Mozilla Rally(rally.mozilla.org)
rally.mozilla.org
Mozilla Rally
https://rally.mozilla.org/
230 comments
> PS: and if you find some time, go fix that bug that makes the active tab so difficult to differentiate if lighting conditions or eyesight aren't perfect.
fwiw you can change the firefox chrome(what they call the browser widgets itself and predates googlechrome) css to highlight the active tab fairly easily if it's important to you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/
fwiw you can change the firefox chrome(what they call the browser widgets itself and predates googlechrome) css to highlight the active tab fairly easily if it's important to you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/
And true to form, Mozilla have in the past few years been hiding this customization behind a "legacy" preference in about:config, calling it a "relic of the XUL era", and threatening to take it away at any future version. [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1541233#c62]
> PS: and if you find some time, go fix that bug that makes the active tab so difficult to differentiate if lighting conditions or eyesight aren't perfect.
Is it possible that this is just a theme issue?
Is it possible that this is just a theme issue?
Where can I sign this petition?
Also, Mozilla should stop removing features, buttons and preference items based on bullshit metrics that majority of the power users don't even keep enabled, thus skewing the studies completely.
All that makes me feel about Mozilla, Exactly how I felt about Nokia between 2010-2015; Having everything to make a turnaround yet making deliberate decisions to bury yourself deeper. Just like Nokia, I'm not ruling out internal sabotage entirely either.
At this point it just seems like Google is keeping Mozilla alive for avoiding anti-trust issues, But all horizontal monopolies are switching to being vertical monopolies anyways as they've learnt there are no laws to stop them and so I don't think Google would have reasons to put up this facade for much longer either.
Yet I still use Firefox as main browser, But have started to switch mission critical websites to Brave. Mainly because I don't want to use 3rd party extensions(Found a recommended Firefox add-on involved in malicious activity[1]) and that websites have started to treat Chrome as the only browser(We're back to IE 6 times again).
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210924045611/https://github.co...
At this point it just seems like Google is keeping Mozilla alive for avoiding anti-trust issues, But all horizontal monopolies are switching to being vertical monopolies anyways as they've learnt there are no laws to stop them and so I don't think Google would have reasons to put up this facade for much longer either.
Yet I still use Firefox as main browser, But have started to switch mission critical websites to Brave. Mainly because I don't want to use 3rd party extensions(Found a recommended Firefox add-on involved in malicious activity[1]) and that websites have started to treat Chrome as the only browser(We're back to IE 6 times again).
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210924045611/https://github.co...
I get it, but do you really think there are enough people willing to pay a subscription to keep Mozilla's business alive?
At this point the average consumer is used to free stuff, and a subscription model would ensure that Firefox is only used by a niche audience.
At this point the average consumer is used to free stuff, and a subscription model would ensure that Firefox is only used by a niche audience.
Not OP but I do. At this point in time it's clear who uses Firefox and it's not the masses. It's the ones like you and me. Maybe our closest loved ones, too.
It is doable. If there is an outrage, it would be manufactured.
It is doable. If there is an outrage, it would be manufactured.
How about the payed version has a solid VPN thrown in? And I mean a VPN using Mozilla infrastructure... Not a 3rd party.
There's a whole market around VPNs... So obviously enough money in that space.
There's a whole market around VPNs... So obviously enough money in that space.
> And I mean a VPN using Mozilla infrastructure... Not a 3rd party.
There is no Mozilla infrastructure. All their servers run in AWS.
There is no Mozilla infrastructure. All their servers run in AWS.
> There is no Mozilla infrastructure. All their servers run in AWS.
Yes I know - that would be a good place to start though don't you think?
Yes I know - that would be a good place to start though don't you think?
Would running their own servers actually be a good idea? Their workloads seem pretty well-served by AWS's offerings: services with extremely bursty traffic (like updates and TaskCluster CI) that can take advantage of the Elastic part of EC2, and mostly-static websites (like MDN and the Firefox installer) that can use a caching CDN like CloudFront.
have you seen AWS/azure/GCP data transfer fees? mozilla would go bankrupt overnight
I'm literally paying for the VPN product they have because its the only subscription service they really offer. I never use it because the linux integration is terrible. lol
Relay and pocket are subscription as well though, no?
> PS: and if you find some time, go fix that bug that makes the active tab so difficult to differentiate if lighting conditions or eyesight aren't perfect.
https://github.com/torstenvl/userChrome.css
https://github.com/torstenvl/userChrome.css
Mozilla already make a browser that is a great alternative to Chrome, and it's not enough. Would better CPU/RAM usage, fixing security bugs, or removing "advertizing shit" really change consumers opinions and gain a significant share of the market from Chrome?
