11 ms·

Promoted Add-ons Pilot

153 points by ameshkov 6y ago

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Seems like a reasonable choice to bring in some revenue and also scale up their extension review team. I personally prefer to trust an app almost solely based on the permissions it asks for, but many of the "Recommend Extensions" have wider permissions, and I suppose the fact that Mozilla has reviewed them comforts me a bit. The fact that Mozilla will only promote/market extensions which have been reviewed by humans for security and privacy issues is a big step up over pretty much everyone else.
bartvk 6y ago
I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries" I've got two extensions which I'm really fond of: "I don't care about cookies" (1), and its paid version "No thanks" (2). The creator, Daniel, lives in Croatia and thus they won't be able to join this program. I hope the country limitation is lifted soon. 1) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-about-cookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a... 2) https://www.no-thanks-extension.com/ https://www.no-thanks-extension.com/
- leecb 6y ago
  Perhaps users in one of the accepted countries might be willing to pay for the review as a way of supporting the plugin? I definitely would be willing to contribute (directly / indirectly) to support review of plugins that I use.
- ffpip 6y ago
  FYI, you don't need another extension for the 'Don't care about cookies' Go to the home page and click the 'AdBlock Plus' link to add to uBlock Origin - https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ 1 less addon with access to all sites you visit. To remove cookie banners permanently on lesser known sites, follow this 30 second guide by the dev - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o
  - lukaa 6y ago
    Yes, this addon looks like repackaging and selling someone others open source work. I'm really not sorry for that author.
    - ffpip 6y ago
      It has some extra features. i don't think it is a repackage. You can do those with uBlock Origin, but users don't want to mess with extensions and want extensions to work out of the box, so they install many extensions leading to malware and privacy issues.
    - bartvk 6y ago
      That's a pretty hefty statement that really needs more than just you thinking so, in my opinion.
      - lukaa 6y ago
        That's why I said ''It looks like'' not ''It is''. When you have Ublock this really looks unnecessary.
        ufedvjot13467 6y ago
        Ublock is the one that was swiped from the original creator's hands under the guise of maintenance support while the original creator's time was scarce. Ublock origin is the one to use, and is maintained by the original creator. I'd link to sources, but it's too easy for me to cherry pick... I'd recommend looking around to see if what you find corroborates with what I've stated.
        bartvk 6y ago
        Maybe, but you'd certainly have to put in a lot of time into getting it right.
    - kiboke 6y ago
      I'm the author. I maintain both the "I don't care about cookies" and the premium "No, thanks" extension and the filter list. All by myself, for the last 8-9 years. Please don't write stuff you didn't recheck first. While the list is a cool addition for those who can't install the extension, it really can't do much when cookie policy needs to be accepted for the website to work properly. The extension accepts policies automatically when it's needed. Cheers, Daniel
- feanaro 6y ago
  A bit of a tangent, but I noticed the developer says this on the website: > By using it, you explicitly allow websites to do whatever they want with cookies they set on your computer (which they mostly do anyway, whether you allow them or not). Taking GDPR into account, this seems wrong, since GDPR enforces opt-in, not opt-out. Therefore, a notification only gives you an opportunity to opt in and blocking the notification should leave the website with no permissions.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide it. Sites like Facebook and Ghacks automatically opt you in if you start scrolling down, because they said they would do this in the banner they show. You didn't read it, because you were blocking it with the extension. The dev is just trying to save himself from silly lawsuits.
    - feanaro 6y ago
      > GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide it. Do you have a source on this? I'm pretty certain this right is not dependent on reading the banner nor even the existence of a banner.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      The only thing that a banner "by scrolling down you opt in to something" means according to GDPR is that the people who wrote that banner are liars. Quoting GDPR definitions (Art 4.12), '‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes [..]'. If the site owner wants to assert that the user provided consent, it's up to them to demonstrate that they fulfilled all these criteria. If they assert that a particular action (e.g. scrolling in this case) indicates consent, then they have the burden of proof to convince the regulator or the court that the action was unambiguous, that it's clear that reasonable people would only take that action with the intent to opt-in, and not because of some unrelated reason such as wanting to read the content below. The legality of various opt-in 'dark patterns' has been tested in EU courts already before GDPR, and it's not considered legally valid if it systematically misrepresents the actual user intent and wishes. The appropriateness of any technical measure can be trivially tested with a user survey - get 100 random people to use the site for 5 minutes, and after the "opt in" action is completed, ask them whether they know that they "opted in", whether they know to what they opted in, and whether they really intended to opt in or not - and if not, then your method for "collecting consent" does not work and the things you recorded - actions, clicks, even physical signatures in a 'meatspace' setting - do not give you any legal permission whatsoever, they're meaningless. The one thing they can do with that banner and scrolling is to cover their information requirements, where they have the right to do some thing even if the user disagrees (much less opts in), but they are required to notify the users that they are doing that thing. But there it makes all sense that the user can choose to delete that banner if they want to, it's like the notifications in supermarkets that they have cameras - they're required to display them, but the users don't need to read them if they don't care.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  Well, the pilot program will only include 12 addons, so it's highly unlikely that any individual creator will actually get into the pilot.
