5 ms·

Take away facts: Google's business model is built around privacy invasion and data collection. Mozilla's business model is built around Google. Proce

Take away facts: Google's business model is built around privacy invasion and data collection. Mozilla's business model is built around Google. Process these as you see fit.

cassianoleal 4y ago
You're not entirely wrong, but how do you reconcile that with the OP? Genuine question.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  In the same way you reconcile "Don't Be Evil" with Google. In the same way you reconcile Mozilla's privacy concerns with the fact that every Firefox install gets tagged with a unique digital fingerprint and keeps a persistent websocket connection open in the background.
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    > In the same way you reconcile "Don't Be Evil" with Google. I don't think that's fair, especially since they have already dropped it. > In the same way you reconcile Mozilla's privacy concerns with the fact that every Firefox install gets tagged with a unique digital fingerprint I'm not sure what you're on about here. Care to elaborate? > and keeps a persistent websocket connection open in the background. Hadn't heard of this one before. Do you have sources?
    - jqpabc123 4y ago
      I don't think that's fair, especially since they have already dropped it. Dropping it doesn't change the duplicity that existed for almost 2 decades. Hadn't heard of this one before. Do you have sources? https://borncity.com/win/2022/03/22/firefox-installer-weist-dem-browser-eine-eindeutige-kennung-zu/ https://borncity.com/win/2022/03/22/firefox-installer-weist-... https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
      - cassianoleal 4y ago
        > Dropping it doesn't change the duplicity that existed for almost 2 decades. It was dropped in 2015, 17 years after Google's foundation. Are you saying they were evil from the beginning? I couldn't tell but at least for their first decade or so they seemed to be trying to do good. In any case, it's very different to be Google and evil vs. Mozilla/Firefox having a unique ID in some downloads. Why do I say some downloads? Because that ID is assigned when you click the link on their website's downloads page. If you get it from your package manager, which I suspect a very large portion of their user base does, you don't get uniquely identified. If you download from any mirror or otherwise free software download store, you don't get uniquely identified.
        jqpabc123 4y ago
        If you download from any mirror or otherwise free software download store, you don't get uniquely identified. What you are downloading in most cases is just an installer executable -- no software included. The installer pulls the actual software from Mozilla's server. Each copied served is given a unique ID and is unlike any other -- easily proven by hash or checksum (Mozilla calls this a "dltoken", see my reference above).
        cassianoleal 4y ago
        I've just sampled some mirror sites. - https://mozilla-firefox.fileplanet.com/ https://mozilla-firefox.fileplanet.com/ - Indeed it downloads a download manager. - https://download.cnet.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356_4-10208565.html https://download.cnet.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356_4-102085... - Downloads an installer. It's for an older version but shouldn't have the unique ID, and it should be able to update itself but I haven't tested. - https://techviral.net/firefox-offline-installer/ https://techviral.net/firefox-offline-installer/ - Also the installer, and for the latest version. That's 2 out of 3 without an unique ID. You have also conveniently glossed over the package manager angle, which I suspect is a pretty large slice of their user base.
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      Google replaced "don't be evil" with "do the right thing", which is entirely fair to hold them to. Firefox install fingerprinting: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has-a-unique-identifier/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has-... Persistent web socket connections: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf (page 8-9) In both cases this "telemetry" is something that the user did not ask for or authorize, nor is it disclosed prominently.
      - cassianoleal 4y ago