Every time Mozilla attempts to innovate on the web they're publicly berated for not refocusing the company on the cries of enthusiast developer crowd, as if continued criticism will eventually compel Mozilla to be a better company. Where's the support?
Every time Mozilla attempts to innovate on the web they're publicly berated for not refocusing the company on the cries of enthusiast developer crowd, as if continued criticism will eventually compel Mozilla to be a better company. Where's the support?
Install Lepton, it fixes all the issues with the UI.
https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix
https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix
And for us power-users, please implement the hiding of all the bars (tab bar, location bar etc), so we can save some screen real estate on our tiny laptop screens, when using the browser with other windows side-by-side.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332447
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332447
You are fundamentally misunderstanding something very important: a browser is nothing without content to view in it.
In order to achieve Google independence, Mozilla can't just focus on Firefox. They need an ecosystem of web apps that are Firefox-first, or at least not Firefox-second the way Google's YouTube and Search are. They can build it themselves, or they can get other people to do it, just as long as it gets done.
Nobody seems interested in doing it for them. Most web pages either work better in Chrome, or they work about equally well in both browsers. The obvious allies that I can think of who might want to help elevate Firefox are Google's competitors, like NetFlix, Vimeo, various third-party ad companies, and, back when Google+ was still a thing, Facebook, but there are ideological reasons why being too overtly friendly with most of these companies can't happen.
Ideologically, Firefox would want to ally with hobbyist groups, but they're small and fragmented: if there was a widespread movement to push Firefox at the exclusion of Chrome, many hobbyists would be happy to participate, because fuck Google, but nobody wants to go on this stag hunt[1] alone, and nobody has enough influence to organize such a thing except maybe Mozilla themselves (if enough websites start blocking Chrome at Mozilla's request, YouTube will retaliate by blocking Firefox, and I'm pretty sure Google's war chest is big enough that they'd be the ones who live through this metaphorical nuclear war). So most hobbyist websites work about equally well in both browsers, which overall means that the set of websites that work well in Chrome is a superset of the ones that work well in Firefox.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt
Thus, Mozilla is stuck in a position where Google is vertically monopolizing them into irrelevance. Their repeated failure to launch their own products has proven that they don't have the power to go their own way, and working on their browser engine just means you have an excellent web browser engine, but that Chrome has them beat in the category of "stuff to actually do with it," which is much more important.
This is, of course, the reason why Google desperately needs to be broken up.
In order to achieve Google independence, Mozilla can't just focus on Firefox. They need an ecosystem of web apps that are Firefox-first, or at least not Firefox-second the way Google's YouTube and Search are. They can build it themselves, or they can get other people to do it, just as long as it gets done.
Nobody seems interested in doing it for them. Most web pages either work better in Chrome, or they work about equally well in both browsers. The obvious allies that I can think of who might want to help elevate Firefox are Google's competitors, like NetFlix, Vimeo, various third-party ad companies, and, back when Google+ was still a thing, Facebook, but there are ideological reasons why being too overtly friendly with most of these companies can't happen.
Ideologically, Firefox would want to ally with hobbyist groups, but they're small and fragmented: if there was a widespread movement to push Firefox at the exclusion of Chrome, many hobbyists would be happy to participate, because fuck Google, but nobody wants to go on this stag hunt[1] alone, and nobody has enough influence to organize such a thing except maybe Mozilla themselves (if enough websites start blocking Chrome at Mozilla's request, YouTube will retaliate by blocking Firefox, and I'm pretty sure Google's war chest is big enough that they'd be the ones who live through this metaphorical nuclear war). So most hobbyist websites work about equally well in both browsers, which overall means that the set of websites that work well in Chrome is a superset of the ones that work well in Firefox.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt
Thus, Mozilla is stuck in a position where Google is vertically monopolizing them into irrelevance. Their repeated failure to launch their own products has proven that they don't have the power to go their own way, and working on their browser engine just means you have an excellent web browser engine, but that Chrome has them beat in the category of "stuff to actually do with it," which is much more important.
This is, of course, the reason why Google desperately needs to be broken up.
[deleted]
/sign
There was a time when Mozilla really did fight big tech. I loved working there. Internally the phrase "we fight for the user" was used, and it felt true.
Now they're just using that same war-cry as marketing to get you to sign up and fill out surveys for their market research. They're doing exactly what they're mad big tech is doing (collecting data), but with a dose of moral superiority.
It's sad that they've taken a message that resonates and just haphazardly use it for messaging anything they're building.