- Cyphase 6y ago
  That whole bullet point reads as follows: > You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries. (If you’re interested in participating but live outside these regions, please sign up to join the waitlist. We’re currently looking into how we can expand to more countries.) Specifically note the last sentence.
  - bartvk 6y ago
    I saw that sentence about it, but accepting 7 out of more than 200 countries seems incredibly limiting to me. The bit about expansion, it seems not much more than a vague promise.
shahsyed 6y ago
This is the exact same thing they said they wouldn't do, and now they're doing it. This is very unfortunate. I'm not liking how the future is looking here. Fired a bunch of people, then announce a partnership with Google, and now this.
- lykr0n 6y ago
  The company needs money. They're the only browser out there not directly controlled by Google & Apple.
  - aninteger 6y ago
    Do they though? https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-google-search-deal/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go...
    - TheChaplain 6y ago
      Yes. It's unwise to depend on a sole source of income.
      - ffpip 6y ago
        I don't think browsers can make money so easily, except in the case of Opera which started collecting browsing history to show full page ads.
      - jrott 6y ago
        Yeah this seems like an ok experiment so they aren't totally dependent on google for income.
    - MCOfficer 6y ago
      they just had to lay off dozens.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    Step 1: fire everybody who isn't a programmer. Step 2: budget problem is solved.
1024core 6y ago
Mozilla makes a gazillion dollars from Google for being the default search engine. They get free labor from volunteers all over the world, being OSS and all that. So what do they need extra money for??
- ChrisSD 6y ago
  Mozilla gets a few hundred million from Google. This may sound like a lot to you but it's pocket change to Google. They spend way more on their own browser as well as getting "free labor from volunteers". There's a reason there's now so few independent browser engines.
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    A lot of it has to do with how much parties like Google have driven up the complexity of web standards.
    - dageshi 6y ago
      In the old days we used to complain about Microsoft for not keeping up with standards and holding the web back. We can't have it both ways.
      - bartvk 6y ago
        Aren't you painting it a bit as an either-or situation? It's clear to me that Google is moving towards a web where the browser basically discloses all OS-level APIS on the Javascript level. But browser makers can pick and choose what they want to implement. And we end users can pick the browers we like.
        franga2000 6y ago
        > But browser makers can pick and choose what they want to implement. And we end users can pick the browers we like. Unfortunately that doesn't actually work like that in practice. We don't get to pick all of the websites we use and we certainly don't get to pick which APIs their developers use to make them. This in turn limits both your freedom to choose the browser you want and the browser vendor's freedom to choose what to implement. As fun as it is to blame Google for the fall of the open Web, a big part of the blame lies with the developers that use those APIs without regard for their status.
loraa 6y ago
They are runs by SJWs now so what do you expect?
ffpip 6y ago
More extensions need to be reviewed. This seems like a good way to do it. I only install recommended or community promoted addons, since I am not capable of reviewing the code.
Gys 6y ago
Maybe a first step of turning the add-ons into a kind of paid app store? Worked well for some others ;-) If eventually some kind of payments would be possible, Forefox could transform into a kind of platform and bring completely new possibilities.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  It's the opposite of a paid app store. Instead of users paying to download apps, developers are paying to list them.
  - Gys 6y ago
    Apple and Google require a fee just to register. It is also possible to pay them for more exposure. Just saying this might only be a first step. Tipping their toes, see what is possible. Might work out differently. Or not at all, or the same ;-)
  - ohyeshedid 6y ago
    Which usually comes with some percentage of devs looking to recoup that cost. I'm hoping this doesn't lead to in-add-on advertising conglomerates being able to dominate these sections.
pkaye 6y ago
What is the difficulty in accepting payment from more countries. Don't most of the payment providers like Stripe support a broad range of countries.
- netsharc 6y ago
  If you take money in exchange for services in a country, then you have to deal with taxes and regulations of that country...
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Is it though? Mozilla would still be providing the service based in their country of incorporation and where their website is hosted regardless of where the customer is based. As long as they comply with the regulation of their host country (export restrictions, sanctions, etc) they should be in the clear.
