7 ms·

Real talk, Mozilla; would you be interested in funding a privacy-oriented fork of Firefox with all the unnecessary extras (Pocket, etc.) stripped out? I’m thin

Real talk, Mozilla; would you be interested in funding a privacy-oriented fork of Firefox with all the unnecessary extras (Pocket, etc.) stripped out? I’m thinking something just like Firefox, except unencumbered by Google or other corporate affiliations, etc. I think this would be the best first step towards any kind of “fixing the Internet”.

snazz 6y ago
This would benefit the couple of people who use that fork of Firefox, but would have no effect on every other Internet user. It's impossible for Mozilla to fund anything "unencumbered by Google or other corporate affiliations" when so much of their money comes from Google.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mmayo 6y ago
I'm not really speaking for "Mozilla" because what does that even mean? But as one of the folks doing this summer program for Mozilla, I can say 100% we'd be excited to see a good application around this. There's a bunch of great browsers out there, most based on Chromium, but we're all pretty tied up with search as the only way to fund. Brave's made a step away from that, which is cool. I'd love to see more attempts at browsers with different funding models. If you have an idea and at least, say, the beginnings of a small team who could execute, we're available to provide feedback before you submit an application. thx!
gkoberger 6y ago
It's tough. People at Mozilla care so much about privacy, to the point that (when I worked there 2010-2012), they refused to do "services" the same way Google did (aka a login and a central server). So as a result, Chrome "just worked" and Firefox was completely unusable. The people at Mozilla really care about privacy. But they also have to build something people can actually use. That means finding a balance between privacy and usability. To you it's "fixing the Internet", but to most normal people it's "removing features." Like, can you imagine explaining to the average user why they can't just type a search into the address bar and get Google results? (More specifically, though, what would you strip? Pocket is owned by Mozilla and is just a fancy bookmark manager, but sure. Google is just a default search; data isn't being sent to them. Outside of those, what would you remove?)
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > they refused to do "services" the same way Google did What services? > More specifically, though, what would you strip? Telemetry and the normandy/shield backdoor first of all. Then remove the google analytics from the about:addons page (or at least let adblockers work on it). Then let adblockers work on the mozilla pages. Then disable things like pings, beacons, etc by default and integrate more tor browser patches. Firefox right now is the browser that calls back the most https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/1165858896176660480 https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11658588961766604... As for Pocket, Mozilla promised ages ago to make the server foss, still no luck with it.
  - gonational 6y ago
    This is an underrated comment.
- pythux 6y ago
  > Google is just a default search; data isn't being sent to them. You mean, apart from everything typed in the URL bar by default?
- bhauer 6y ago
  > ...they refused to do "services" the same way Google did (aka a login and a central server). So as a result, Chrome "just worked" and Firefox was completely unusable. I think Mozilla found the perfect solution to services. They provide a service and open source the implementation [1]. This gives a "just works" option (which is still probably setting a pretty high privacy bar because it's Mozilla) and a fully self-hosted ultra-private option for those who want to go the extra mile. [1] https://github.com/mozilla-services/ https://github.com/mozilla-services/
  - Conan_Kudo 6y ago
    As someone else said in here, I don't think they've open sourced the Pocket server software... At least I haven't seen it yet.
whycombagator 6y ago
> unnecessary extras (Pocket, etc.) Pocket is very necessary for some FF users (myself included).
- gonational 6y ago
  That’s what add-ons are for.
dublinben 6y ago
If you're serious about this, you may want to contribute to the GNU IceCat project.
bzb3 6y ago
Then how would they fund completely unrelated things like these?
ta17711771 6y ago
I'd be more interested in a fork with site isolation per process, no X11 exploits on Linux, etc. We need a new Gecko - perhaps a fork of something else with all the resources Gecko gets put into it.
- kbrosnan 6y ago
  You are describing the Fission project [1]. You can enable it in nightly builds. It does break some things, crash a bit more often etc. [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project_Fission https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project_Fission
  - ta17711771 6y ago
    Better many, many years late than never, I suppose. Good resource!
    - dblohm7 6y ago
      It took Google several years to implement in Chromium as well. They just happened to have the convenience of having it ready when Spectre was revealed.
- dblohm7 6y ago
  Why advocate for a fork when you could simply contribute to existing sandboxing and site isolation efforts?