Now they're just using that same war-cry as marketing to get you to sign up and fill out surveys for their market research. They're doing exactly what they're mad big tech is doing (collecting data), but with a dose of moral superiority.
It's sad that they've taken a message that resonates and just haphazardly use it for messaging anything they're building.
I installed firefox focus which is a privacy first mobile browser that advertises that it cuts out phoning home. I was irate when I dug into the settings and found out that "Studies" is on by default. Research data collection should always be opt-in rather than opt-out, especially for privacy focused software.
Being mad about something like this is just choosing the wrong hill to die on, honestly. Studies (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/shield) are clearly just a/b testing of features for the browser. Doing this opt-in creates selection bias which corrupts the whole idea of running a/b tests.
So instead of saying "you should run your a/b tests opt-in only", what you really mean is "in order to fight for privacy, you should never run a/b tests", which, again, totally wrong hill to die on. Why is it so important they not be allowed to try different features to figure out which ones work and which ones don't?
Mozilla has made so many missteps they circled a small planet with them. This isn't one of them.
So instead of saying "you should run your a/b tests opt-in only", what you really mean is "in order to fight for privacy, you should never run a/b tests", which, again, totally wrong hill to die on. Why is it so important they not be allowed to try different features to figure out which ones work and which ones don't?
Mozilla has made so many missteps they circled a small planet with them. This isn't one of them.
If you advertise a browser as being all about privacy, you absolutely should not be a/b testing users without their explicit consent. It is amazing to me that this needs to be said.
Okay, why? What does a/b testing have to do with privacy?
If I told you right now that HN is A/B testing the size of the vote arrows, and you see larger ones than I do, how exactly are your privacy rights violated?
If I told you right now that HN is A/B testing the size of the vote arrows, and you see larger ones than I do, how exactly are your privacy rights violated?
A/B testing implies extra tracking and reporting of behavior, to distinguish between the A group and the B group's response to the change.
On a website, that isn't too much of a problem, because you expect your activity to be tracked since you are interacting with a web server.
In a browser, the same tracking is more intrusive. My behavior on a site is now being sent to the browser author, an unrelated party.
On a website, that isn't too much of a problem, because you expect your activity to be tracked since you are interacting with a web server.
In a browser, the same tracking is more intrusive. My behavior on a site is now being sent to the browser author, an unrelated party.
> My behavior on a site is now being sent to the browser author, an unrelated party.
But you're just assuming it is. It could also be "On uninstall and crash, report back which studies were enabled" to track how many people are uninstalling their browser when the flag stupid_feature="on" is set.
Be mad about the data collected [specifically, what type of data is collected], not about the concept of a/b testing. Set clear boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable. Otherwise you're fighting an ever-uphiller battle. Because if they want to know which sites you visit and the privacy boundary is "a/b testing isn't acceptable", they'll do it via history syncing instead.
But you're just assuming it is. It could also be "On uninstall and crash, report back which studies were enabled" to track how many people are uninstalling their browser when the flag stupid_feature="on" is set.
Be mad about the data collected [specifically, what type of data is collected], not about the concept of a/b testing. Set clear boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable. Otherwise you're fighting an ever-uphiller battle. Because if they want to know which sites you visit and the privacy boundary is "a/b testing isn't acceptable", they'll do it via history syncing instead.
> But you're just assuming it is
Of course we are. We didn't consent to being experimented upon or to have our behavior analyzed, so we have no basis for trust.
> Set clear boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable
Acceptable depends on trust. Ask for permission, not forgiveness, and I am more inclined to trust. Without that, I assume the worst.
Of course we are. We didn't consent to being experimented upon or to have our behavior analyzed, so we have no basis for trust.
> Set clear boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable
Acceptable depends on trust. Ask for permission, not forgiveness, and I am more inclined to trust. Without that, I assume the worst.
You're not assuming the worst if your assumption is that "some third-party I distrust will respect the checkbox they themselves control".
Mozilla has arbitrary code execution rights on your computer the moment you allow them auto-updates. They're also entirely free to ignore your opt-out or opt-in requests.
Mozilla has arbitrary code execution rights on your computer the moment you allow them auto-updates. They're also entirely free to ignore your opt-out or opt-in requests.
That's not a analogous situation. You can inspect and control what the code does on your device, but you can't inspect what is done with your data after it leaves it.
Yeah... no. If your claim is that the code on your own device can just be inspected, then you can inspect what data leaves your device instead of assuming Mozilla hoovers up everything including your porn stash, credit cards and the weed hidden in your cd tray.
Yeah... yeah. What data goes out and what is done with it after it leaves are absolutely not the same thing.
> Be mad about the data collected, not about the concept of a/b testing.
