6 ms·

> We've been calling it the AI kill switch internally. I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name, but that's how seriously and absolutely we're taking this

> We've been calling it the AI kill switch internally. I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name, but that's how seriously and absolutely we're taking this. Honestly, is anybody reading what's getting written anymore? If it gets taken seriously it would ship with an enable-AI button, not the other way round.

yoavm 10mo ago
I love threads about Mozilla. New CEO says he's not going to remove adblockers, people suspect him for planning to remove adblockers. Mozilla says they'll add a killswitch for all AI features (so that the tiny but vocal anti-AI minority will be happy), and people blame them for not having it as an enable-switch. Whatever they do, they simply cannot win. I'm personally starting to suspect the main issue with Mozilla is its users.
- reidrac 10mo ago
  so that the tiny but vocal anti-AI minority will be happy [citation needed]
  - yoavm 10mo ago
    Citation for what really? That the anti-AI movement is a minority? Just ask around you "have you used AI today?" and I'm pretty sure you'll see what I mean. I don't have a horse in this game and I'm not an AI fan, but the numbers speak for themselves so much that the mere question is odd.
    - gldrk 10mo ago
      The anti-AI ‘movement’ is a minority like all partisans are a minority. You shouldn’t be comparing them to passive consumers but to enthusiasts who actively demand ‘AI’ in their browser/Paint/Notepad.
      - yoavm 10mo ago
        True, and a reasonable PM will ignore both the anti-AI and the AI-in-everything groups.
        johnnyanmac 10mo ago
        We don't really have reasonable PM's though. Or rather, they are being paid to be unreasonable. They are ignoring everyone because the CEO 5 levels uo wants it. And then others wonder why customers are frustrated.
    - lawtalkinghuman 10mo ago
      > the numbers speak for themselves What numbers? Have Mozilla published any numbers showing their AI experiments have been warmly received by users?
- dsr_ 10mo ago
  ... because Mozilla doesn't pay any attention to them?
- ep103 10mo ago
  Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think you're right, and I think the reason for it is because Google has historically had an extremely effective astroturf marketing team for Chrome
- dismalaf 10mo ago
  Because they're already reneged on past promises. Trust is gone.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10mo ago
  > New CEO says he's not going to remove adblockers, people suspect him for planning to remove adblockers. New CEO says they've run the numbers and decided to not kill adblockers, leading to people asking why exactly they were running those numbers (if it was an actual ideological commitment, the numbers wouldn't matter). > Mozilla says they'll add a killswitch for all AI features (so that the tiny but vocal anti-AI minority will be happy), and people blame them for not having it as an enable-switch. Yes, opt-in vs opt-out is kinda an important distinction. And you're assuming that opposition is a "tiny but vocal", which - especially among people bothering to use firefox - seems unfounded. Which brings use neatly to, > Whatever they do, they simply cannot win. I'm personally starting to suspect the main issue with Mozilla is its users. Well, yes. If you build a userbase out of power users and folks who care about privacy and control... then you have a userbase of power users and folks who care about privacy and control. If Mozilla said up front that they were only interested in money and don't care about users, then fair enough, but don't go trumpeting how you fight for the user and then act surprised when the user holds you to that.
  - eps 10mo ago
    Amen.
  - glenstein 10mo ago
    The creator of VLC has publicly noted dollar amounts they could raise if they either sold or compromised VLC, but it came and went without controversy. OBS Studio, 7-Zip, Notepad++, and Nextcloud have all published offers they've received and declined, or quoted per-install payment figures. In fact, it's practically a rite of passage for open source projects to talk about the value of their work in terms of what they could monetize but choose not to. Communicating about what you're knowingly rejecting is a point of pride, not a confession. But since there's no such thing as an OBS, or Nextcloud, or VLC Derangement syndrome, nobody grabs the pitchforks in those cases.
    - wtallis 10mo ago
      Please stop calling people deranged for expecting Mozilla to do the right thing without dissembling. Having your previous such comment flagged and killed should have been sufficient reminder to you that you're behaving inappropriately for this forum.
- superkuh 10mo ago
  This seems like a cultural mismatch more than anything. Mozilla makes software that human people use and human people use normal language rather than avoiding the non-profitable aggravation associated with emotive language that a company employee might be used to. Look at the point that op made instead of the tone: the AI feature should be opt-in not opt-out. That's a good point. Let's talk about that. It seems like it's a simple thing to do to show good faith that this won't be a normal corporate AI push.
  - yoavm 10mo ago
