51 ms·
As someone who has used Firefox since v0.* I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately. > relevant suggestions from our trusted partner
by eCa 5y ago
As someone who has used Firefox since v0.* I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately.
> relevant suggestions from our trusted partners
The suggestions are not relevant to, and the partners not trusted by, me.
- zenlf 5y agoYes I share the same sentiment. This “Privacy First Data Sharing Platform” for example https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/take-control-over-your-data-with-rally-a-novel-privacy-first-data-sharing-platform/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/take-control-over-your-d...
- davidsergey 5y agoIndeed. They should just state "It's an Ad". I doubt they actually going to try every product that they are advertising, to make wording "suggestion" be even close to the truth. That said, I don't understand, why would somebody use Firefox instead of Chrome, Edge, or Safari if they ad in-browser ads.
- dropmann 5y agoFor example because Chrome treats Google cookies differently [1]? This is a red flag for people. With Firefox you at least know what you get. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18064537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18064537
- davidsergey 5y agoI didn't know about it, thanks. But I'm software engineer, and I didn't know about it. I don't think most (as in 95%+, even in tech) people would know difference to care. My point is visibly – firefox seem to be just as ad-hungry as competition. They could be better behind the scenes, but customer wouldn't know it.
- mszcz 5y agoYou know what I miss? Software I can pay for. I'd happily shell out couple of bucks a year for a browser. Or a social network. I'd be more than happy to pay regularly for something that requires regular, constant, maintenance, upkeep, servers, salaries. But no, somehow humanity landed on free+ads. Ugh. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just grumpy.
- gear54rus 5y agoIf they were sure enough people would pay for something they'd just make it paid AND shove ads in it.
- mszcz 5y agoTrue, and it's already been happening with TVs from what I recall. You know what I wonder? Where's the hatred threshold for ordinary people? When you see an ad in a middle of something and you're so pissed that you'll go out of your way to specifically avoid the product that's shoved in your throat. I know mine's been reached, but, hey, I'm just an grumpy asshole ;)
- absove 5y agoWasn't there some google cookie in firefox that couldn't be deleted at some point, related to safe browsing? Then when people kept complaining they just hid it from the UI? I honestly don't know what the situation is now though.
- commoner 5y agoYes, Google sends a cookie in the responses from its Safe Browsing service. As of Firefox 27 (released in February 2014), Firefox has sandboxed the Google Safe Browsing cookie in a separate cookie jar, isolated from normal web browsing. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368255#c61 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368255#c61
- account42 5y agoGiving Google the power to decide what users are and are not allowed to download is another thing that Mozilla should not be doing. Guess what Mozilla's response is when Google lists something they shouldn't? "Take it up with Google". And you think Google supports those who they defame better than their usual customers? No. This is not a hypothetical scenario.
- jefftk 5y ago> Chrome treats Google cookies differently This was released in Chrome 69 and rolled back in Chrome 70: https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-based-your-feedback/ https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-base... (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
- toyg 5y agoBecause all the browsers you mention are controlled by megacorps who want to own the web for their own gain. As mismanaged as Mozilla is, they are in it to make the web a decent place for users. This said, of course, I hate this "feature" and I'll make sure I disable it.
- mrtesthah 5y ago> As mismanaged as Mozilla is, they are in it to make the web a decent place for users. Placing ads in the search bar and datamining everything you search for is failing at this mission.
- toyg 5y agoI don't disagree, but it's still a somewhat partial failure. The others still do much worse.
- OneTimePetes 5y agocuisses de grenouille it is sir, coming right up..
- toyg 5y agoWhat would the alternative be? Any Chromium-based project is tainted. I used to like Konqueror, but that's a KDE-only browser. What else? Mozilla needs reform as an institution, it needs new leadership. But its raison d'être is still very much there.
- OneTimePetes 5y agoA fork from firefox, stripping it regularly of the add-tech, updating only from its own trusted source. Basically a open source project were the downstream is considered hostile.
- 5y ago
- ubercow13 5y agoBecause it’s still a better browser in many ways.
- mhaberl 5y agoThen you won't enable it. What is there to dislike?
- elaus 5y agoHe wrote that he dislikes the language – and so do I. I feel like this kind of marketing language is only there to obfuscate the real reason why things are done. They want to include ads to help finance Mozilla – the main goal isn't "to enhance and speed up your searching experience". Calling the introduction of ads an enhancement for the user is just dishonest.
- GNOMES 5y agoIf the context algorithm is good enough for a user, it could be seen an enhancement + providing funding.
- ptx 5y agoIt's an unambiguous signal that Mozilla is no longer making software to benefit the user but rather to benefit "trusted partners". That's what's to dislike.
- soundnote 5y agoAn American friend checked his browser and it was on without any notification or user interaction.