What does this sentence mean? A/B testing fundamentally requires data collection, so I don't understand how to be mad about the data collected but not A/B testing.
What does this sentence mean? A/B testing fundamentally requires data collection, so I don't understand how to be mad about the data collected but not A/B testing.
I think they're saying to be mad about what data is collected. For example, be mad if they're storing your IP address and location and not be mad if they're just storing a counter of how many people visited their marketing page.
A privacy first browser should be completely up front about what data is being collected. The simple fact that they did while implying something else means that they arent to be trusted to not abuse the privilege in the future.
That makes sense.
Don’t be mad _that_ data is collected, be mad about _what specific_ data is collected.
I don’t know that I agree, but it does help me understand the meaning of the previous post. Thanks!
Don’t be mad _that_ data is collected, be mad about _what specific_ data is collected.
I don’t know that I agree, but it does help me understand the meaning of the previous post. Thanks!
> My behavior on a site is now being sent to the browser author, an unrelated party.
What is the consequence of this? In the abstract I understand that it doesn’t feel great, but I’m asking in the specific, how does it make a difference to any individual user?
If you knew that the user in the A group made fewer misclicks after the back button was shrunk … how does that harm anyone?
What is the consequence of this? In the abstract I understand that it doesn’t feel great, but I’m asking in the specific, how does it make a difference to any individual user?
If you knew that the user in the A group made fewer misclicks after the back button was shrunk … how does that harm anyone?
You could say the same thing about pretty much all adtech tracking, since nearly everyone would be unable demonstrate any concrete harm to themselves.
That's not the point. The point is unless you are doing data collection on anything but an opt-in basis, you are not pro-privacy. What you do with the data or why you collect it or if that collection is harmful is irrelevant to this principle.
That's not the point. The point is unless you are doing data collection on anything but an opt-in basis, you are not pro-privacy. What you do with the data or why you collect it or if that collection is harmful is irrelevant to this principle.
That's just extra data points that you give away for no good reason. Realistically it will not amount to anything (like, I'm sure, absolute majority of data collected even by sleaziest adtech). But worst case scenario? You data gets sold to a medical insurer, deanonymised, fed into ML models, then used to justify increasing premiums based on inferred health info.
All A/B testing really implies to me is, at most, crash reporting, which shouldn't be much of a privacy concern.
I've never seen A/B testing used for crash reporting. Perhaps it could be used for this, but it's flabbergasting to me that you see it as only for crash reporting.
You've never seen partial rollouts of a feature?
A browser A/B testing and sending analytics data back home is different from a website.
A _privacy marketed_ browser sending such analytics data back home is different from a regular browser doing so.
A _privacy marketed_ browser sending such analytics data back home is different from a regular browser doing so.
Obviously you'd need to know how they're measuring the effect. And I think that's the problem: Firefox doesn't make that easy enough. If Firefox gave on installation
* a short list of all the data they could collect, and
* a promise that they won't collect anything else without asking for the user's consent again,
then I doubt anyone would complain.
* a short list of all the data they could collect, and
* a promise that they won't collect anything else without asking for the user's consent again,
then I doubt anyone would complain.
It needs to be said because some folks are blinded by their belief in the virtuousness of themselves or their in-group.
I may agree with the goals, but that doesn't mean I should blindly trust them to execute them, right?
I may agree with the goals, but that doesn't mean I should blindly trust them to execute them, right?
Informed consent is a standard practice for human experimentation. It's a serious ethical lapse that the web companies have decided it doesn't apply to them simply because it's inconvenient. Here's some references:
https://researchbasics.education.uconn.edu/ethics-and-inform... https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/conduc...
https://researchbasics.education.uconn.edu/ethics-and-inform... https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/conduc...
Research ethics is way too deontologically focused, it needs reform. See: at minimum tens of thousands of deaths directly caused by failure to use challenge trials.
This is often taken too far. If the research is "try out an experimental medicine" then yes, of course you need informed consent, because the patient is taking a risk.
If it's "see which color blue people like best in your UI" then this is nonsense. Nobody is going to be harmed regardless of which color blue you pick, so they don't need to be informed. Some privacy zealots may want to be informed, but they don't have a reasonable argument for why they need to know.
If it's "see which color blue people like best in your UI" then this is nonsense. Nobody is going to be harmed regardless of which color blue you pick, so they don't need to be informed. Some privacy zealots may want to be informed, but they don't have a reasonable argument for why they need to know.
It doesn't need to be so life or death here. This is a privacy focused browser with the explicit message that it cuts out tracking, so the tracking without consent is pure hypocrisy.