    It's not a good point. One year from now, every browser is going to be an "AI browser". If Firefox will make it harder to use features that are expected of every browser, it will lose. This is akin to saying that JavaScript should be opt-in. If you want to disable these things, you're clearly a power user, and you should at least be comfortable with clicking "Edit" and then "Settings".
- gldrk 10mo ago
  It’s easy to bash Mozilla because it is failing. Their usage share is a statistical error, and most of it comes from being shipped with Ubuntu. Firefox badly needs a value proposition beyond not being Chromium-based.
  - yoavm 10mo ago
    I agree, but there's nothing more frustrating than another niche user group imagining that the reason for this failure is Mozilla lacking to address their obscure requests, while Mozilla's real goal is to create a browser for everyone. The truth is that this goal is borderline impossible, and all these double standards (can't count the times I've heard "I'm tired of Firefox, moving to Chrome!") surely aren't helping.
  - ekr____ 10mo ago
    > Their usage share is a statistical error, and most of it comes from being shipped with Ubuntu. This is not true, and is easily verifiable for yourself. https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware The vast majority of Firefox usage is on Windows.
    - gldrk 10mo ago
      I am surprised. Does that imply most GNU/Linux users go out of their way to install Chromium actually? Ubuntu and Firefox have a similar market share.
      - homebrewer 10mo ago
        No idea about most Linux users, but here's what little we know for sure: Arch pkgstats (opt-in): ~64% FF, ~41% Chromium, ~17% Chrome https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/fun/Browsers/current https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/fun/Browsers/current Debian popcon (opt-in): 2.2% Firefox, ~10.3% Chromium https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=firefox https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=firefox https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=chromium https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=chromium Flathub installs: 10kk Firefox, 10kk Chrome, 1.8kk Chromium https://flathub.org/en/apps/org.mozilla.firefox https://flathub.org/en/apps/org.mozilla.firefox https://flathub.org/en/apps/com.google.Chrome https://flathub.org/en/apps/com.google.Chrome https://flathub.org/en/apps/org.chromium.Chromium https://flathub.org/en/apps/org.chromium.Chromium snapcraft statistics isn't public, afaik.
- bpt3 10mo ago
  Mozilla has lost the trust of its users by making decisions that their userbase doesn't approve of repeatedly, and then partially walking them back after the backlash. That's not the fault of their users, at least not directly. If you want to argue that Firefox users are stifling innovation or trying to steer the product in a direction that would threaten the future viability of Firefox/Mozilla, I would be open to hearing that argument out even though I don't think that's the issue. Mozilla is the equivalent of a petrostate in the tech sector. They have a bunch of revenue coming in that they didn't really earn, and they have no idea what to do with it to improve their current condition. To me, that's the core issue.
- wtallis 10mo ago
  Mozilla has a recurring problem with being unable to provide the simple, obvious right answer. When they re-wrote Firefox for Android, they were unable to give the simple, obvious answer to the effect of "yes, we understand extensions are a core feature of our browser and we plan to fully support extensions on Fenix and won't consider it done until we do". Instead, they talked about whitelisting a handful of extensions, and took three years from shipping Fenix as stable before they had a broad open extension ecosystem up and running again. Earlier this year Mozilla couldn't provide the simple, obvious response of "we will never sell your personal information". Instead, they tried to make excuses about not agreeing with California's definition of "selling personal information". A few days ago, we find out that their new CEO can't clearly and emphatically say "we would never take money to break ad blockers, because that goes against everything we stand for". Now, they seemingly can't even realize that having a "kill switch" calls into doubt whether they actually know what "opt-in" means. Even when they're trying to do the right thing, they're strangely afraid to commit to doing the right thing when it comes to specifics. They won't say "never" even when it should be easy.
  - School-Cotton 10mo ago
    > simple, obvious answer to the effect of "yes, we understand extensions are a core feature of our browser and we plan to fully support extensions on Fenix and won't consider it done until we do". Instead, they talked about whitelisting a handful of extensions, and took three years from shipping Fenix as stable before they had a broad open extension ecosystem up and running again. That answer is not as obvious to me as you claim it is. I don't use any browser extensions except 1password, which I would have no reason to use on a phone (at least assuming Android has builtin password manager functionality like iOS does). I think you overestimate what fraction of people care about extensions.
    - smlavine 10mo ago
      I use Firefox on Android perhaps entirely because it supports uBlock Origin and my other extensions. I would guess that of people that would ever go out of their way to use a non-Chrome browser on Android, the fraction who care about extensions is pretty significant.
- ramesh31 10mo ago