the_duke 6y ago
There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty small (<= 1000). The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin. It will be detrimental to open source/hobby add-ons in general, unless Mozilla includes those in the review program for free. Overall, I can't see how this will bring in any considerable amount of revenue, not even considering the labour cost of manual review. At least while keeping shady actors out. I can imagine this just to be an effort to balance out the costs of curating the store, while still bringing in a bit of additional money. I'm tentatively supportive, assuming they provide free reviews for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the promotions they allow.
- random_dork1 6y ago
  Fair point about comercial vs open and non-commercial, but until we see what Mozilla actually does, I wouldn't choose the pessimistic view. I can imagine why not all details are addressed here. Seems like big part of the community is very negative towards Mozilla and for sure they extremely careful with what they say and what they promise.
- bsaul 6y ago
  There is definitely another way to look at it: Having mozilla people review your add on so that they officially say it is « safe » from tracking, malware, privacy intrusion, etc.
- jngonsfip 6y ago
  > the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin. The whole point is for people to pay to have their add-on manually vetted by Firefox staff to verify that it meets the recommendation standards. As the article says, this process is repeated regularly to account for updates. > I'm tentatively supportive, IF they provide free reviews for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the promotions they allow. No mention of this in the announcement though... This is already how it works, every recommended add-on has been manually reviewed. The article says that they will use this to expand the reviewing process, not to replace it. They also say, "During the pilot program, these services will be provided to a small number of participants without cost." The extent of the two promotional "levels" are clearly outlined as well. This is just a way for companies to get their add-ons on the fast track to wide adoption by having them reviewed for policy compliance and, if they choose to pay more, added to a promotional section to increase visibility. The Twitter-style hot take to find a flaw right away is not warranted.
gnicholas 6y ago
I don't understand what exactly it means to be reviewed. I have an addon and they review every time I update it. [1] I provide them with source code, and they often have issues with this or that, and we make changes to satisfy them. If this isn't reviewing, what is? It makes it seem like this new program is less about actually reviewing (which they already do) and more about pushing for advertising revenue. That's a fair thing to do, but it's weird to frame it as if reviewing isn't already happening. 1: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/beelinereader/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/beelinereader...
- edjrage 6y ago
  The second paragraph of the article answers your question. Recommended extensions go through a stricter review and, if approved, are then "prominently recommended on AMO and other Mozilla channels". Mozilla has been doing this curation "for free" and at their own discretion; now they're adding a paid "shortcut" for anyone whose extensions are under their radar.
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    I guess my point is that they've been looking at things pretty darn strictly already, poking through our source code and asking for all sorts of changes, even between submissions (that's right—we'd just be sitting there minding our own business, and we'd get an email saying we'd be pulled from the store if we didn't address issue). And to be clear, we have never collected any user-linked browsing data or even usage data, so it's not like we're a high-risk addon. If what we've experienced isn't considered a strict review, I'd hate to see what the next level looks like.
hartator 6y ago
I don’t fully understand the positivity here. Isn’t Firefox sell itself as a non-profit?
- marsrover 6y ago
  I think the positivity comes from the fact that Mozilla has struggled to survive since its inception and is generally a good company.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    Except when they fired basically all their talent. I don't really have any love for them after this. Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.
    - leeoniya 6y ago
      if they asked their advanced users to pitch in $10/mo to keep at least some of that talent and to ween off google revenue, i doubt any of us would have had issues. but they did the most absurd thing possible :(
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        Haven't they been asking for that for years?
        leeoniya 6y ago
        it has always been impossible to donate directly for firefox or any specific mozilla initiative. any donations just got black-holed with questionable sideshow shit continuing to happen. i stopped donating at that point; that's not how i want to "vote with my wallet". really bummed about the whole thing.
        abawany 6y ago
        I specify in the note where I want the donation to go to when I send a donation (e.g. "for Thunderbird"); I have received notes back from the Thunderbird team referencing the donation, which satisfies the question in mind as to whether my donation preference was respected.
TimLeland 6y ago
This sounds like a good idea. I was lucky to get my Weather Extension listed as a recommended extension. There is extra work involved and the code reviews are strict. I plan on submitting my Link Shortener extension to see if I can get it promoted.
- antman 6y ago
  Any comment or key points from the procedure?
coldtea 6y ago