- AegirLeet 5y agoYeah, it really sucks. I've been using Firefox for 15 years or so but this shit is just so discouraging. Can't we have one piece of good software that doesn't try to shove "relevant" "suggestions" from "trusted" "partners" down our throats? I just want a browser that isn't controlled by the ad mafia.
- Certhas 5y agoA browser is expensive. Currently Firefox is funded (though not controlled) by Google's Ad business. I am all for them reducing their reliance on Google's Ad business. In this sense this is a step _towards_ what you want. I really really dislike them double speaking about this though.
- AegirLeet 5y agoReducing reliance on Google by partnering up with a different ad company instead. What good does that do? I don't want ads anywhere near my browser. Here's what I'd really like them to do: * Stop paying out millions to execs * Focus more on Firefox instead of other side projects * Let me pay for Firefox development directly
- pizza234 5y agoThe Opera browser used to do this, from v5. It lasted a few years (it seem 5, based on Wikipedia), and they ultimately ended up switching to the default engine business model.
- nine_k 5y agoOpera was / is cool and advanced in many regards. But Firefox is open source. This is very important for many reasons.
- Certhas 5y agoThere is so much wishful thinking around this... "me and five other people want to pay, if you just cater to my specific tastes, than the me and these 5 people will happily bankroll your massive engineering effort!" Maybe people would be happier if they had to pay to switch off the ads instead of it just being a setting (/switching default search engine)??
- Certhas 5y agoAgreed. I am completely fine with them trying to run their own ads. It's much better than indirectly funding them through Googles Ads. But just be upfront about what you're doing. This extends to the splash screen as well. No "disable ads" button just "not now" or "settings". In contrast the settings dialogue looks fine.
- Tepix 5y agoI really hate this as well. If there is a "not now" button, why is there no "no and do not remind me, ever" button, too?
- jarofgreen 5y agoAnd the no button needs to be equal prominence (size, location) with the yes button, not hidden away. I understand Mozilla needs money but it is very disappointing to see them do the same dark user patterns as other tech companies.
- jacquesm 5y agoIt's a dark pattern I call 'the consent ratchet'. As soon as you ever get irritated enough and misclick that button is gone for ever and good luck disabling the 'feature' (term used lightly) seven layers of menus down, assuming it can be done at all.
- pseudalopex 5y agoA ratchet is a good analogy. But let's not call it consent.
- jacquesm 5y agoFair enough.
- Leparamour 5y ago>The suggestions are not relevant to "Relevant" is a code word for "we spy on your every move and also share your personal browsing behaviour with our many external partners to serve you relevant ads".
- roca 5y agoThey don't do any of those things, according to the article. Perhaps you didn't read it.
- jfk13 5y agoIt's clear that some people would rather jump at any opportunity to smear Mozilla and stoke outrage than engage in serious discussion. For those who actually want to understand the feature, and its implications for privacy and data sharing, https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2021/09/15/data-and-firefox-suggest/ https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2021/09/15/data-and-firefox-su... is a starting point.
- Hnrobert42 5y agoSuggesting someone didn’t read the article is against the HN guidelines.
- huhtenberg 5y ago> RELEVANT suggestions The fuck with this? How can they make _relevant_ suggestions without spying on my (s/browsing history/activity/), profiling it and phoning back to the mothership? (Edited, "browsing history" -> "activity")
- roca 5y agoAccording to the page that you apparently didn't read, it's based on the search text you typed and your city location.
- huhtenberg 5y agoSo, Once enabled, Firefox Suggest sends what I type in the address bar to Mozilla. There it gets augmented with my location and makes its way to their "preferred partners", limited, for the moment, to a lovely establishment called "adMarketplace". You don't see a slightest problem with that, no? Reading through their "how Mozilla handles data" page [1] reveals absolutely nothing specific. What's collected, what's being passed on, etc. Just a bunch of hand waving and "don't you worry, everything is tip-top". [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2021/09/15/data-and-firefox-suggest/ https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2021/09/15/data-and-firefox-su...
- roca 5y ago> You don't see a slightest problem with that, no? If adMarketplace is just receiving from Mozilla a stream of (search text, city, clicked yes/no) then no, I don't see a problem with it. If Mozilla sends a unique user ID as well then I would see a problem with it, but as far as I can tell, they don't.
- huhtenberg 5y agoYou are OK that - by default - you type something in the Firefox address bar and some random company you've heard of gets a copy of it? You are A-OK with this? Because this is on by default in FF93, be it a new install or an upgrade. For now limited to the US, but it's safe to assume they are just testing waters.
- huma 5y agoYep, it's the dark pattern wording which really disappoints, the kind Mozilla is supposed to fight against. Like a good old friend that betrays you.