It absolutely should apply to psychological experiments as well. If you can't see that treating fellow humans as lab rats for you to experiment on is deeply problematic, then you're an actual sociopath.
I don't care how you rationalize it, as long as there is any sort of intervention, you need informed consent.
I don't care how you rationalize it, as long as there is any sort of intervention, you need informed consent.
If changing a color in a UI is a "psychological experiment" then all artists and UI designers are doing psychological experiments all the time. Are you doing a psychological experiment every time you edit a CSS file?
This is redefining something ordinary to sound bad, but that doesn't make it bad.
This is redefining something ordinary to sound bad, but that doesn't make it bad.
Secretly monitoring unaware people to see how they behave based on the UI design is absolutely experimenting on people, and deeply problematic. It doesn't matter if other people are doing it. It's wrong. People aren't for experimenting on.
It's experimenting on software, not experimenting on people. "People" aren't the part of the equation that anyone cares about in this scenario.
And I do not think you're even sort of having this argument in good faith. You can't possibly be a rational person and believe that changing UI colors is "deeply problematic experimentation on people".
Forgive me if I'm a little pissed off but this privacy extremism shit is exactly what leads to people looking down at anyone who is a privacy advocate as a nutjob. So, thanks a lot for that, more work for those of us out there who want, to, I dunno, protect citizens from being genuinely fucking spied on and their data passed around like candy so better ads can be served.
But hey, it's all good, you're keeping those pesky UI designers from knowing which of their redesign is better, so at least we got that going for us.
And I do not think you're even sort of having this argument in good faith. You can't possibly be a rational person and believe that changing UI colors is "deeply problematic experimentation on people".
Forgive me if I'm a little pissed off but this privacy extremism shit is exactly what leads to people looking down at anyone who is a privacy advocate as a nutjob. So, thanks a lot for that, more work for those of us out there who want, to, I dunno, protect citizens from being genuinely fucking spied on and their data passed around like candy so better ads can be served.
But hey, it's all good, you're keeping those pesky UI designers from knowing which of their redesign is better, so at least we got that going for us.
It seems a bit dismissive to wave off pp's discomfort with becoming an unwitting UI test subject.
I also would not agree with any argument like "opt-in is necessary to reign in anti-privacy activities of bad companies like Facebook, but we're good UI designers at Mozilla so we don't need to use opt-in and can use opt-out with impunity."
A browser that collects and reports any information on its users without their explicit permission is simply not putting privacy first.
Any privacy-focused browser should make UI testing - or any other telemetry or analytics - opt-in and should generally clearly disclose any information being collected (and preferably make it available for inspection) and also describe all parties that will have access to the information as well as what it will be used for.
I also would not agree with any argument like "opt-in is necessary to reign in anti-privacy activities of bad companies like Facebook, but we're good UI designers at Mozilla so we don't need to use opt-in and can use opt-out with impunity."
A browser that collects and reports any information on its users without their explicit permission is simply not putting privacy first.
Any privacy-focused browser should make UI testing - or any other telemetry or analytics - opt-in and should generally clearly disclose any information being collected (and preferably make it available for inspection) and also describe all parties that will have access to the information as well as what it will be used for.
The fundamental problem is your view of human beings as tools to be used to further your goals. Other people aren't tools for you to use. They are your peers.
If you view them as instruments, you're a villain. It doesn't matter if your intentions are good. Everyone has good intentions. Every atrocity in human history has been made with good intentions.
It doesn't matter if you don't think it will do them any harm. That's not for you to decide.
If you view them as instruments, you're a villain. It doesn't matter if your intentions are good. Everyone has good intentions. Every atrocity in human history has been made with good intentions.
It doesn't matter if you don't think it will do them any harm. That's not for you to decide.
except for that one time they silently pushed an extension marketing a TV show, which is probably how anyone who's heard of Firefox studies found out about them.
https://www.theregister.com/2017/12/18/mozilla_mr_robot_fire...
https://www.theregister.com/2017/12/18/mozilla_mr_robot_fire...
Yes, I'm aware. This is one of their million missteps (and this was a particularly bad one). But that their marketing people are absolute idiots has no bearing on whether a/b testing as a concept infringes on privacy. They could have used any other thing, they're literally in control of what runs on your computer the moment you allow them auto-update rights.
Why do marketing people have control over the a/b test?
Marketing people are always absolute idiots. The failure here was allowing them to push that extension, and that wasn't their choice.
[deleted]
I see the current things they're running through this, and it's university studies on various topics that could use browsing data. So I see value in having a simpler route for researchers to get that, and one that respects users' choice in what to participate in and so on... but the "fight Big Tech" gloss is a turn-off.