Yeah, what will help live up a moribund (share wise) browser platform better than paid add-ons?
anoncake 6y ago
I bet they're going to make bribing Mozilla a condition to get on the whitelist for mobile Firefox. Which explains why it exists.
- jamienicol 6y ago
  It's hardly a bribe though, is it? The allowlist exists so it can guarantee users install add-ons which work, and don't break their browser. Both reviewing and adding support for required APIs costs money.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Not putting artificial restrictions into the browser is free.
    - jamienicol 6y ago
      It's really not. I work on Firefox. Just yesterday I spent some time helping a user debug an issue they had, and it turned out to be caused by them flipping a hidden pref in about:config. This is not uncommon, it takes up my time and my colleagues' time, which costs money.
      - anoncake 6y ago
        We aren't talking about hidden preferences but about add-ons. And if you don't want to support people who installed add-ons you didn't verify, don't support people who installed add-ons you didn't verify.
        jamienicol 6y ago
        It's not a huge leap to see how the same could apply to add-ons too, it frequently does even on desktop. It would be many times more likely for the new android Firefox, hence the existence of the allowlist. Not to mention that some of the restrictions aren't artificial at all. As for support, a) we'd like to support all of our users, and b) it often takes a lot of support time until you establish that an add-on or hidden preference is responsible.
Animats 6y ago
I just applied. I don't want my add-on "promoted". I just want to get rid of the Mozilla message: "This is not monitored for security through Mozilla's Recommended Extensions program. Make sure you trust it before installing." I wrote back to Mozilla: "This is an old add-on. I just want to get rid of the warning label. How much will that cost me?" I feel like I'm asking the extortionist goon how much it's going to cost me to not be beaten up.
- laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago
  What's so bad about reminding people to "Make sure you trust it before installing"?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The part where there is only one party who can make the scary warning go away and doing so requires paying them.
    - chrisweekly 6y ago
      to be fair, that one party is trying to account for a pretty diverse set of constraints. I'm not in the "they can do no wrong" camp, but it's pretty easy to beat up on nearly any company or entity involved w software (name one and I'll list a handful of gripes). much harder to mostly get it right, as I think mozilla does.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      How would you want the system structured? You’re paying for Mozilla to vouch for your add-on and say that it’s safe. I mean you could try to do a web of trust kinda thing but you would still end up paying someone. I get where you’re coming from that they could just not have the scary warning but the fact that it’s hosted on Mozilla’s site without a warning already lends a lot of legitimacy to what should be seen as “some random person’s add on.”
      - Animats 6y ago
laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago
Firefox should just stop tiptoeing and absorbing useful addons regularly. Starting with uBlockOrigin and youtube enhancer. Make adblock be a first class feature that you enabled/whitelist in the main browser option screen.
surround 6y ago
Mozilla has been recommending a copy-cat extension for ~3 years, despite reports from users and developers. https://twitter.com/Pythux/status/1154403982342852609 https://twitter.com/Pythux/status/1154403982342852609 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1165747661691064322 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1165747661691064322 https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1078 https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1078 This is an unpaid recommendation. Why would I trust Mozilla now that they’re getting paid?
- jamienicol 6y ago
  Is there anything inherently wrong with recommending a "copycat" extension? As long as it complies with the license, why is the fact is has copied an issue? If it is useful for users and passes Mozilla's criteria why should they not recommend it?
gilrain 6y ago
An interesting side effect of an earlier policy means that the sponsored ads for extensions will not be able to be blocked. Firefox extensions are prevented from operating on AMO. This is or was to ensure malicious addons can't interfere with its operation. Now, it also means Mozilla is in the enviable position of offering ads to Firefox users which can not be blocked by Firefox ad blocking extensions. Put another way, if you want to browse AMO ad free, you will need to use a different browser.
- ormax3 6y ago
  Look up `extensions.webextensions.restrictedDomains` in `about:config`, you can remove Mozilla domains from the restricted list.
dzonga 6y ago
things like an os, browser etc are now at utility level. and should be funded through taxes and grants. you know like nato contribution grants but at the un level. everyone needs a reliable, privacy based browser and os. & I would reckon it a human right.
- _odnes 6y ago
  How would state coercion bear better fruit that the love of freedom? I'm not yet a taxpayer, but I'm not looking forward to having my money be wasted on yet another "service" that neither I nor most people would choose to benefit from. I'll wager the postal service is an example of waste of public funds that translates well across borders. Evidence that open source leads to better software abounds. I don't think one could say the same about state-funded anything unless one lives in that fictitious country called Finland.
Vinnl 6y ago
Will people be paying for review (with angry developers of rejected add-ons) or approval (with misaligned incentives to approve them)?

