5 ms·

I use FF and Chrome, but the sites I visit are distinctly split between these two browsers (i.e. I strictly browse some sites on one of these two browser). Fir

I use FF and Chrome, but the sites I visit are distinctly split between these two browsers (i.e. I strictly browse some sites on one of these two browser). First, I want FF to be around for a long time to make sure there's no browser monopoly by Chrome. That's the primary reason I use FF. I also trust FF more regarding privacy. So I use FF to log in on sites like my banks, credit cards, and government sites (like IRS and social security). I even use FF to check my Gmail. I use Chrome to browse less trustworthy sites across the internet, and sites that I really don't mind Google tracking my visit such as HN, Reddit, etc. The only Google product that I use on Chrome is YouTube. :) Thank you, FF engineering team for keeping alternative alive on the web.

verroq 6y ago
Maybe FF team can answer why they keep pushing crap like Pocket down our throats.
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  I'm a long-time Firefox user. I often hear people with savage opinions about Pocket. Can you state what hardship this has caused you? Did it violate your privacy? Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space? Is it helping to fund child slave labor? The only time I am aware of Pocket is when someone online reports how this molehill is a mountain to them. I also wonder where they place their mouths while browsing that they experience it as being shoved down their throats. Imagine how much time you spend on your chosen browser to configure it how you like it. How much extra work is it to set extensions.pocket.enabled to false in about:config if Pocket is causing so much pain?
  - core-questions 6y ago
    > Can you state what hardship this has caused you? It subjected me to a bunch of banal content on my homepage that I didn't want or like. > Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space? It occupied a second or two of my attention when opening a new tab. Sometimes I got suckered into clicking on an article, which I almost immediately regretted every time. > this molehill is a mountain to them. I clicked to disable it and moved on with my life. I find it unfortunate but not worth more than the two seconds of distraction it already took from me.
    - untog 6y ago
      > It subjected me to a bunch of banal content on my homepage that I didn't want or like. Three dot menu -> Remove Section. Ta-da.
      - core-questions 6y ago
        Yeah, I said already in the post that I did this, thanks anyhow
    - godelski 6y ago
      I'm not so sure why you're so upset about something that can be removed with two clicks. If that's your only real complaint with a browser, I'd say that's a pretty successful browser.
    - asadlionpk 6y ago
      You are using a browser for free that is decades worth of devtime and effort, gifted to you by its developers and you cry about a config change that takes 2 seconds?
    - acolumb 6y ago
      That's why I use high-quality firefox forks like Waterfox, which keeps the most popular Firefox features and security while removing things like phoning home or Pocket.
  - verroq 6y ago
    Its existence signifies that something fundamentally is wrong with Firefox and where Mozilla spends its resources. If it is so unpopular, how come Firefox hasn’t axed it? How come only popular things like advanced extension support gets axed? These are the questions I ask when I use Firefox. Why are they spending time and resources on horrific products like Pocket when they could be literally improving their browser. Why is it pushed so aggressively and shamelessly? Pocket is the perfect representation of all the grievances against Firefox rolled into an annoying in-your-face product and so of course it’s going to be the punching bag.
    - godelski 6y ago
      > Its existence signifies that something fundamentally is wrong with Firefox and where Mozilla spends its resources. Why? I don't understand this. Mozilla needs to make money somehow. Unfortunately we don't live in a post scarcity world where programmers just contribute to OSS because they enjoy it and want to make the world better. Currently they do it because of those things AND because they need an income. Unfortunately things still cost money. (I think this answers your last few questions as well too) > If it is so unpopular, how come Firefox hasn’t axed it? I think this is sampling and internal bias. Have you seen the numbers of clicks? I haven't. But I rather like pocket.
      - verroq 6y ago
        They are allowed to make good products too you know. If Pocket is the best they got then they deserve go to zero. If they have a product so polarising then maybe it shouldn’t be bundled as bloat to the browser.
        tasty_freeze 6y ago
        verroq -- can you tell me which browser you use that doesn't suffer from any feature you don't like? Or is it a philosophical problem where a non-profit adding a small feature to raise revenue means it should be abandoned and died, but if a for profit company building a browser can incorporate all manner of devious and privacy harming features but that is acceptable because you expect so little from for-profit companies?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Pocket's backend remains closed-source in spite of Mozilla claiming they'd open it, which spits in the face of the moral position they're supposed to hold. It's also set up so that by default it displays ads on the new tab page. While obviously I can disable this, the fact that I have to fight Firefox at all to make it not show me ads and not push me towards a proprietary service rather sacrifices their whole "fights for the user" position. Also on a pragmatic note, I go through enough profiles that disabling it is actually a reoccurring irritation. > I often hear people with savage opinions about Pocket. Can you state what hardship this has caused you? Did it violate your privacy? Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space? Is it helping to fund child slave labor? It does in fact impose extra clicks and occupy screen space. People are in fact allowed to care about ethical issues short of child slave labor. > when someone online reports how this molehill is a mountain to them I'm so sorry; I didn't realize that your priorities were the universal standard. > I also wonder where they place their mouths while browsing that they experience it as being shoved down their throats. And I wonder whether you're incapable of understanding a metaphor or simply revel in dismissing legitimate concerns.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120982 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120804
- sleepyams 6y ago
  I actually find Pocket to be very useful as a cross-platform bookmarking app

verroq 6y ago

Maybe FF team can answer why they keep pushing crap like Pocket down our throats.