I suppose when you know your audience is dwindling down closer and closer to just "people who are ideologically opposed to Chrome" this is the messaging you go with.
What I couldn't find was: does Mozilla get paid by the researchers for this data? There's language around users "donating" their data, and a sort of caveat-ed pledge not to "sell your data" but what the actualy structure of this program is was unclear to me. Their site isn't really clear about whether this falls under the auspices of the "corporation" or "foundation" side of Mozilla's operations.
I also wonder for research purposes, the extreme opt-in nature of this program, you need to be using Firefox, you need to opt-in to Rally, and opt-in to the specific study. You have so much selection bias there that the data feels like it won't be terribly useful for extrapolating valid patterns about, say, COVID-19 information/misinformation (as one of the studies is examining).
I suppose when you know your audience is dwindling down closer and closer to just "people who are ideologically opposed to Chrome" this is the messaging you go with.
What I couldn't find was: does Mozilla get paid by the researchers for this data? There's language around users "donating" their data, and a sort of caveat-ed pledge not to "sell your data" but what the actualy structure of this program is was unclear to me. Their site isn't really clear about whether this falls under the auspices of the "corporation" or "foundation" side of Mozilla's operations.
I also wonder for research purposes, the extreme opt-in nature of this program, you need to be using Firefox, you need to opt-in to Rally, and opt-in to the specific study. You have so much selection bias there that the data feels like it won't be terribly useful for extrapolating valid patterns about, say, COVID-19 information/misinformation (as one of the studies is examining).
It has nothing to do specifically with Firefox, but is all about the incentives. If someone puts a non-trivial amount of effort into developing a product, they could be motivated by:
1. Trying to make money off selling it to end users.
2. Trying to make money by selling the end users' attention to advertisers.
3. Vanity, if it's a side/hobby project.
4. Influence the audience (pushing things aligned with their values into the audience's attention span).
5. Being a loss leader of a sort. E.g., trying to grab a market share in expectations to make money later, or sell growth figures to investors.
So, specifically to web browsers:
* Chrome, the de-facto standard, is clearly sustained by option #2.
* Because Chrome is free-to-use, option #1 is not viable for any competition.
* Because web browsers are complex and require a lot of upkeep, #3 is also mostly out of the picture.
So, if Mozilla wants to stay alive, they have no other choice than to treat their end users as the merchandise. And, to differentiate themselves from Google, they will keep making bullshit claims that will have nothing to do with reality. Even worse, as long as the current approach to antitrust doesn't change, there won't be any long-term alternatives to this model.
All of this could be swiftly solved by deeming indirectly subsidized "free" products anti-competitive (e.g. cash flow coming from outside the direct users), and not allowing mergers above something like a 20% market share, but I can't see this happen anytime soon.
1. Trying to make money off selling it to end users.
2. Trying to make money by selling the end users' attention to advertisers.
3. Vanity, if it's a side/hobby project.
4. Influence the audience (pushing things aligned with their values into the audience's attention span).
5. Being a loss leader of a sort. E.g., trying to grab a market share in expectations to make money later, or sell growth figures to investors.
So, specifically to web browsers:
* Chrome, the de-facto standard, is clearly sustained by option #2.
* Because Chrome is free-to-use, option #1 is not viable for any competition.
* Because web browsers are complex and require a lot of upkeep, #3 is also mostly out of the picture.
So, if Mozilla wants to stay alive, they have no other choice than to treat their end users as the merchandise. And, to differentiate themselves from Google, they will keep making bullshit claims that will have nothing to do with reality. Even worse, as long as the current approach to antitrust doesn't change, there won't be any long-term alternatives to this model.
All of this could be swiftly solved by deeming indirectly subsidized "free" products anti-competitive (e.g. cash flow coming from outside the direct users), and not allowing mergers above something like a 20% market share, but I can't see this happen anytime soon.
They could just take that $400 mil/year and dump it entirely into the browser for as long as the money lasts. Ideally spending some money refactoring their codebase such that it could be more likely for the code to survive on after a loss of funding as an non-Mozilla open-source project. Follow the public radio route and take donations, build a sense of community. Possibly spin up a commercial Rust consultancy/side-business (I know this is hypocritical, it's just that Rust seems like the "git" to Mozilla's equivalent of "linux", out of all the things I've seen them try. Sorry Thunderbird lovers :P)
Spot on, they lived long enough to see themselves become the villain.
Heh... and Google's motto used to be "Don't be evil." That stuck hard enough they actually had to expunge it from their doc.
What's wrong with filling out surveys? Data collection is an important way for product developers to improve their products. This can either be done without user consent through shady data collection practices or explicitly with the user's consent as is the case with surveys.