153 points by ameshkov 6y ago

Seems like a reasonable choice to bring in some revenue and also scale up their extension review team. I personally prefer to trust an app almost solely based on the permissions it asks for, but many of the "Recommend Extensions" have wider permissions, and I suppose the fact that Mozilla has reviewed them comforts me a bit. The fact that Mozilla will only promote/market extensions which have been reviewed by humans for security and privacy issues is a big step up over pretty much everyone else.

bartvk 6y ago

I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries" I've got two extensions which I'm really fond of: "I don't care about cookies" (1), and its paid version "No thanks" (2). The creator, Daniel, lives in Croatia and thus they won't be able to join this program. I hope the country limitation is lifted soon. 1) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-about-cookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a... 2) https://www.no-thanks-extension.com/ https://www.no-thanks-extension.com/

leecb 6y ago
Perhaps users in one of the accepted countries might be willing to pay for the review as a way of supporting the plugin? I definitely would be willing to contribute (directly / indirectly) to support review of plugins that I use.
ffpip 6y ago
FYI, you don't need another extension for the 'Don't care about cookies' Go to the home page and click the 'AdBlock Plus' link to add to uBlock Origin - https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ 1 less addon with access to all sites you visit. To remove cookie banners permanently on lesser known sites, follow this 30 second guide by the dev - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o
- lukaa 6y ago
  Yes, this addon looks like repackaging and selling someone others open source work. I'm really not sorry for that author.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    It has some extra features. i don't think it is a repackage. You can do those with uBlock Origin, but users don't want to mess with extensions and want extensions to work out of the box, so they install many extensions leading to malware and privacy issues.
  - bartvk 6y ago
    That's a pretty hefty statement that really needs more than just you thinking so, in my opinion.
    - lukaa 6y ago
      That's why I said ''It looks like'' not ''It is''. When you have Ublock this really looks unnecessary.
      - ufedvjot13467 6y ago
        Ublock is the one that was swiped from the original creator's hands under the guise of maintenance support while the original creator's time was scarce. Ublock origin is the one to use, and is maintained by the original creator. I'd link to sources, but it's too easy for me to cherry pick... I'd recommend looking around to see if what you find corroborates with what I've stated.
      - bartvk 6y ago
        Maybe, but you'd certainly have to put in a lot of time into getting it right.
  - kiboke 6y ago
    I'm the author. I maintain both the "I don't care about cookies" and the premium "No, thanks" extension and the filter list. All by myself, for the last 8-9 years. Please don't write stuff you didn't recheck first. While the list is a cool addition for those who can't install the extension, it really can't do much when cookie policy needs to be accepted for the website to work properly. The extension accepts policies automatically when it's needed. Cheers, Daniel
feanaro 6y ago
A bit of a tangent, but I noticed the developer says this on the website: > By using it, you explicitly allow websites to do whatever they want with cookies they set on your computer (which they mostly do anyway, whether you allow them or not). Taking GDPR into account, this seems wrong, since GDPR enforces opt-in, not opt-out. Therefore, a notification only gives you an opportunity to opt in and blocking the notification should leave the website with no permissions.
- ffpip 6y ago
  GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide it. Sites like Facebook and Ghacks automatically opt you in if you start scrolling down, because they said they would do this in the banner they show. You didn't read it, because you were blocking it with the extension. The dev is just trying to save himself from silly lawsuits.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    > GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide it. Do you have a source on this? I'm pretty certain this right is not dependent on reading the banner nor even the existence of a banner.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    The only thing that a banner "by scrolling down you opt in to something" means according to GDPR is that the people who wrote that banner are liars. Quoting GDPR definitions (Art 4.12), '‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes [..]'. If the site owner wants to assert that the user provided consent, it's up to them to demonstrate that they fulfilled all these criteria. If they assert that a particular action (e.g. scrolling in this case) indicates consent, then they have the burden of proof to convince the regulator or the court that the action was unambiguous, that it's clear that reasonable people would only take that action with the intent to opt-in, and not because of some unrelated reason such as wanting to read the content below. The legality of various opt-in 'dark patterns' has been tested in EU courts already before GDPR, and it's not considered legally valid if it systematically misrepresents the actual user intent and wishes. The appropriateness of any technical measure can be trivially tested with a user survey - get 100 random people to use the site for 5 minutes, and after the "opt in" action is completed, ask them whether they know that they "opted in", whether they know to what they opted in, and whether they really intended to opt in or not - and if not, then your method for "collecting consent" does not work and the things you recorded - actions, clicks, even physical signatures in a 'meatspace' setting - do not give you any legal permission whatsoever, they're meaningless. The one thing they can do with that banner and scrolling is to cover their information requirements, where they have the right to do some thing even if the user disagrees (much less opts in), but they are required to notify the users that they are doing that thing. But there it makes all sense that the user can choose to delete that banner if they want to, it's like the notifications in supermarkets that they have cameras - they're required to display them, but the users don't need to read them if they don't care.
gnicholas 6y ago
Well, the pilot program will only include 12 addons, so it's highly unlikely that any individual creator will actually get into the pilot.
Cyphase 6y ago
That whole bullet point reads as follows: > You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries. (If you’re interested in participating but live outside these regions, please sign up to join the waitlist. We’re currently looking into how we can expand to more countries.) Specifically note the last sentence.
- bartvk 6y ago
  I saw that sentence about it, but accepting 7 out of more than 200 countries seems incredibly limiting to me. The bit about expansion, it seems not much more than a vague promise.

