4 ms·

They have already said that after the feedback they will make pocket into an addon (installed by default but easily removable like any addon).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- aroch 11y ago
  > The choice is to install it by default and make users opt-out, giving the uninformed users' data to Pocket (and thus their "partners")? Except no data is sent to Pocket unless you actually opt-in to the service by signing up. Unless you login to Pocket the plugin and all its communication code is inactive... It is fine ti not like the integration but spreading FUD is annoying
- Manishearth 11y ago
  Data doesn't go to pocket until you start using it, and even then, you have to click through a few pages to get there. Pages which make it abundantly obvious that its a third party service. Mozilla did user testing before integration and found that people do want it. Remember that techies complaining on HN doesn't mean that the majority doesn't like it. It's not different from the privacy implications of having Google/Yahoo as a default search provider. It's a nice feature that (very visibly) uses a third party service instead of being part of Firefox Accounts.
  - kenko 11y ago
    "Mozilla did user testing before integration and found that people do want it. Remember that techies complaining on HN doesn't mean that the majority doesn't like it." I'm really not convinced by this as an argument. People might like all sorts of harmful things, once they see them. And the fact that people might want something that provides the functionality that Pocket provides, or something like it, doesn't mean that using Pocket specifically is a good idea.
    - Manishearth 11y ago
      This is an argument against "users didn't like it", not in itself a reason to use Pocket. Though if you couple this with the fact that Pocket integration isn't much different from search does help its case.
mangeletti 11y ago
To avoid inflaming the situation, I have deleted my erroneous (sibling) comment after @aroch's reply. I was not aware that Pocket sent no data without opting in.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
aroch 11y ago
> The choice is to install it by default and make users opt-out, giving the uninformed users' data to Pocket (and thus their "partners")? Except no data is sent to Pocket unless you actually opt-in to the service by signing up. Unless you login to Pocket the plugin and all its communication code is inactive... It is fine ti not like the integration but spreading FUD is annoying
Manishearth 11y ago
Data doesn't go to pocket until you start using it, and even then, you have to click through a few pages to get there. Pages which make it abundantly obvious that its a third party service. Mozilla did user testing before integration and found that people do want it. Remember that techies complaining on HN doesn't mean that the majority doesn't like it. It's not different from the privacy implications of having Google/Yahoo as a default search provider. It's a nice feature that (very visibly) uses a third party service instead of being part of Firefox Accounts.
- kenko 11y ago
  "Mozilla did user testing before integration and found that people do want it. Remember that techies complaining on HN doesn't mean that the majority doesn't like it." I'm really not convinced by this as an argument. People might like all sorts of harmful things, once they see them. And the fact that people might want something that provides the functionality that Pocket provides, or something like it, doesn't mean that using Pocket specifically is a good idea.
  - Manishearth 11y ago
    This is an argument against "users didn't like it", not in itself a reason to use Pocket. Though if you couple this with the fact that Pocket integration isn't much different from search does help its case.

mangeletti 11y ago

To avoid inflaming the situation, I have deleted my erroneous (sibling) comment after @aroch's reply. I was not aware that Pocket sent no data without opting in.