7 ms·

Honest question: Pretty much every site on the internet does that. Why are we spending 500 replies and all this developer time on an issue that if done by, sa

by monob 9y ago

Honest question: Pretty much every site on the internet does that. Why are we spending 500 replies and all this developer time on an issue that if done by, say google on their home page, would be considered at best a fun little doodle at worst business as usual?

BoysenberryPi 9y ago
I feel like this is way overblown but I think the logic here is that Mozilla claims to be an ally of privacy and internet freedom. While Google obviously, does not.
- Drdrdrq 9y ago
  It is not overblown. Many of us powerusers / influencers stood by Firefox because of privacy. Latest failures have damaged my trust considerably. To add insult to injury I don't see an apology or anything similar from Mozilla (or callahad here on hn) that would show me they understand the extent of this issue - how badly they f* up on how many occasions. It's ironic, right when browser can finally stand next to Chrome in terms of performance...
  - tzahola 9y ago
    Maybe you can’t have chrome-like performance without chrome-like privacy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - Endy 9y ago
      Then people need to learn to slow down and back off - my privacy is a major part of my time's value. I will gladly spend a few half-seconds longer to be more private and more secure on an XUL-based browser rather than ever use an insecure WebExtensions-backed multi-process mess that accesses the Web without my consent or control.
  - walterstucco 9y ago
    Do you really think your opinion represent the opinion of power users? Do you really believe you're an influencer?
gregknicholson 9y ago
I think it's about domains of control: I expect that Google controls which image appears on their home page; I expect that I control which add-ons are installed in my Firefox. If this code had been in core-Firefox, we'd never have noticed it. Counter-intuitively, maybe it wouldn't have felt as invasive, because I know that Mozilla controls core-Firefox, not me. (And I choose to defer to their judgement, because my other options are to defer to Google or Apple.)
- monob 9y ago
  >If this code had been in core-Firefox, we'd never have noticed it. Counter-intuitively, maybe it wouldn't have felt as invasive, because I know that Mozilla controls core-Firefox, not me. (And I choose to defer to their judgement, because my other options are to defer to Google or Apple.) The code is available. I'm pretty sure the tor project would have noticed it.
abmackenzie 9y ago
I expect advertisements from a website. I do not expect advertisements from my web browser - and I don't think that's an unreasonable line to draw.
suby 9y ago
Firefox isn't a website. This is contrary to user expectation. There is some degree of deceit present here which bothers me. They pushed out this advertisement through user studies, a feature that ostensibly exists and is designed to improve Firefox. I take issue with it instead serving as a backdoor silently install an advertisement. If I personally saw this in my add-on page without any knowledge of what it was, I would be alarmed. My first thought would be that my computer had been somehow compromised. I'm also slightly sympathetic to the idea that these user studies / telemetry can be used to improve FF. By abusing the feature, they encourage people to disable it, which harms Firefox if you take the position that the data gained by telemetry is useful. I certainly no longer have it turned on. I've seen people link to anecdotes about the user study feature being reenabled after an update was downloaded. All I'll say here is that this is not cool if true. And really, at the end of the day, why should I put up with any form of advertisements in my actual browser software? Good alternatives exist that don't have advertisements. Advertisements embedded in the product is a huge part of the reason why I switched away from Windows 10 to Linux. To me, it's a worrying trend between this, Cliqz, the initial integration of pocket, and the the advertisements on the default new tab page. I'm not particularly sympathetic to the idea that Mozilla needs to pull these kind of anti-user stunts in order to function. We're talking about a foundation that saw revenue of 421 million US Dollars in 2015 and 520 million in 2016.[0] [0] - https://www.ghacks.net/2017/12/02/mozillas-revenue-increased-significantly-in-2016/ https://www.ghacks.net/2017/12/02/mozillas-revenue-increased...
- syshum 9y ago
  >I'm also slightly sympathetic to the idea that these user studies / telemetry can be used to improve FF. By abusing the feature, they encourage people to disable it, which harms Firefox if you take the position that the data gained by telemetry is useful. I certainly no longer have it turned on. Count me in here... I was opposed to this feature and commented about making it Opt-in when it was introduced, however I did leave it enabled on a few of my systems believing it would only be used to improve the technology of the browser. It is now (or will be soon) disabled on every system I manage... Good Job Mozilla...
- itronitron 9y ago
OrderlyTiamat 9y ago
apart from the fact that mozilla has standards it (supposedly) holds itself to, firefox is a beloved tool. It's not a piece of content, it's a tool. My content can be messed with, for sure. My tools can not.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
piyush_soni 9y ago
Because many people use Firefox precisely because it's not Google?
tzahola 9y ago
Because Google is an advertisement company.

by monob 9y ago

BoysenberryPi 9y ago

I feel like this is way overblown but I think the logic here is that Mozilla claims to be an ally of privacy and internet freedom. While Google obviously, does not.