  >Whatever they do, they simply cannot win. I'm personally starting to suspect the main issue with Mozilla is its users. A lot of people remember the Mozilla of old, and are just completely depressed at the state of where it has ended up over the last 10 years. They were once a non-profit founded to promote the web and put users first. Now it's just this weird zombie company monetizing the work and good will of a prior generation of engineers that cared about that mission.
- WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
  Sounds like robust criticism is having an effect. Why would you not be happy with the situation?
  - yoavm 10mo ago
    I am happy with the situation. Firefox still allows me to customize my userChrome, remove features I don't like and it even has vertical tabs. It supports uBlock origin, runs great in Android. It's a really good browser. I don't think there's a problem with complaining; What I find unfair is the reaction when Mozilla finally does the right thing.
- ivanmontillam 10mo ago
  I am fine with it being a disable-button, as long it's persistent once set. What I honestly fear is that while AI-features are disabled, popups inviting me to enable them again. That, or them auto-enabling them on every update like sometimes has happened with `browser.ml.enable` flag on `about:config`.
  - Krssst 10mo ago
    They don't do that for any feature, no reason they'd do it for AI.
    - ivanmontillam 10mo ago
      New CEO could change that.
      - anticensor 10mo ago
        Firefox is open source, people can simply fork an unbranded build out of it.
- jamesgill 10mo ago
  He didn't say he wasn't going to remove ad blockers; he said "I don't want to". No commitment or position, just a preference.
- som 10mo ago
  Yep no doubt FF users cut from a slightly different cloth than those who choose GAMS browsers. But as an old-school Firefox user, with a slieu of mobile extensions installed and a healthy cynicism about our swan dive into the dark sea of AI ... I have no problem at all with the statements from Mozilla. Outsiders can argue all day about intent, it's the actions that count.
- nkrisc 10mo ago
  The fact they need to add an “AI kill switch” is the problem.
- jm4 10mo ago
  The anti-AI people think they are in the majority. They could be, but I suspect that's not the case. I would be surprised if many in the anti-AI crowd could even point to the specific features of the devices and software they use daily that fall under the "AI" umbrella. Meanwhile, regular people are increasingly turning to chatbots instead of search engines. It seems clear we are at peak hype, but this stuff is here to stay.
- lenerdenator 10mo ago
  When you have a position in the project called "CEO" and that person has the ability to hand down edicts of what he or she sees the project as being, that's when you get into trouble, especially in free software. We've seen this way of developing software co-opted by major companies who have turned otherwise good projects - Chromium and AOSP immediately come to mind - into vendor lock-in and spyware by some suit who has been told he needs to create value. The thing they can do to win is to start acting like they maintain a free/libre open-source software project. It should be completely fine for Mozilla to make a grand total of $0.00 off of Firefox. Think of Linux (specifically the kernel) or Python. Sure there's a person whose opinion holds more weight than everyone else's (at least for the kernel), but they typically focus on delivering general guidance to a group of people who are free to create features on their own and present those to leadership. If it's quality and fits what the general purpose of the project is, it gets merged into the trunk, and released with everything else. That needs to be how Mozilla handles Firefox at this point. If some working group of contributors wants to start an implementation of GenAI in Firefox, let them do so and let the community hash it out. If the community doesn't feel the need to create it, well, then Firefox won't have it... and that's fine. So many of these free software projects try to do too much and change what the core output of the project is in the process, and they lose sight of what the project is.
- wkat4242 10mo ago
  > New CEO says he's not going to remove adblockers, people suspect him for planning to remove adblockers It's because he has obviously been thinking about it. That $150M number didn't just come out of nowhere. Someone at Mozilla modelled this. The resulting analysis made it into the CEO's mind so far he even mentioned it without being asked. This is something that's unthinkable to most of the Mozilla users. That's why it's so shocking. It's like your son making dinner conversation like "hey I was thinking, if I would sell drugs at school I'd make at least 500$ a week! But don't worry I'm not going to do that!".
- johnnyanmac 10mo ago
  Trust takes a lifetime to build, and a moment to break. Those “moments” are becoming more of streams of time these days. How many times does a scorpion need to sting the frog for the frog to be justified in being wary of “ I definitely won’t sting you this time!”
  - yoavm 10mo ago
    Except Firefox is a better browser now than it ever was.
- nhinck3 10mo ago
  Have they come out and said what personal data they are selling yet? They were awfully guarded about what they were selling and to who. I guess we shouldn't worry though, just some random law thought that what they were doing was "selling personal data" but we shouldn't think that it was. No further explanation required.
- cons0le 10mo ago