        > Google replaced "don't be evil" with "do the right thing", which is entirely fair to hold them to. That's fair, but "the right thing" for whom? If it's for their shareholders, which apparently by law is in fact not only the right thing but a requirement, then it's hard to argue they're not good on their word. > Firefox install fingerprinting: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has- https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has-... I commented on the sibling. This is only true if you download it directly from their website. Firefox is acquired from many other sources - package managers, FTP sites, other free software distributors... > Persistent web socket connections Thanks, this does seem less than ideal. There seems to be zero evidence of any breach of anonimity via this mechanism though. Just to be clear, I agree that it shouldn't be this way. > In both cases this "telemetry" is something that the user did not ask for or authorize, nor is it disclosed prominently. No argument here. I both agree with your assessment and that this is a bad thing.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
parthianshotgun 4y ago
In a space without good regulation I guess this is as much as the free market can deal with, It's no solution though, all problems are nails in this
foolswisdom 4y ago
Arguably, Mozilla's business model is built around getting people to switch to Firefox so they have leverage to make Google pay more for being the default search engine.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  Arguably, this is an inadequate description of reality. Firefox's market share has done nothing but decline for decades --- and Google still pays.
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    Unless Google pays more for the reduced market share, your argument doesn't stand. The fact that Mozilla are failing at their business model doesn't mean that's not the model.
    - jqpabc123 4y ago
      Unless Google pays more for the reduced market share, your argument doesn't stand. So my argument stands. Mozilla's current deal with Google is good through 2023 and is worth around $400-$450 million per year. Every deal Mozilla has made with Google has payments increased --- even as Firefox's browser share has decreased. https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-google-search https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-goo...
      - cassianoleal 4y ago
        I haven't seen numbers that back that evolution over the years. This article [0] from 2018 suggests an uptick, but it justifies it as "a deal to get paid for Google search traffic in parts of Europe" - so, actual market expansion. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I haven't seen evidence that you're not. [0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-firefox-search-deal-gives-mozilla-more-money-to-push-privacy/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-firef...
floitsch 4y ago
Google's business model is absolutely not built around privacy invasion, and their model is built around data collection of public data. If, for some reason, they couldn't use personalized ads anymore, they would simply earn less, but their business model would be the exact same as before. Mozilla business model is entirely built around their market share. As such, they are in a much more difficult situation than Google's Chrome team. If Mozilla has a difficult time (financially), they are more likely to do shady things than the Chrome team which has no such pressure. For example, the Chrome team would never accept any cryptocurrency deal; something that I have no difficulties imaging Mozilla to do. Obviously, Chrome will not actively hurt Google's other businesses (specifically ads), but Chrome's primary goal is to make the web a better place. The worst case scenario for Google is that the web (and thus their revenue stream) disappears.
- Razengan 4y ago
  Ah yes, the old "to make the world/web a better place". For the sake of children, to defeat the terrorists... :)
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    My recent heuristic is that any short comment starting "Ah yes" is a strong signal of low quality or trolling argument. What do you reckon: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=ah%20yes&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Take away facts: Google's business model is built around privacy invasion and data collection. Mozilla's business model is built around Google. Process these as you see fit.