shahsyed 6y ago

This is the exact same thing they said they wouldn't do, and now they're doing it. This is very unfortunate. I'm not liking how the future is looking here. Fired a bunch of people, then announce a partnership with Google, and now this.

lykr0n 6y ago
The company needs money. They're the only browser out there not directly controlled by Google & Apple.
- aninteger 6y ago
  Do they though? https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-google-search-deal/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go...
  - TheChaplain 6y ago
    Yes. It's unwise to depend on a sole source of income.
    - ffpip 6y ago
      I don't think browsers can make money so easily, except in the case of Opera which started collecting browsing history to show full page ads.
    - jrott 6y ago
      Yeah this seems like an ok experiment so they aren't totally dependent on google for income.
  - MCOfficer 6y ago
    they just had to lay off dozens.
- beervirus 6y ago
  Step 1: fire everybody who isn't a programmer. Step 2: budget problem is solved.

1024core 6y ago

Mozilla makes a gazillion dollars from Google for being the default search engine. They get free labor from volunteers all over the world, being OSS and all that. So what do they need extra money for??

ChrisSD 6y ago
Mozilla gets a few hundred million from Google. This may sound like a lot to you but it's pocket change to Google. They spend way more on their own browser as well as getting "free labor from volunteers". There's a reason there's now so few independent browser engines.
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  A lot of it has to do with how much parties like Google have driven up the complexity of web standards.
  - dageshi 6y ago
    In the old days we used to complain about Microsoft for not keeping up with standards and holding the web back. We can't have it both ways.
    - bartvk 6y ago
      Aren't you painting it a bit as an either-or situation? It's clear to me that Google is moving towards a web where the browser basically discloses all OS-level APIS on the Javascript level. But browser makers can pick and choose what they want to implement. And we end users can pick the browers we like.
      - franga2000 6y ago
        > But browser makers can pick and choose what they want to implement. And we end users can pick the browers we like. Unfortunately that doesn't actually work like that in practice. We don't get to pick all of the websites we use and we certainly don't get to pick which APIs their developers use to make them. This in turn limits both your freedom to choose the browser you want and the browser vendor's freedom to choose what to implement. As fun as it is to blame Google for the fall of the open Web, a big part of the blame lies with the developers that use those APIs without regard for their status.

loraa 6y ago

They are runs by SJWs now so what do you expect?

ffpip 6y ago

More extensions need to be reviewed. This seems like a good way to do it. I only install recommended or community promoted addons, since I am not capable of reviewing the code.

Gys 6y ago

Maybe a first step of turning the add-ons into a kind of paid app store? Worked well for some others ;-) If eventually some kind of payments would be possible, Forefox could transform into a kind of platform and bring completely new possibilities.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
It's the opposite of a paid app store. Instead of users paying to download apps, developers are paying to list them.
- Gys 6y ago
  Apple and Google require a fee just to register. It is also possible to pay them for more exposure. Just saying this might only be a first step. Tipping their toes, see what is possible. Might work out differently. Or not at all, or the same ;-)
- ohyeshedid 6y ago
  Which usually comes with some percentage of devs looking to recoup that cost. I'm hoping this doesn't lead to in-add-on advertising conglomerates being able to dominate these sections.

pkaye 6y ago

What is the difficulty in accepting payment from more countries. Don't most of the payment providers like Stripe support a broad range of countries.