  Just saving this comment here for the future, so when he does it in 2 years I can come back and rub it in
binary132 10mo ago
[flagged]
dblohm7 10mo ago
> If it gets taken seriously it would ship with an enable-AI button, not the other way round. Like the one described in the subsequent toot? > All AI features will also be opt-in. I think there are some grey areas in what 'opt-in' means to different people (e.g. is a new toolbar button opt-in?)... https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500918701463 https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500918701463
- catapart 10mo ago
  I was about to use a quote to show you that "no, it's not like what is described in the thread", but you included the salient bit in the second quote, yourself. It's not a gray area, and "opt-in" isn't something to be weasled-worded around. If the browser has the capability, I don't want it. I want to be able to add it with a plugin, and that's it. Plugins should have full control to whatever is necessary (same as adblock stuff; plenty of security but enough "user beware" to allow truly useful utilities). And AI features should all be plugins. Separate ones, if I had my way, but bundles if that makes more sense. I do not and will not need AI to browse. It's an enhancement. The core product (or at least ONE OF the products offered) should allow me to do without the enhancement. And opt in if I want to. There's nothing gray there, and I'm so fucking sick of mozilla trying to pull this "we disagree with common terminology" horseshit.
  - fsflover 10mo ago
    > It's not a gray area, and "opt-in" isn't something to be weasled-worded around How about "Translate" button?
    - catapart 10mo ago
      What about it? If it's output is generated by the manipulation of tensors and weights, it doesn't belong in my browser. It's not there to because I need to browse, it's there because I want to read content that is not in a language that the content provider has supported for me. I could feed those network responses right into a separate, non-browser app and have it translate stuff for me, if I wanted. Why should I be required to download and ignore your translation feature, when I could just as easily not have it included in the first place? And, if I'm being honest, "translation" is the only feature I would even consider splitting the builds for. At least in that feature I can see why a "default" version of the browser might benefit more people than not by including it. But that doesn't mean that a "clean" version shouldn't be provided. Build the core app, and then include as many plugins as you think "average users" will benefit from in the "default" version. I don't mind being the minority, I just don't think it's inappropriate to ask for only what I need instead of "all the bullshit you want to force me to have".
marricks 10mo ago
Literally every other browser and most tech companies are shoving AI down users throats. Firefox isn't missing the boat by neglecting AI, they're missing it by being an alternative which reminds us how nice things can be without it. The past 15 years has been a slow decline while they were trying to prove some relevancy outside of their core product. With mobile browsers being locked down a decline was going to happen anyways but if they stuck to their guns at least they wouldn't have wasted a bunch of money and maintained more of their base. Who knows, their position sucks, but they're not going to win anyone by being the worst AI focused browser which happens to have an off switch.
- mindcrash 10mo ago
  The solution for the (as of yet) small group of people who cares about these things is very simple: community driven forks. With the bonus that you also get a set of great (and per fork different yet handy) features. These include: Waterfox (Firefox) - https://www.waterfox.com/ https://www.waterfox.com/ Zen Browser (Firefox) - https://zen-browser.app/ https://zen-browser.app/ Librewolf (Firefox) - https://librewolf.net/ https://librewolf.net/ Helium (Chrome/Chromium) - https://helium.computer/ https://helium.computer/ Ungoogled Chromium (Chrome/Chromium) - https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium Also as one of the major players, Vivaldi already made a stand against AI and forcefully including (agentic) AI in the web browser: https://vivaldi.com/blog/keep-exploring/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/keep-exploring/. It's a Chromium based browser with a lot of nice features and deep customization options: https://vivaldi.com/ https://vivaldi.com/
  - nemomarx 10mo ago
    Unfortunately the more interesting ones use Chromium. I wish Zen was better developed and less "aesthetic", it might be worth a shot.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
tgsovlerkhgsel 10mo ago
No, it wouldn't. Because the average user might actually want the features, and if you default to "no" without asking people even once, the users who want it won't find it. That's why it should ask - once. And offer a "FUCK OFF NEVER ASK ME AGAIN" button rather than "Ask me again later".
- johnnyanmac 10mo ago
  >and if you default to "no" without asking people even once I'm still waiting for the polls and statistics and feature requests of this. The "without asking" is the primary problem.
1vuio0pswjnm7 10mo ago
Make it a compile-time option ./configure --disable-ai
dang 10mo ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- azemetre 10mo ago
  I thought this rule only applied to users commenting with each other, didn't know it applied to posted content too.