cassianoleal 4y ago

You're not entirely wrong, but how do you reconcile that with the OP? Genuine question.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jqpabc123 4y ago
In the same way you reconcile "Don't Be Evil" with Google. In the same way you reconcile Mozilla's privacy concerns with the fact that every Firefox install gets tagged with a unique digital fingerprint and keeps a persistent websocket connection open in the background.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  > In the same way you reconcile "Don't Be Evil" with Google. I don't think that's fair, especially since they have already dropped it. > In the same way you reconcile Mozilla's privacy concerns with the fact that every Firefox install gets tagged with a unique digital fingerprint I'm not sure what you're on about here. Care to elaborate? > and keeps a persistent websocket connection open in the background. Hadn't heard of this one before. Do you have sources?
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    I don't think that's fair, especially since they have already dropped it. Dropping it doesn't change the duplicity that existed for almost 2 decades. Hadn't heard of this one before. Do you have sources? https://borncity.com/win/2022/03/22/firefox-installer-weist-dem-browser-eine-eindeutige-kennung-zu/ https://borncity.com/win/2022/03/22/firefox-installer-weist-... https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
    - cassianoleal 4y ago
      > Dropping it doesn't change the duplicity that existed for almost 2 decades. It was dropped in 2015, 17 years after Google's foundation. Are you saying they were evil from the beginning? I couldn't tell but at least for their first decade or so they seemed to be trying to do good. In any case, it's very different to be Google and evil vs. Mozilla/Firefox having a unique ID in some downloads. Why do I say some downloads? Because that ID is assigned when you click the link on their website's downloads page. If you get it from your package manager, which I suspect a very large portion of their user base does, you don't get uniquely identified. If you download from any mirror or otherwise free software download store, you don't get uniquely identified.
      - jqpabc123 4y ago
        If you download from any mirror or otherwise free software download store, you don't get uniquely identified. What you are downloading in most cases is just an installer executable -- no software included. The installer pulls the actual software from Mozilla's server. Each copied served is given a unique ID and is unlike any other -- easily proven by hash or checksum (Mozilla calls this a "dltoken", see my reference above).
        cassianoleal 4y ago
        I've just sampled some mirror sites. - https://mozilla-firefox.fileplanet.com/ https://mozilla-firefox.fileplanet.com/ - Indeed it downloads a download manager. - https://download.cnet.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356_4-10208565.html https://download.cnet.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356_4-102085... - Downloads an installer. It's for an older version but shouldn't have the unique ID, and it should be able to update itself but I haven't tested. - https://techviral.net/firefox-offline-installer/ https://techviral.net/firefox-offline-installer/ - Also the installer, and for the latest version. That's 2 out of 3 without an unique ID. You have also conveniently glossed over the package manager angle, which I suspect is a pretty large slice of their user base.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Google replaced "don't be evil" with "do the right thing", which is entirely fair to hold them to. Firefox install fingerprinting: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has-a-unique-identifier/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has-... Persistent web socket connections: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf (page 8-9) In both cases this "telemetry" is something that the user did not ask for or authorize, nor is it disclosed prominently.
    - cassianoleal 4y ago
      > Google replaced "don't be evil" with "do the right thing", which is entirely fair to hold them to. That's fair, but "the right thing" for whom? If it's for their shareholders, which apparently by law is in fact not only the right thing but a requirement, then it's hard to argue they're not good on their word. > Firefox install fingerprinting: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has- https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has-... I commented on the sibling. This is only true if you download it directly from their website. Firefox is acquired from many other sources - package managers, FTP sites, other free software distributors... > Persistent web socket connections Thanks, this does seem less than ideal. There seems to be zero evidence of any breach of anonimity via this mechanism though. Just to be clear, I agree that it shouldn't be this way. > In both cases this "telemetry" is something that the user did not ask for or authorize, nor is it disclosed prominently. No argument here. I both agree with your assessment and that this is a bad thing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

parthianshotgun 4y ago

In a space without good regulation I guess this is as much as the free market can deal with, It's no solution though, all problems are nails in this

foolswisdom 4y ago

Arguably, Mozilla's business model is built around getting people to switch to Firefox so they have leverage to make Google pay more for being the default search engine.

jqpabc123 4y ago
Arguably, this is an inadequate description of reality. Firefox's market share has done nothing but decline for decades --- and Google still pays.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  Unless Google pays more for the reduced market share, your argument doesn't stand. The fact that Mozilla are failing at their business model doesn't mean that's not the model.
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    Unless Google pays more for the reduced market share, your argument doesn't stand. So my argument stands. Mozilla's current deal with Google is good through 2023 and is worth around $400-$450 million per year. Every deal Mozilla has made with Google has payments increased --- even as Firefox's browser share has decreased. https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-google-search https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-goo...
    - cassianoleal 4y ago
      I haven't seen numbers that back that evolution over the years. This article [0] from 2018 suggests an uptick, but it justifies it as "a deal to get paid for Google search traffic in parts of Europe" - so, actual market expansion. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I haven't seen evidence that you're not. [0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-firefox-search-deal-gives-mozilla-more-money-to-push-privacy/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-firef...

floitsch 4y ago

Google's business model is absolutely not built around privacy invasion, and their model is built around data collection of public data. If, for some reason, they couldn't use personalized ads anymore, they would simply earn less, but their business model would be the exact same as before. Mozilla business model is entirely built around their market share. As such, they are in a much more difficult situation than Google's Chrome team. If Mozilla has a difficult time (financially), they are more likely to do shady things than the Chrome team which has no such pressure. For example, the Chrome team would never accept any cryptocurrency deal; something that I have no difficulties imaging Mozilla to do. Obviously, Chrome will not actively hurt Google's other businesses (specifically ads), but Chrome's primary goal is to make the web a better place. The worst case scenario for Google is that the web (and thus their revenue stream) disappears.

Razengan 4y ago
Ah yes, the old "to make the world/web a better place". For the sake of children, to defeat the terrorists... :)
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  My recent heuristic is that any short comment starting "Ah yes" is a strong signal of low quality or trolling argument. What do you reckon: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=ah%20yes&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...