netsharc 6y ago
If you take money in exchange for services in a country, then you have to deal with taxes and regulations of that country...
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Is it though? Mozilla would still be providing the service based in their country of incorporation and where their website is hosted regardless of where the customer is based. As long as they comply with the regulation of their host country (export restrictions, sanctions, etc) they should be in the clear.

the_duke 6y ago

There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty small (<= 1000). The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin. It will be detrimental to open source/hobby add-ons in general, unless Mozilla includes those in the review program for free. Overall, I can't see how this will bring in any considerable amount of revenue, not even considering the labour cost of manual review. At least while keeping shady actors out. I can imagine this just to be an effort to balance out the costs of curating the store, while still bringing in a bit of additional money. I'm tentatively supportive, assuming they provide free reviews for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the promotions they allow.

random_dork1 6y ago
Fair point about comercial vs open and non-commercial, but until we see what Mozilla actually does, I wouldn't choose the pessimistic view. I can imagine why not all details are addressed here. Seems like big part of the community is very negative towards Mozilla and for sure they extremely careful with what they say and what they promise.
bsaul 6y ago
There is definitely another way to look at it: Having mozilla people review your add on so that they officially say it is « safe » from tracking, malware, privacy intrusion, etc.
jngonsfip 6y ago
> the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin. The whole point is for people to pay to have their add-on manually vetted by Firefox staff to verify that it meets the recommendation standards. As the article says, this process is repeated regularly to account for updates. > I'm tentatively supportive, IF they provide free reviews for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the promotions they allow. No mention of this in the announcement though... This is already how it works, every recommended add-on has been manually reviewed. The article says that they will use this to expand the reviewing process, not to replace it. They also say, "During the pilot program, these services will be provided to a small number of participants without cost." The extent of the two promotional "levels" are clearly outlined as well. This is just a way for companies to get their add-ons on the fast track to wide adoption by having them reviewed for policy compliance and, if they choose to pay more, added to a promotional section to increase visibility. The Twitter-style hot take to find a flaw right away is not warranted.

gnicholas 6y ago

I don't understand what exactly it means to be reviewed. I have an addon and they review every time I update it. [1] I provide them with source code, and they often have issues with this or that, and we make changes to satisfy them. If this isn't reviewing, what is? It makes it seem like this new program is less about actually reviewing (which they already do) and more about pushing for advertising revenue. That's a fair thing to do, but it's weird to frame it as if reviewing isn't already happening. 1: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/beelinereader/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/beelinereader...

edjrage 6y ago
The second paragraph of the article answers your question. Recommended extensions go through a stricter review and, if approved, are then "prominently recommended on AMO and other Mozilla channels". Mozilla has been doing this curation "for free" and at their own discretion; now they're adding a paid "shortcut" for anyone whose extensions are under their radar.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  I guess my point is that they've been looking at things pretty darn strictly already, poking through our source code and asking for all sorts of changes, even between submissions (that's right—we'd just be sitting there minding our own business, and we'd get an email saying we'd be pulled from the store if we didn't address issue). And to be clear, we have never collected any user-linked browsing data or even usage data, so it's not like we're a high-risk addon. If what we've experienced isn't considered a strict review, I'd hate to see what the next level looks like.

hartator 6y ago

I don’t fully understand the positivity here. Isn’t Firefox sell itself as a non-profit?

marsrover 6y ago
I think the positivity comes from the fact that Mozilla has struggled to survive since its inception and is generally a good company.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Except when they fired basically all their talent. I don't really have any love for them after this. Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.
  - leeoniya 6y ago
    if they asked their advanced users to pitch in $10/mo to keep at least some of that talent and to ween off google revenue, i doubt any of us would have had issues. but they did the most absurd thing possible :(
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Haven't they been asking for that for years?
      - leeoniya 6y ago
        it has always been impossible to donate directly for firefox or any specific mozilla initiative. any donations just got black-holed with questionable sideshow shit continuing to happen. i stopped donating at that point; that's not how i want to "vote with my wallet". really bummed about the whole thing.
        abawany 6y ago
        I specify in the note where I want the donation to go to when I send a donation (e.g. "for Thunderbird"); I have received notes back from the Thunderbird team referencing the donation, which satisfies the question in mind as to whether my donation preference was respected.

