4 ms·
Look, I absolutely agree it sucks they didn't deliver the opt-out/in interface day one, it was obvious people would want it, and yes, it's not the first time th
by Latty 4mo ago
Look, I absolutely agree it sucks they didn't deliver the opt-out/in interface day one, it was obvious people would want it, and yes, it's not the first time they've blundered.
At the same time, they did listen to the feedback and deliver. It now has a genuinely good interface for it where you don't have to opt out of everything, but can opt-in where you want it. It's not just a big off button, it's a general out-out including new features, but that then exposes individual opt-ins if you want for each feature. Most other browsers won't respond at all. Firefox is still by far the best browser out there for people who care about their privacy.
Especially on HN, Firefox just gets so much more hate than software that is way more user hostile for much less bad behaviour. I'm not saying we shouldn't hold it to a higher standard when that is what it's selling itself on: clearly we can't allow "not as bad" to let it slip into worse and worse, but at the same time, I don't understand how the narrative seems to trend towards "they are essentially the same as google" when that is so clearly not true (to be clear, not saying you are saying that in this post, just that's the vibe of HN's commentary as a whole).
- ekianjo 4mo ago> it's not the first time they've blundered It's a recurring pattern of not reading the room
- b112 4mo agoIndeed, and it's on purpose. Everyone was forced to be exposed to it. To see it. Only after that happened, did they let users disable it. It's effectively the equivalent of a spam campaign.
- meibo 4mo agoPeople had to raise hell to get that, while being made fun of by their CMs on social media. Even the opt-out is full of silicon valley dark patterns. Whoever is calling shots about the product at Mozilla doesn't have your best interests at heart.
- Krssst 4mo agoWhat are those dark patterns? It's an off button, it works, and it does not get back on. It's the polar opposite of the "maybe later, I'll ask again every week and reset the setting in your back" unfortunate norm that plagues a lot of major proprietary software/service.
- vitally3643 4mo ago"You can turn it off" is not in the same category of "would you like to turn this on?" or even "do you want this in the first place?" Opt-out is not consent, nor is it respect. Opt-out is a dark pattern, period. Opt-out is forcing something onto users and hoping they don't go out of their way to disable it. It is the same as "maybe later".
- godelski 4mo ago> Opt-out is a dark pattern, period. No it isn't. All you're doing is making it harder to talk about dark patterns. You want to know dark patterns? How about having to physically mail a letter to cancel your news subscription or gym membership? How about burying your "delete account" button so its only findable by third party websites who keep the correct link up to date. And they still try to convince you to deactivate instead. How about making you pay to cancel your subscription? How about the frequent tip begging on online orders or at a fucking fast food location? Especially when the lowest option is 20%! A default with a clearly labeled section in the settings (that's searchable!) is NOT a dark pattern. It is not tricking you in any way. You may be annoyed by the default, and you have every right to, but by calling this a dark pattern you just make it harder to talk about all the above stuff because you trivialize them. Because at the end of the day, every binary option has to be toggled in one direction or another. Do not conflate these things
- kgwxd 4mo agoThe only correct move would be remove the option, remove all AI code, and move it into extensions. If the extension security policies, and other restrictions, don't allow all the things they want to put in, then GOOD, they don't go in.
- zzo38computer 4mo agoI also think should be moved into extensions. However, extension security policies and other restrictions do not have to necessarily be so restrictive; there can be permissions but for extensions that you can install and uninstall by yourself it can be useful to be able to load native code .so files (since you might want to do things other than what the browser does by itself). This permission would not be made available to the official extensions, so that you can write it in C and then must compile them by yourself if you want them with native codes
- thisislife2 4mo agoOlder Firefox extension feature-sets were quite powerful before Google financially coerced / induced them to support the kind of crippled version that is today's "Web Extensions". Many developers were angry enough to fork Firefox just to retain that feature ( https://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.palemoon.org/ ).
- thisislife2 4mo agoThat is true - Firefox is definitely held to a higher standard here and elsewhere. They marketed those values to us. So the criticisms, in my opinion, are definitely justified. And no, they aren't listening to their users. If they had listened to their users they would have delivered what every users wants - just a browser. Not some kind of "platform" stuffed with lot of unwanted crap that makes it bloated and introduces possibly new unnecessary attack vectors in it (both malicious and / or privacy exploits). All those additional crap that every new management wants in Firefox should have been a browser extension or a plugin, instead of being bundled into the core browser. When a user installs / updates Firefox, they could be asked if they want to install any of these new feature available as an extension / plugin. That keeps the browser lean, transfers the choice completely to the user and is genuinely respectful of the user. The current way of force bundling everything into the browser, making it bloated, and then pretending that "users can opt-out" is not just arrogance but also misleading (to be polite) as it is common knowledge among software firms that most people often never change the default settings. Think about it ... if every of these controversial features - Pocket, ads in address bar or home page, AI etc. etc. - had been made available as user opted extension or plugin, would there ever have been any controversies? The installation data itself would provide a feedback of how much the users actually care about these features, and provide unique insights to the management into the kind of user base that it has (which the article is spot-on about). (Note that I know that some of these features are indeed implemented as an extension. But not as user controlled ones as they cannot be completely uninstalled. All the user can do is disable it (turn "off or on"). Why? It is stuff like this that makes it harder to trust claims of caring about user Privacy.)
- vitally3643 4mo agoPeople are mad because Mozilla refuses to listen to users until backlash becomes a threat to the company. They keep pushing users to the limit and only pull back slightly when the screaming gets too loud. People are mad because Mozilla is clearly and unashamedly trying to boil the frog and doesn't seem to even be interested in hiding that fact. People are mad because Mozilla is speed-running SV software-shittifying strategies without even doing us the dignity of pretending they aren't.
- jlarocco 4mo agoI think Firefox gets hated on more than the others because they advertise putting the user in control but in practice they seem to undermine it at every opportunity. A browser that puts users in control should make features like AI and advertising opt-in because there is a sizeable group of people who are concerned about those things. It's meaningless if they only put users in control who agree 100% with Mozilla's ways of thinking. After so many times of blundering in ways that are favorable to their corporate sponsors, it's hard to believe they're not doing it on purpose.
- DANmode 4mo agoSay what you need to say: Google pays the bills over there, it’ll never be an effective, scrappy organization again as long as that’s the case.