snazz 6y ago

This would benefit the couple of people who use that fork of Firefox, but would have no effect on every other Internet user. It's impossible for Mozilla to fund anything "unencumbered by Google or other corporate affiliations" when so much of their money comes from Google.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mmayo 6y ago

I'm not really speaking for "Mozilla" because what does that even mean? But as one of the folks doing this summer program for Mozilla, I can say 100% we'd be excited to see a good application around this. There's a bunch of great browsers out there, most based on Chromium, but we're all pretty tied up with search as the only way to fund. Brave's made a step away from that, which is cool. I'd love to see more attempts at browsers with different funding models. If you have an idea and at least, say, the beginnings of a small team who could execute, we're available to provide feedback before you submit an application. thx!

gkoberger 6y ago

It's tough. People at Mozilla care so much about privacy, to the point that (when I worked there 2010-2012), they refused to do "services" the same way Google did (aka a login and a central server). So as a result, Chrome "just worked" and Firefox was completely unusable. The people at Mozilla really care about privacy. But they also have to build something people can actually use. That means finding a balance between privacy and usability. To you it's "fixing the Internet", but to most normal people it's "removing features." Like, can you imagine explaining to the average user why they can't just type a search into the address bar and get Google results? (More specifically, though, what would you strip? Pocket is owned by Mozilla and is just a fancy bookmark manager, but sure. Google is just a default search; data isn't being sent to them. Outside of those, what would you remove?)

dependenttypes 6y ago
> they refused to do "services" the same way Google did What services? > More specifically, though, what would you strip? Telemetry and the normandy/shield backdoor first of all. Then remove the google analytics from the about:addons page (or at least let adblockers work on it). Then let adblockers work on the mozilla pages. Then disable things like pings, beacons, etc by default and integrate more tor browser patches. Firefox right now is the browser that calls back the most https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/1165858896176660480 https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11658588961766604... As for Pocket, Mozilla promised ages ago to make the server foss, still no luck with it.
- gonational 6y ago
  This is an underrated comment.
pythux 6y ago
> Google is just a default search; data isn't being sent to them. You mean, apart from everything typed in the URL bar by default?
bhauer 6y ago
> ...they refused to do "services" the same way Google did (aka a login and a central server). So as a result, Chrome "just worked" and Firefox was completely unusable. I think Mozilla found the perfect solution to services. They provide a service and open source the implementation [1]. This gives a "just works" option (which is still probably setting a pretty high privacy bar because it's Mozilla) and a fully self-hosted ultra-private option for those who want to go the extra mile. [1] https://github.com/mozilla-services/ https://github.com/mozilla-services/
- Conan_Kudo 6y ago
  As someone else said in here, I don't think they've open sourced the Pocket server software... At least I haven't seen it yet.

whycombagator 6y ago

> unnecessary extras (Pocket, etc.) Pocket is very necessary for some FF users (myself included).

gonational 6y ago
That’s what add-ons are for.

dublinben 6y ago

If you're serious about this, you may want to contribute to the GNU IceCat project.

bzb3 6y ago

Then how would they fund completely unrelated things like these?

ta17711771 6y ago

I'd be more interested in a fork with site isolation per process, no X11 exploits on Linux, etc. We need a new Gecko - perhaps a fork of something else with all the resources Gecko gets put into it.

kbrosnan 6y ago
You are describing the Fission project [1]. You can enable it in nightly builds. It does break some things, crash a bit more often etc. [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project_Fission https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project_Fission
- ta17711771 6y ago
  Better many, many years late than never, I suppose. Good resource!
  - dblohm7 6y ago
    It took Google several years to implement in Chromium as well. They just happened to have the convenience of having it ready when Spectre was revealed.
dblohm7 6y ago
Why advocate for a fork when you could simply contribute to existing sandboxing and site isolation efforts?