You are free not to fill out the surveys but saying that any form of data collection is akin to "doing what big tech is doing" is an extremist position and undermines companies which are respecting users' privacy and requesting rather than forcibly extracting data about user behaviour.
You are free not to fill out the surveys but saying that any form of data collection is akin to "doing what big tech is doing" is an extremist position and undermines companies which are respecting users' privacy and requesting rather than forcibly extracting data about user behaviour.
More directly, I think the point that I read from multiple comments here is that Mozilla is somewhat different, but not that different. In being not that different but using messaging like they are that different it comes off as equally egregious.
> Each study has a clear focus, unique data needs, and specific goals. Before you enroll, we’ll tell you exactly who we’re working with, which data is being collected, where it’s going, and how it’s being used.
Ironically, the page loads JS from https://cdn-3.convertexperiments.com (seems to belong to convert.com) and Twitter, without disclosing the fact that Mozilla is sharing your browser data with those two entities.
I'm a daily Firefox user myself, but I can't help to feel that each political effort they try to execute either backfires, or draws resources from what really has to be done: developing and maintaining a excellent user agent for the open web.
Ironically, the page loads JS from https://cdn-3.convertexperiments.com (seems to belong to convert.com) and Twitter, without disclosing the fact that Mozilla is sharing your browser data with those two entities.
I'm a daily Firefox user myself, but I can't help to feel that each political effort they try to execute either backfires, or draws resources from what really has to be done: developing and maintaining a excellent user agent for the open web.
>"Ironically, the page loads JS from https://cdn-3.convertexperiments.com (seems to belong to convert.com) and Twitter, without disclosing the fact that Mozilla is sharing your browser data with those two entities."
This is why (for the narrow demographic that bothers to care) uMatrix is such an awesome tool. This page is completely functional without loading either of those domains' shovelware -- and it saves laptop battery life too. This is true for most pages.
Ironic indeed that it's mozilla.org illustrating this point.
Block everything by default! Block all the things!
This is why (for the narrow demographic that bothers to care) uMatrix is such an awesome tool. This page is completely functional without loading either of those domains' shovelware -- and it saves laptop battery life too. This is true for most pages.
Ironic indeed that it's mozilla.org illustrating this point.
Block everything by default! Block all the things!
uMatrix and it's cousin is truly a miracle for the web! I've run it (or a variant of it) for as long as I can remember.
The requests were blocked in my browser, but the reason I checked in the first is the same reason I check every time some service claims to be pro-privacy or other similar things like this landing page: Are you actually living up to your words? In this case, they didn't, and honestly, there is not a cases where they do live up to their word 100%.
The requests were blocked in my browser, but the reason I checked in the first is the same reason I check every time some service claims to be pro-privacy or other similar things like this landing page: Are you actually living up to your words? In this case, they didn't, and honestly, there is not a cases where they do live up to their word 100%.
Though unfortunately uMatrix is no longer maintained: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
So rather than fighting mass data harvesting, Mozilla just wants a piece of the pie and is trying to claim the moral high ground?
Mozilla's positioning as a privacy advocate while consistently pushing projects that are antithetical to privacy is just nauseating.
Mozilla's positioning as a privacy advocate while consistently pushing projects that are antithetical to privacy is just nauseating.
Just in general...
I'm not sure we can meaningfully advocate for privacy atm without having a better understanding of what data big tech collects, what inferences they can glean from even limited data sets, what changes in behavior their customers can nudge users toward, and the worst-case hazards that extant algos can create.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind joining an "Evilcorp" social media network run by FSF, EFF, or some such, if it were done in a way where the insights gleaned about big tech dangers were to be made public in a responsible way. It's one thing to watch a documentary that provides a vignette with actors showing how social media might nudge a teen away socializing to instead check their status updates. It's quite another to find out that a single, seemingly trivial change to the "Evilcorp" feed caused an average of 2 hours less sleep for its userbase.
I'd also want to know-- what's the worst case sleep loss average? It's important to have detailed answers to these kinds of questions if we want to meaningfully protect our privacy online. And we don't even have something as crucial as `git blame` for these types of things.
And given the ubiquity of data mining today, the dangers of creating such a dataset must be a drop in the bucket by comparison.
I'm not sure we can meaningfully advocate for privacy atm without having a better understanding of what data big tech collects, what inferences they can glean from even limited data sets, what changes in behavior their customers can nudge users toward, and the worst-case hazards that extant algos can create.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind joining an "Evilcorp" social media network run by FSF, EFF, or some such, if it were done in a way where the insights gleaned about big tech dangers were to be made public in a responsible way. It's one thing to watch a documentary that provides a vignette with actors showing how social media might nudge a teen away socializing to instead check their status updates. It's quite another to find out that a single, seemingly trivial change to the "Evilcorp" feed caused an average of 2 hours less sleep for its userbase.