tasty_freeze 6y ago
I'm a long-time Firefox user. I often hear people with savage opinions about Pocket. Can you state what hardship this has caused you? Did it violate your privacy? Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space? Is it helping to fund child slave labor? The only time I am aware of Pocket is when someone online reports how this molehill is a mountain to them. I also wonder where they place their mouths while browsing that they experience it as being shoved down their throats. Imagine how much time you spend on your chosen browser to configure it how you like it. How much extra work is it to set extensions.pocket.enabled to false in about:config if Pocket is causing so much pain?
- core-questions 6y ago
  > Can you state what hardship this has caused you? It subjected me to a bunch of banal content on my homepage that I didn't want or like. > Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space? It occupied a second or two of my attention when opening a new tab. Sometimes I got suckered into clicking on an article, which I almost immediately regretted every time. > this molehill is a mountain to them. I clicked to disable it and moved on with my life. I find it unfortunate but not worth more than the two seconds of distraction it already took from me.
  - untog 6y ago
    > It subjected me to a bunch of banal content on my homepage that I didn't want or like. Three dot menu -> Remove Section. Ta-da.
    - core-questions 6y ago
      Yeah, I said already in the post that I did this, thanks anyhow
  - godelski 6y ago
    I'm not so sure why you're so upset about something that can be removed with two clicks. If that's your only real complaint with a browser, I'd say that's a pretty successful browser.
  - asadlionpk 6y ago
    You are using a browser for free that is decades worth of devtime and effort, gifted to you by its developers and you cry about a config change that takes 2 seconds?
  - acolumb 6y ago
    That's why I use high-quality firefox forks like Waterfox, which keeps the most popular Firefox features and security while removing things like phoning home or Pocket.
- verroq 6y ago
  Its existence signifies that something fundamentally is wrong with Firefox and where Mozilla spends its resources. If it is so unpopular, how come Firefox hasn’t axed it? How come only popular things like advanced extension support gets axed? These are the questions I ask when I use Firefox. Why are they spending time and resources on horrific products like Pocket when they could be literally improving their browser. Why is it pushed so aggressively and shamelessly? Pocket is the perfect representation of all the grievances against Firefox rolled into an annoying in-your-face product and so of course it’s going to be the punching bag.
  - godelski 6y ago
    > Its existence signifies that something fundamentally is wrong with Firefox and where Mozilla spends its resources. Why? I don't understand this. Mozilla needs to make money somehow. Unfortunately we don't live in a post scarcity world where programmers just contribute to OSS because they enjoy it and want to make the world better. Currently they do it because of those things AND because they need an income. Unfortunately things still cost money. (I think this answers your last few questions as well too) > If it is so unpopular, how come Firefox hasn’t axed it? I think this is sampling and internal bias. Have you seen the numbers of clicks? I haven't. But I rather like pocket.
    - verroq 6y ago
      They are allowed to make good products too you know. If Pocket is the best they got then they deserve go to zero. If they have a product so polarising then maybe it shouldn’t be bundled as bloat to the browser.
      - tasty_freeze 6y ago
        verroq -- can you tell me which browser you use that doesn't suffer from any feature you don't like? Or is it a philosophical problem where a non-profit adding a small feature to raise revenue means it should be abandoned and died, but if a for profit company building a browser can incorporate all manner of devious and privacy harming features but that is acceptable because you expect so little from for-profit companies?
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Pocket's backend remains closed-source in spite of Mozilla claiming they'd open it, which spits in the face of the moral position they're supposed to hold. It's also set up so that by default it displays ads on the new tab page. While obviously I can disable this, the fact that I have to fight Firefox at all to make it not show me ads and not push me towards a proprietary service rather sacrifices their whole "fights for the user" position. Also on a pragmatic note, I go through enough profiles that disabling it is actually a reoccurring irritation. > I often hear people with savage opinions about Pocket. Can you state what hardship this has caused you? Did it violate your privacy? Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space? Is it helping to fund child slave labor? It does in fact impose extra clicks and occupy screen space. People are in fact allowed to care about ethical issues short of child slave labor. > when someone online reports how this molehill is a mountain to them I'm so sorry; I didn't realize that your priorities were the universal standard. > I also wonder where they place their mouths while browsing that they experience it as being shoved down their throats. And I wonder whether you're incapable of understanding a metaphor or simply revel in dismissing legitimate concerns.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120982 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120804
sleepyams 6y ago
I actually find Pocket to be very useful as a cross-platform bookmarking app