TimLeland 6y ago

This sounds like a good idea. I was lucky to get my Weather Extension listed as a recommended extension. There is extra work involved and the code reviews are strict. I plan on submitting my Link Shortener extension to see if I can get it promoted.

antman 6y ago
Any comment or key points from the procedure?

coldtea 6y ago

Yeah, what will help live up a moribund (share wise) browser platform better than paid add-ons?

anoncake 6y ago

I bet they're going to make bribing Mozilla a condition to get on the whitelist for mobile Firefox. Which explains why it exists.

jamienicol 6y ago
It's hardly a bribe though, is it? The allowlist exists so it can guarantee users install add-ons which work, and don't break their browser. Both reviewing and adding support for required APIs costs money.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Not putting artificial restrictions into the browser is free.
  - jamienicol 6y ago
    It's really not. I work on Firefox. Just yesterday I spent some time helping a user debug an issue they had, and it turned out to be caused by them flipping a hidden pref in about:config. This is not uncommon, it takes up my time and my colleagues' time, which costs money.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      We aren't talking about hidden preferences but about add-ons. And if you don't want to support people who installed add-ons you didn't verify, don't support people who installed add-ons you didn't verify.
      - jamienicol 6y ago
        It's not a huge leap to see how the same could apply to add-ons too, it frequently does even on desktop. It would be many times more likely for the new android Firefox, hence the existence of the allowlist. Not to mention that some of the restrictions aren't artificial at all. As for support, a) we'd like to support all of our users, and b) it often takes a lot of support time until you establish that an add-on or hidden preference is responsible.

Animats 6y ago

I just applied. I don't want my add-on "promoted". I just want to get rid of the Mozilla message: "This is not monitored for security through Mozilla's Recommended Extensions program. Make sure you trust it before installing." I wrote back to Mozilla: "This is an old add-on. I just want to get rid of the warning label. How much will that cost me?" I feel like I'm asking the extortionist goon how much it's going to cost me to not be beaten up.

laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago
What's so bad about reminding people to "Make sure you trust it before installing"?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The part where there is only one party who can make the scary warning go away and doing so requires paying them.
  - chrisweekly 6y ago
    to be fair, that one party is trying to account for a pretty diverse set of constraints. I'm not in the "they can do no wrong" camp, but it's pretty easy to beat up on nearly any company or entity involved w software (name one and I'll list a handful of gripes). much harder to mostly get it right, as I think mozilla does.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    How would you want the system structured? You’re paying for Mozilla to vouch for your add-on and say that it’s safe. I mean you could try to do a web of trust kinda thing but you would still end up paying someone. I get where you’re coming from that they could just not have the scary warning but the fact that it’s hosted on Mozilla’s site without a warning already lends a lot of legitimacy to what should be seen as “some random person’s add on.”
    - Animats 6y ago

laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago

Firefox should just stop tiptoeing and absorbing useful addons regularly. Starting with uBlockOrigin and youtube enhancer. Make adblock be a first class feature that you enabled/whitelist in the main browser option screen.

surround 6y ago

Mozilla has been recommending a copy-cat extension for ~3 years, despite reports from users and developers. https://twitter.com/Pythux/status/1154403982342852609 https://twitter.com/Pythux/status/1154403982342852609 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1165747661691064322 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1165747661691064322 https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1078 https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1078 This is an unpaid recommendation. Why would I trust Mozilla now that they’re getting paid?

jamienicol 6y ago
Is there anything inherently wrong with recommending a "copycat" extension? As long as it complies with the license, why is the fact is has copied an issue? If it is useful for users and passes Mozilla's criteria why should they not recommend it?

gilrain 6y ago

An interesting side effect of an earlier policy means that the sponsored ads for extensions will not be able to be blocked. Firefox extensions are prevented from operating on AMO. This is or was to ensure malicious addons can't interfere with its operation. Now, it also means Mozilla is in the enviable position of offering ads to Firefox users which can not be blocked by Firefox ad blocking extensions. Put another way, if you want to browse AMO ad free, you will need to use a different browser.

ormax3 6y ago
Look up `extensions.webextensions.restrictedDomains` in `about:config`, you can remove Mozilla domains from the restricted list.

dzonga 6y ago

things like an os, browser etc are now at utility level. and should be funded through taxes and grants. you know like nato contribution grants but at the un level. everyone needs a reliable, privacy based browser and os. & I would reckon it a human right.

_odnes 6y ago
How would state coercion bear better fruit that the love of freedom? I'm not yet a taxpayer, but I'm not looking forward to having my money be wasted on yet another "service" that neither I nor most people would choose to benefit from. I'll wager the postal service is an example of waste of public funds that translates well across borders. Evidence that open source leads to better software abounds. I don't think one could say the same about state-funded anything unless one lives in that fictitious country called Finland.

Vinnl 6y ago

Will people be paying for review (with angry developers of rejected add-ons) or approval (with misaligned incentives to approve them)?