- samizdis 5y ago> I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately. That is exactly the problem I have with it - weasel words and euphemisms; FF is scoring an own-goal here and eroding trust. Why not just tell it like it is. "We need funding and are lining up deals with third parties to display their ads/messaging in the address bar search. We vet these third parties by holding them contractually to these standards [list standards to establish bar required for "trust"]." It's only my opinion, but spelling it out clearly - the need for funding and how/why "trusted partners" get to display their stuff - would make me far more likely to allow these suggestions. (Oh, and as for "relevance", FF should explain how that's intended to work, ie what data are being used etc.)
- _wolfie_ 5y ago> We need funding Yeah, I guess Baker needs a raise.
- laurent92 5y agoCounterpoint, I’d rather NGOs and benevolent societies be attractive for world-class leaders, rather than be the constant underdog. Of course those CEOs have to avoid implementing classic business schemes.
- krageon 5y ago> world-class leaders Yes, the kind of leaders that forget the core of what they are doing and that make shady deals and decisions like this. "World-class leaders" are sharks and have no place in a company for common good.
- 1123581321 5y agoIf Mozilla hired a better CEO with the money, I agree that’d justify paying the position more.
- account42 5y agoWord class leaders? https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html I'd rather have people that care about the cause in charge of these NGOs.
- ekianjo 5y agoWorst thing is that every single time they do this kind of bullshit, they do it without asking for opt-in and enable it sneakily by default. Absolutely the worst.
- jarofgreen 5y agoThe blog seems pretty clear they will be asking for permission? Tho not in the best way, I feel, but at least this is opt-in?
- soundnote 5y agoWas on by default for an American friend.
- sork_hn 5y agoIt was turned on by default for me. I had to uncheck the settings.
- jarofgreen 5y agoOh I see - the consent screen shown in the blog post is for something different. I stand corrected.
- ekianjo 5y ago> The blog seems pretty clear they will be asking for permission? They did not. I checked on all my computers following the update and all of them had the option enabled by default.
- quokka 5y agoI just checked, and it is on by default for me, too.
- user3939382 5y agoI had an exchange with Darren Herman at Mozilla about these issues back in 2014 when they had just started the nonsense of calling ads “content discovery”. If memory serves these were for the first time on the new tab page. It was my position that ads violate the ethos of free software by making the user serve the software. You can debate that, but in any case that was the beginning of this culture at Mozilla to use bs language to placate users.
- vbo 5y agoAds would be cheeky, but I would welcome any efforts to get into the search space through search suggestions, akin to what Apple is doing in Safari with Siri Suggested Websites. Whether those are provided by Apple or Google I don't know, but they do open a window for Apple (and Mozilla) to slowly develop search capabilities. I've no idea whether that's either Apple or Mozilla's end game, but it would be a promising development if it were so.
- chrisjc 5y agoI'm pretty sure that Mozilla isn't getting into the search/ad business. I assume that's what you mean when you say "search capabilities". While it would be good news if they were, insofar as creating more competition for the incumbents (let's be honest, the incumbent, google), at this point only regulators can do anything about the state of search/ad industry. If this is actually the case Mozilla is yet again being used as one of Google's pawns. "See, there are other browsers and search/ad companies flourishing despite our market position!"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- stevespang 5y agoJust like FaceBook, weasel words and pat on the back phrases . . .
- chatoyance 5y agoThey're being bullshit artists trying to put lipstick on a pig.
- causi 5y agoGods do I miss the days when I could be a Firefox fanboy. I even miss version 1.5 when the Close Tab button was in the same place for any active tab so you could muscle-memory click it without even looking at the tab bar.
- whalabi 5y ago> These suggestions — which aim to enhance and speed up your searching experience To me this is clearly not spin or weasel words, this is glaringly blatant dishonesty.
- KronisLV 5y agoIt feels like this also erodes the trust of many people in Mozilla even further. Apart from many questionable choices over the past few years, they fired fired a large number of employees, then their CEO bumped up their own salary to 3 million USD: https://www.zdnet.com/article/endangered-firefox-the-state-of-mozilla/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/endangered-firefox-the-state-o... I am not sure whether their fall to around a 5% market share in the browser market had anything to do with any of the things in the above article, but to me it feels like the logical next progression at some point is to remove Mozilla from the actual Firefox software. So my question is this: how long will it be before any fork of Firefox will gain a large following, much like what happened to CentOS/Rocky Linux? Seems like there are quite a few independent forks, but nothing that i think would be a no-brainer for replacing Firefox as the default browser of any Linux distro or on a Windows desktop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-based https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-bas...
- unethical_ban 5y agoThey also, on the last update, prompted some color scheme adjustments "for a limited time" - what? That isn't something you tend to see in open source software. I wonder if they think it will increase engagement with the browser?
- jamienicol 5y agoIt quite clearly says "our trusted partners". And the intention is they are relevant. You're finding malice where there is none.
- marto1 5y agoI’m fairly certain Google funding Mozilla doesn’t help the whole situation.
- sneak 5y agoMozilla jumped the shark when they started bundling opt-out (aka on by default) spyware in their browsers.