Drdrdrq 9y ago
It is not overblown. Many of us powerusers / influencers stood by Firefox because of privacy. Latest failures have damaged my trust considerably. To add insult to injury I don't see an apology or anything similar from Mozilla (or callahad here on hn) that would show me they understand the extent of this issue - how badly they f* up on how many occasions. It's ironic, right when browser can finally stand next to Chrome in terms of performance...
- tzahola 9y ago
  Maybe you can’t have chrome-like performance without chrome-like privacy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - Endy 9y ago
    Then people need to learn to slow down and back off - my privacy is a major part of my time's value. I will gladly spend a few half-seconds longer to be more private and more secure on an XUL-based browser rather than ever use an insecure WebExtensions-backed multi-process mess that accesses the Web without my consent or control.
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Do you really think your opinion represent the opinion of power users? Do you really believe you're an influencer?

gregknicholson 9y ago

I think it's about domains of control: I expect that Google controls which image appears on their home page; I expect that I control which add-ons are installed in my Firefox. If this code had been in core-Firefox, we'd never have noticed it. Counter-intuitively, maybe it wouldn't have felt as invasive, because I know that Mozilla controls core-Firefox, not me. (And I choose to defer to their judgement, because my other options are to defer to Google or Apple.)

monob 9y ago
>If this code had been in core-Firefox, we'd never have noticed it. Counter-intuitively, maybe it wouldn't have felt as invasive, because I know that Mozilla controls core-Firefox, not me. (And I choose to defer to their judgement, because my other options are to defer to Google or Apple.) The code is available. I'm pretty sure the tor project would have noticed it.

abmackenzie 9y ago

I expect advertisements from a website. I do not expect advertisements from my web browser - and I don't think that's an unreasonable line to draw.

suby 9y ago

Firefox isn't a website. This is contrary to user expectation. There is some degree of deceit present here which bothers me. They pushed out this advertisement through user studies, a feature that ostensibly exists and is designed to improve Firefox. I take issue with it instead serving as a backdoor silently install an advertisement. If I personally saw this in my add-on page without any knowledge of what it was, I would be alarmed. My first thought would be that my computer had been somehow compromised. I'm also slightly sympathetic to the idea that these user studies / telemetry can be used to improve FF. By abusing the feature, they encourage people to disable it, which harms Firefox if you take the position that the data gained by telemetry is useful. I certainly no longer have it turned on. I've seen people link to anecdotes about the user study feature being reenabled after an update was downloaded. All I'll say here is that this is not cool if true. And really, at the end of the day, why should I put up with any form of advertisements in my actual browser software? Good alternatives exist that don't have advertisements. Advertisements embedded in the product is a huge part of the reason why I switched away from Windows 10 to Linux. To me, it's a worrying trend between this, Cliqz, the initial integration of pocket, and the the advertisements on the default new tab page. I'm not particularly sympathetic to the idea that Mozilla needs to pull these kind of anti-user stunts in order to function. We're talking about a foundation that saw revenue of 421 million US Dollars in 2015 and 520 million in 2016.[0] [0] - https://www.ghacks.net/2017/12/02/mozillas-revenue-increased-significantly-in-2016/ https://www.ghacks.net/2017/12/02/mozillas-revenue-increased...

syshum 9y ago
>I'm also slightly sympathetic to the idea that these user studies / telemetry can be used to improve FF. By abusing the feature, they encourage people to disable it, which harms Firefox if you take the position that the data gained by telemetry is useful. I certainly no longer have it turned on. Count me in here... I was opposed to this feature and commented about making it Opt-in when it was introduced, however I did leave it enabled on a few of my systems believing it would only be used to improve the technology of the browser. It is now (or will be soon) disabled on every system I manage... Good Job Mozilla...
itronitron 9y ago

OrderlyTiamat 9y ago

apart from the fact that mozilla has standards it (supposedly) holds itself to, firefox is a beloved tool. It's not a piece of content, it's a tool. My content can be messed with, for sure. My tools can not.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

piyush_soni 9y ago

Because many people use Firefox precisely because it's not Google?

tzahola 9y ago

Because Google is an advertisement company.