yoavm 10mo ago

I love threads about Mozilla. New CEO says he's not going to remove adblockers, people suspect him for planning to remove adblockers. Mozilla says they'll add a killswitch for all AI features (so that the tiny but vocal anti-AI minority will be happy), and people blame them for not having it as an enable-switch. Whatever they do, they simply cannot win. I'm personally starting to suspect the main issue with Mozilla is its users.

reidrac 10mo ago
so that the tiny but vocal anti-AI minority will be happy [citation needed]
- yoavm 10mo ago
  Citation for what really? That the anti-AI movement is a minority? Just ask around you "have you used AI today?" and I'm pretty sure you'll see what I mean. I don't have a horse in this game and I'm not an AI fan, but the numbers speak for themselves so much that the mere question is odd.
  - gldrk 10mo ago
    The anti-AI ‘movement’ is a minority like all partisans are a minority. You shouldn’t be comparing them to passive consumers but to enthusiasts who actively demand ‘AI’ in their browser/Paint/Notepad.
    - yoavm 10mo ago
      True, and a reasonable PM will ignore both the anti-AI and the AI-in-everything groups.
      - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
        We don't really have reasonable PM's though. Or rather, they are being paid to be unreasonable. They are ignoring everyone because the CEO 5 levels uo wants it. And then others wonder why customers are frustrated.
  - lawtalkinghuman 10mo ago
    > the numbers speak for themselves What numbers? Have Mozilla published any numbers showing their AI experiments have been warmly received by users?
dsr_ 10mo ago
... because Mozilla doesn't pay any attention to them?
ep103 10mo ago
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think you're right, and I think the reason for it is because Google has historically had an extremely effective astroturf marketing team for Chrome
dismalaf 10mo ago
Because they're already reneged on past promises. Trust is gone.
yjftsjthsd-h 10mo ago
> New CEO says he's not going to remove adblockers, people suspect him for planning to remove adblockers. New CEO says they've run the numbers and decided to not kill adblockers, leading to people asking why exactly they were running those numbers (if it was an actual ideological commitment, the numbers wouldn't matter). > Mozilla says they'll add a killswitch for all AI features (so that the tiny but vocal anti-AI minority will be happy), and people blame them for not having it as an enable-switch. Yes, opt-in vs opt-out is kinda an important distinction. And you're assuming that opposition is a "tiny but vocal", which - especially among people bothering to use firefox - seems unfounded. Which brings use neatly to, > Whatever they do, they simply cannot win. I'm personally starting to suspect the main issue with Mozilla is its users. Well, yes. If you build a userbase out of power users and folks who care about privacy and control... then you have a userbase of power users and folks who care about privacy and control. If Mozilla said up front that they were only interested in money and don't care about users, then fair enough, but don't go trumpeting how you fight for the user and then act surprised when the user holds you to that.
- eps 10mo ago
  Amen.
- glenstein 10mo ago
  The creator of VLC has publicly noted dollar amounts they could raise if they either sold or compromised VLC, but it came and went without controversy. OBS Studio, 7-Zip, Notepad++, and Nextcloud have all published offers they've received and declined, or quoted per-install payment figures. In fact, it's practically a rite of passage for open source projects to talk about the value of their work in terms of what they could monetize but choose not to. Communicating about what you're knowingly rejecting is a point of pride, not a confession. But since there's no such thing as an OBS, or Nextcloud, or VLC Derangement syndrome, nobody grabs the pitchforks in those cases.
  - wtallis 10mo ago
    Please stop calling people deranged for expecting Mozilla to do the right thing without dissembling. Having your previous such comment flagged and killed should have been sufficient reminder to you that you're behaving inappropriately for this forum.
superkuh 10mo ago
This seems like a cultural mismatch more than anything. Mozilla makes software that human people use and human people use normal language rather than avoiding the non-profitable aggravation associated with emotive language that a company employee might be used to. Look at the point that op made instead of the tone: the AI feature should be opt-in not opt-out. That's a good point. Let's talk about that. It seems like it's a simple thing to do to show good faith that this won't be a normal corporate AI push.
- yoavm 10mo ago
  It's not a good point. One year from now, every browser is going to be an "AI browser". If Firefox will make it harder to use features that are expected of every browser, it will lose. This is akin to saying that JavaScript should be opt-in. If you want to disable these things, you're clearly a power user, and you should at least be comfortable with clicking "Edit" and then "Settings".
gldrk 10mo ago
It’s easy to bash Mozilla because it is failing. Their usage share is a statistical error, and most of it comes from being shipped with Ubuntu. Firefox badly needs a value proposition beyond not being Chromium-based.
