5 ms·

Well i think Mozilla made very clear in the past that they did all they can to avoid Pocket to be evasive, and they made it to respect your privacy, in case you

Well i think Mozilla made very clear in the past that they did all they can to avoid Pocket to be evasive, and they made it to respect your privacy, in case you choose to use it. Of course you can always turn it off on your Firefox and never come across it again.

ForHackernews 6y ago
I actively enjoy the Pocket integration, and I especially appreciate that it's suggesting things locally.
- lmedinas 6y ago
  i also have no issues with it, if it was Google on the other hand i would probably disable it.
  - emptyparadise 6y ago
    If it was Google, I don't think you'd be able to.
jorvi 6y ago
Somehow I feel like they could have avoided a lot of the backlash by renaming Pocket to Firefox Pocket (and thus being part of the Firefox Lockwise, Firefox Send, Firefox Sync etc suite). Instead of being / feeling like it’s own separate entity, it would have felt like an integral part of Firefox and thus enjoying the same privacy commitments. Even though I have Pocket disabled I don’t see much of a problem with it being in the browser. Isn’t it the same concept as Safari’s Reading List?
- lmedinas 6y ago
  yeah that would be a good a idea i think the logical reason i can find for them to not do it was that Pocket was an independent business where probably Mozilla does not even own completely. Also by keeping them independent makes it easier to sell in the future.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Pocket isn't end to end encrypted. It doesn't enjoy the same privacy commitments as the rest of Firefox.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  It's just a plugin. They could have put it in the store, put a message in the update info "try pocket, we'd like to ram it down your throat but someone here with sense suggested we could give you control over your browser". Ta-da. No need to put it into people's toolbars, pretend it's integral then put it back in people's toolbars when they remove it. It's just disdain for users and the exact sort of heavy handed tactics I use FOSS to avoid. Same thing with changing start pages, just leave it alone - suggest new defaults on update and allow people to subscribe to adverts if they want them.
pseudalopex 6y ago
Did you mean invasive? Pocket isn't end to end encrypted. The Reading List it replaced was. Protesting Pocket by using Chrome makes no sense but integrating Pocket objectively sacrificed user privacy for a revenue stream.
- ffpip 6y ago
  Pocket cannot be e2ee. It has to render the URL beautifully for each domain. It can only be done server side. It also has to offer suggestions/recommendations, so they need to track you
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Web pages can be rendered in web browsers. Why do you think it has to offer suggestions? Reading List didn't. The equivalents in other browsers don't. Suggestions could be a separate opt in feature.
    - ffpip 6y ago
      It is not a normal render. It has a particular layout for each domain. It removes the ads, signups, etc. They call it 'Article View'. It is rendered per domain. People actually like the suggestions thing. They get good articles to read.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Pocket's Article View is optional. Firefox has Reader View built in. Special handling for top sites could be built in. Special handling for any site could use a protocol designed for privacy like malware protection does. People who want suggestions could opt in.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
>you can always turn it off on your Firefox and never come across it again // Are you aware that they reenabled it for users who had removed it (and of course made it a non-removable plugin in the first place), not sure if you were being sarcastic? I still don't understand what Mozilla got out of forcing Pocket on people.

ForHackernews 6y ago

I actively enjoy the Pocket integration, and I especially appreciate that it's suggesting things locally.

lmedinas 6y ago
i also have no issues with it, if it was Google on the other hand i would probably disable it.
- emptyparadise 6y ago
  If it was Google, I don't think you'd be able to.

jorvi 6y ago

Somehow I feel like they could have avoided a lot of the backlash by renaming Pocket to Firefox Pocket (and thus being part of the Firefox Lockwise, Firefox Send, Firefox Sync etc suite). Instead of being / feeling like it’s own separate entity, it would have felt like an integral part of Firefox and thus enjoying the same privacy commitments. Even though I have Pocket disabled I don’t see much of a problem with it being in the browser. Isn’t it the same concept as Safari’s Reading List?

lmedinas 6y ago
yeah that would be a good a idea i think the logical reason i can find for them to not do it was that Pocket was an independent business where probably Mozilla does not even own completely. Also by keeping them independent makes it easier to sell in the future.
pseudalopex 6y ago
Pocket isn't end to end encrypted. It doesn't enjoy the same privacy commitments as the rest of Firefox.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
It's just a plugin. They could have put it in the store, put a message in the update info "try pocket, we'd like to ram it down your throat but someone here with sense suggested we could give you control over your browser". Ta-da. No need to put it into people's toolbars, pretend it's integral then put it back in people's toolbars when they remove it. It's just disdain for users and the exact sort of heavy handed tactics I use FOSS to avoid. Same thing with changing start pages, just leave it alone - suggest new defaults on update and allow people to subscribe to adverts if they want them.

pseudalopex 6y ago

Did you mean invasive? Pocket isn't end to end encrypted. The Reading List it replaced was. Protesting Pocket by using Chrome makes no sense but integrating Pocket objectively sacrificed user privacy for a revenue stream.

ffpip 6y ago
Pocket cannot be e2ee. It has to render the URL beautifully for each domain. It can only be done server side. It also has to offer suggestions/recommendations, so they need to track you
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Web pages can be rendered in web browsers. Why do you think it has to offer suggestions? Reading List didn't. The equivalents in other browsers don't. Suggestions could be a separate opt in feature.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    It is not a normal render. It has a particular layout for each domain. It removes the ads, signups, etc. They call it 'Article View'. It is rendered per domain. People actually like the suggestions thing. They get good articles to read.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Pocket's Article View is optional. Firefox has Reader View built in. Special handling for top sites could be built in. Special handling for any site could use a protocol designed for privacy like malware protection does. People who want suggestions could opt in.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

>you can always turn it off on your Firefox and never come across it again // Are you aware that they reenabled it for users who had removed it (and of course made it a non-removable plugin in the first place), not sure if you were being sarcastic? I still don't understand what Mozilla got out of forcing Pocket on people.