In the future this might very well interfere with peoples ability to avoid censorship. I agree that there is a risk that their official binary distribution could gain exclusive abilities in the future which are not part of the open source version (at which point Firefox would technically no longer be open source, e.g. Chrome vs. Chromium). Care should be taken that that doesn't happen. Anyway, at the moment I'm far less concerned about extensions that they specifically want to ban/censor, and far more about 3rd party developers potentially losing the ability to innovate, if the review process is only practically available to popular established players (who got popular while the ecosystem was still open) - because then how would a new project even get to that phase? That may or may not be an issue though, we'll see how it turns out.

by fwn 6y ago

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.
- realharo 6y ago
  >Are there numbers about large amounts of sideloaded extensions causing the reputation of firefox for android to drop? I'm not aware of any, but that could be because alternative browsers are not that popular on mobile in general. The reputation of Android itself has definitely suffered due to sub-par apps (battery draining, slowdowns etc.) and downright malware (sometimes promoted via Google's own ad network). >And even your earlier example was concerned with malicious extensions in Mozillas own extension store. It seems they disabled sideloading on their desktop browser some time ago, so that was the only way it could've happened anyway. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/31/firefox-to-discontinue-sideloaded-extensions/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/31/firefox-to-discon... https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/03/10/support-for-extension-sideloading-has-ended/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/03/10/support-for-exten... I don't know whether they currently do any review for extensions in the store (even automated one), or just manually ban bad actors. (There is an additional reason to disable sideloading on desktop that I mentioned in a previous comment - other destkop apps installing shit without user action/approval, which cannot happen on mobile due to app isolation). >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. - Their name wouldn't be on it. To publish in Play Store, a fork would have to scrub all Firefox branding from the app (see Iceweasel), and would then assume all responsibility. - Let's be honest, in practice, such a fork would be mostly used by highly technical users who are more likely to know what they're doing. Non-technical users would be far less likely to install it than some random 3rd party extension they come across. The Firefox name is fairly well known outside of tech circles. The name of some random fork would not be. >In the future this might very well interfere with peoples ability to avoid censorship. I agree that there is a risk that their official binary distribution could gain exclusive abilities in the future which are not part of the open source version (at which point Firefox would technically no longer be open source, e.g. Chrome vs. Chromium). Care should be taken that that doesn't happen. Anyway, at the moment I'm far less concerned about extensions that they specifically want to ban/censor, and far more about 3rd party developers potentially losing the ability to innovate, if the review process is only practically available to popular established players (who got popular while the ecosystem was still open) - because then how would a new project even get to that phase? That may or may not be an issue though, we'll see how it turns out.