- yoavm 10mo ago
  I agree, but there's nothing more frustrating than another niche user group imagining that the reason for this failure is Mozilla lacking to address their obscure requests, while Mozilla's real goal is to create a browser for everyone. The truth is that this goal is borderline impossible, and all these double standards (can't count the times I've heard "I'm tired of Firefox, moving to Chrome!") surely aren't helping.
- ekr____ 10mo ago
  > Their usage share is a statistical error, and most of it comes from being shipped with Ubuntu. This is not true, and is easily verifiable for yourself. https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware The vast majority of Firefox usage is on Windows.
  - gldrk 10mo ago
    I am surprised. Does that imply most GNU/Linux users go out of their way to install Chromium actually? Ubuntu and Firefox have a similar market share.
    - homebrewer 10mo ago
      No idea about most Linux users, but here's what little we know for sure: Arch pkgstats (opt-in): ~64% FF, ~41% Chromium, ~17% Chrome https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/fun/Browsers/current https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/fun/Browsers/current Debian popcon (opt-in): 2.2% Firefox, ~10.3% Chromium https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=firefox https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=firefox https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=chromium https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=chromium Flathub installs: 10kk Firefox, 10kk Chrome, 1.8kk Chromium https://flathub.org/en/apps/org.mozilla.firefox https://flathub.org/en/apps/org.mozilla.firefox https://flathub.org/en/apps/com.google.Chrome https://flathub.org/en/apps/com.google.Chrome https://flathub.org/en/apps/org.chromium.Chromium https://flathub.org/en/apps/org.chromium.Chromium snapcraft statistics isn't public, afaik.
bpt3 10mo ago
Mozilla has lost the trust of its users by making decisions that their userbase doesn't approve of repeatedly, and then partially walking them back after the backlash. That's not the fault of their users, at least not directly. If you want to argue that Firefox users are stifling innovation or trying to steer the product in a direction that would threaten the future viability of Firefox/Mozilla, I would be open to hearing that argument out even though I don't think that's the issue. Mozilla is the equivalent of a petrostate in the tech sector. They have a bunch of revenue coming in that they didn't really earn, and they have no idea what to do with it to improve their current condition. To me, that's the core issue.
wtallis 10mo ago
Mozilla has a recurring problem with being unable to provide the simple, obvious right answer. When they re-wrote Firefox for Android, they were unable to give the simple, obvious answer to the effect of "yes, we understand extensions are a core feature of our browser and we plan to fully support extensions on Fenix and won't consider it done until we do". Instead, they talked about whitelisting a handful of extensions, and took three years from shipping Fenix as stable before they had a broad open extension ecosystem up and running again. Earlier this year Mozilla couldn't provide the simple, obvious response of "we will never sell your personal information". Instead, they tried to make excuses about not agreeing with California's definition of "selling personal information". A few days ago, we find out that their new CEO can't clearly and emphatically say "we would never take money to break ad blockers, because that goes against everything we stand for". Now, they seemingly can't even realize that having a "kill switch" calls into doubt whether they actually know what "opt-in" means. Even when they're trying to do the right thing, they're strangely afraid to commit to doing the right thing when it comes to specifics. They won't say "never" even when it should be easy.
- School-Cotton 10mo ago
  > simple, obvious answer to the effect of "yes, we understand extensions are a core feature of our browser and we plan to fully support extensions on Fenix and won't consider it done until we do". Instead, they talked about whitelisting a handful of extensions, and took three years from shipping Fenix as stable before they had a broad open extension ecosystem up and running again. That answer is not as obvious to me as you claim it is. I don't use any browser extensions except 1password, which I would have no reason to use on a phone (at least assuming Android has builtin password manager functionality like iOS does). I think you overestimate what fraction of people care about extensions.
  - smlavine 10mo ago
    I use Firefox on Android perhaps entirely because it supports uBlock Origin and my other extensions. I would guess that of people that would ever go out of their way to use a non-Chrome browser on Android, the fraction who care about extensions is pretty significant.
ramesh31 10mo ago
>Whatever they do, they simply cannot win. I'm personally starting to suspect the main issue with Mozilla is its users. A lot of people remember the Mozilla of old, and are just completely depressed at the state of where it has ended up over the last 10 years. They were once a non-profit founded to promote the web and put users first. Now it's just this weird zombie company monetizing the work and good will of a prior generation of engineers that cared about that mission.
WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
Sounds like robust criticism is having an effect. Why would you not be happy with the situation?
- yoavm 10mo ago
  I am happy with the situation. Firefox still allows me to customize my userChrome, remove features I don't like and it even has vertical tabs. It supports uBlock origin, runs great in Android. It's a really good browser. I don't think there's a problem with complaining; What I find unfair is the reaction when Mozilla finally does the right thing.
ivanmontillam 10mo ago
I am fine with it being a disable-button, as long it's persistent once set. What I honestly fear is that while AI-features are disabled, popups inviting me to enable them again. That, or them auto-enabling them on every update like sometimes has happened with `browser.ml.enable` flag on `about:config`.
- Krssst 10mo ago
  They don't do that for any feature, no reason they'd do it for AI.
  - ivanmontillam 10mo ago
    New CEO could change that.
    - anticensor 10mo ago
      Firefox is open source, people can simply fork an unbranded build out of it.
jamesgill 10mo ago
He didn't say he wasn't going to remove ad blockers; he said "I don't want to". No commitment or position, just a preference.
som 10mo ago
Yep no doubt FF users cut from a slightly different cloth than those who choose GAMS browsers. But as an old-school Firefox user, with a slieu of mobile extensions installed and a healthy cynicism about our swan dive into the dark sea of AI ... I have no problem at all with the statements from Mozilla. Outsiders can argue all day about intent, it's the actions that count.
nkrisc 10mo ago
The fact they need to add an “AI kill switch” is the problem.
jm4 10mo ago
The anti-AI people think they are in the majority. They could be, but I suspect that's not the case. I would be surprised if many in the anti-AI crowd could even point to the specific features of the devices and software they use daily that fall under the "AI" umbrella. Meanwhile, regular people are increasingly turning to chatbots instead of search engines. It seems clear we are at peak hype, but this stuff is here to stay.
lenerdenator 10mo ago
When you have a position in the project called "CEO" and that person has the ability to hand down edicts of what he or she sees the project as being, that's when you get into trouble, especially in free software. We've seen this way of developing software co-opted by major companies who have turned otherwise good projects - Chromium and AOSP immediately come to mind - into vendor lock-in and spyware by some suit who has been told he needs to create value. The thing they can do to win is to start acting like they maintain a free/libre open-source software project. It should be completely fine for Mozilla to make a grand total of $0.00 off of Firefox. Think of Linux (specifically the kernel) or Python. Sure there's a person whose opinion holds more weight than everyone else's (at least for the kernel), but they typically focus on delivering general guidance to a group of people who are free to create features on their own and present those to leadership. If it's quality and fits what the general purpose of the project is, it gets merged into the trunk, and released with everything else. That needs to be how Mozilla handles Firefox at this point. If some working group of contributors wants to start an implementation of GenAI in Firefox, let them do so and let the community hash it out. If the community doesn't feel the need to create it, well, then Firefox won't have it... and that's fine. So many of these free software projects try to do too much and change what the core output of the project is in the process, and they lose sight of what the project is.
wkat4242 10mo ago
> New CEO says he's not going to remove adblockers, people suspect him for planning to remove adblockers It's because he has obviously been thinking about it. That $150M number didn't just come out of nowhere. Someone at Mozilla modelled this. The resulting analysis made it into the CEO's mind so far he even mentioned it without being asked. This is something that's unthinkable to most of the Mozilla users. That's why it's so shocking. It's like your son making dinner conversation like "hey I was thinking, if I would sell drugs at school I'd make at least 500$ a week! But don't worry I'm not going to do that!".
johnnyanmac 10mo ago
Trust takes a lifetime to build, and a moment to break. Those “moments” are becoming more of streams of time these days. How many times does a scorpion need to sting the frog for the frog to be justified in being wary of “ I definitely won’t sting you this time!”
- yoavm 10mo ago
  Except Firefox is a better browser now than it ever was.
nhinck3 10mo ago
Have they come out and said what personal data they are selling yet? They were awfully guarded about what they were selling and to who. I guess we shouldn't worry though, just some random law thought that what they were doing was "selling personal data" but we shouldn't think that it was. No further explanation required.
cons0le 10mo ago
Just saving this comment here for the future, so when he does it in 2 years I can come back and rub it in

binary132 10mo ago

[flagged]

dblohm7 10mo ago

> If it gets taken seriously it would ship with an enable-AI button, not the other way round. Like the one described in the subsequent toot? > All AI features will also be opt-in. I think there are some grey areas in what 'opt-in' means to different people (e.g. is a new toolbar button opt-in?)... https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500918701463 https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500918701463

catapart 10mo ago
I was about to use a quote to show you that "no, it's not like what is described in the thread", but you included the salient bit in the second quote, yourself. It's not a gray area, and "opt-in" isn't something to be weasled-worded around. If the browser has the capability, I don't want it. I want to be able to add it with a plugin, and that's it. Plugins should have full control to whatever is necessary (same as adblock stuff; plenty of security but enough "user beware" to allow truly useful utilities). And AI features should all be plugins. Separate ones, if I had my way, but bundles if that makes more sense. I do not and will not need AI to browse. It's an enhancement. The core product (or at least ONE OF the products offered) should allow me to do without the enhancement. And opt in if I want to. There's nothing gray there, and I'm so fucking sick of mozilla trying to pull this "we disagree with common terminology" horseshit.
- fsflover 10mo ago
  > It's not a gray area, and "opt-in" isn't something to be weasled-worded around How about "Translate" button?
  - catapart 10mo ago
    What about it? If it's output is generated by the manipulation of tensors and weights, it doesn't belong in my browser. It's not there to because I need to browse, it's there because I want to read content that is not in a language that the content provider has supported for me. I could feed those network responses right into a separate, non-browser app and have it translate stuff for me, if I wanted. Why should I be required to download and ignore your translation feature, when I could just as easily not have it included in the first place? And, if I'm being honest, "translation" is the only feature I would even consider splitting the builds for. At least in that feature I can see why a "default" version of the browser might benefit more people than not by including it. But that doesn't mean that a "clean" version shouldn't be provided. Build the core app, and then include as many plugins as you think "average users" will benefit from in the "default" version. I don't mind being the minority, I just don't think it's inappropriate to ask for only what I need instead of "all the bullshit you want to force me to have".

marricks 10mo ago

Literally every other browser and most tech companies are shoving AI down users throats. Firefox isn't missing the boat by neglecting AI, they're missing it by being an alternative which reminds us how nice things can be without it. The past 15 years has been a slow decline while they were trying to prove some relevancy outside of their core product. With mobile browsers being locked down a decline was going to happen anyways but if they stuck to their guns at least they wouldn't have wasted a bunch of money and maintained more of their base. Who knows, their position sucks, but they're not going to win anyone by being the worst AI focused browser which happens to have an off switch.

mindcrash 10mo ago
The solution for the (as of yet) small group of people who cares about these things is very simple: community driven forks. With the bonus that you also get a set of great (and per fork different yet handy) features. These include: Waterfox (Firefox) - https://www.waterfox.com/ https://www.waterfox.com/ Zen Browser (Firefox) - https://zen-browser.app/ https://zen-browser.app/ Librewolf (Firefox) - https://librewolf.net/ https://librewolf.net/ Helium (Chrome/Chromium) - https://helium.computer/ https://helium.computer/ Ungoogled Chromium (Chrome/Chromium) - https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium Also as one of the major players, Vivaldi already made a stand against AI and forcefully including (agentic) AI in the web browser: https://vivaldi.com/blog/keep-exploring/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/keep-exploring/. It's a Chromium based browser with a lot of nice features and deep customization options: https://vivaldi.com/ https://vivaldi.com/
- nemomarx 10mo ago
  Unfortunately the more interesting ones use Chromium. I wish Zen was better developed and less "aesthetic", it might be worth a shot.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

tgsovlerkhgsel 10mo ago

No, it wouldn't. Because the average user might actually want the features, and if you default to "no" without asking people even once, the users who want it won't find it. That's why it should ask - once. And offer a "FUCK OFF NEVER ASK ME AGAIN" button rather than "Ask me again later".

johnnyanmac 10mo ago
>and if you default to "no" without asking people even once I'm still waiting for the polls and statistics and feature requests of this. The "without asking" is the primary problem.

1vuio0pswjnm7 10mo ago

Make it a compile-time option ./configure --disable-ai

dang 10mo ago

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

azemetre 10mo ago
I thought this rule only applied to users commenting with each other, didn't know it applied to posted content too.