I'd also want to know-- what's the worst case sleep loss average? It's important to have detailed answers to these kinds of questions if we want to meaningfully protect our privacy online. And we don't even have something as crucial as `git blame` for these types of things.
And given the ubiquity of data mining today, the dangers of creating such a dataset must be a drop in the bucket by comparison.
>pushing projects that are antithetical to privacy is just nauseating
this is a research tool. People voluntarily and with their own consent contribute data to understand how tech companies and algorithms use data.
If privacy now apparently entails that voluntarily collected data for scientific purposes is illegitimate we better close every university and business on earth down. These complaints are getting a little bit ridiculous.
this is a research tool. People voluntarily and with their own consent contribute data to understand how tech companies and algorithms use data.
If privacy now apparently entails that voluntarily collected data for scientific purposes is illegitimate we better close every university and business on earth down. These complaints are getting a little bit ridiculous.
After reading Mitchell Baker's "deplatforming isn't enough" rant pushed at me by Firefox, I expect nothing good out of Mozilla under the current leasership, sorry.
This really is the kind of thing that could uncover some very shady practices by Facebook and others, but I expect it to produce the same kind of bullshit as the recent "Facebook whistleblower" who worried that facebook is not abusing its power sufficiently to censor and unperson people.
This really is the kind of thing that could uncover some very shady practices by Facebook and others, but I expect it to produce the same kind of bullshit as the recent "Facebook whistleblower" who worried that facebook is not abusing its power sufficiently to censor and unperson people.
Brave is the new Mozilla. Mozilla is a husk. Brave launched a new search engine (which works great. try it!), have built-in Tor support, Wayback Machine support, experiment with new revenue models and unlike Mitchell "we need more than deplatforming" Baker, Eich actually seems to have the visceral inclination for the things that Mozilla claims to stand for.
I don't particularly care for the remnant of Mozilla either, but it's not at all clear to me that Brave is a better option. It seems very much like they're trying to position themselves as a kinder, gentler flavor of adtech. I don't want that; I hate that the modern web has turned into an adtech ouroboros, and I want a browser whose mission is to gut the whole thing, not a browser with a new recipe for a more delicious tail.
Brave user-private ads are opt in, so I don't agree on your positioning. Ad-tech is always intermediation between advertisers and publishers. We don't puts ads in page at all, and only in user inventory when the user opts in -- and they get 70% of the gross, to align interests. No data collection at all (ad matching against pushed catalog; confirmed via Privacy Pass like protocol, moving on-chain with Solana). HTH
Curious, why would someone use brave over Chromium?
Brave as I understand it is just the Chromium browser at its core. (Similar to how all browsers on iOS are just safari wrapped in a different application layer)
https://www.chromium.org/Home
Brave as I understand it is just the Chromium browser at its core. (Similar to how all browsers on iOS are just safari wrapped in a different application layer)
https://www.chromium.org/Home
Brave brings:
- Native adblocker based on uBlock Origin algo
- Proxy all requests to Google based service in use in Chromium such as Safebrowsing
- Added anti fingerprinting stuff on some web techs such as webgl, canvas, plugins
- Still open source (to be noted: the ads code, server side, is not)
- Everything documented on their wiki
- Trusted binaries unlike ungoogled-chromium
If you can set aside the crypto part of Brave, I believe this is the best Chromium based browser currently.
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...
- Native adblocker based on uBlock Origin algo
- Proxy all requests to Google based service in use in Chromium such as Safebrowsing
- Added anti fingerprinting stuff on some web techs such as webgl, canvas, plugins
- Still open source (to be noted: the ads code, server side, is not)
- Everything documented on their wiki
- Trusted binaries unlike ungoogled-chromium
If you can set aside the crypto part of Brave, I believe this is the best Chromium based browser currently.
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...
We work closely with uBO folks, but as a browser we got a lot farther than Google allows an extension to go (and with Manifest V3 they're getting more restrictive). See the blog series at https://brave.com/privacy-updates/ and see also the work detailed at https://brave.com/research/. Thanks.
DuckDuckGo also has a Chromium-based mobile browser.
I use it on Android because mobile Chrome doesn't support ad blockers (or other extensions).
If Brave at least used Gecko, it could have been. I don't want to support a Blink + Webkit dominance on the Web.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22062636 among others. The fight right now is not over engine layer, and no point dying on that hill. Rather, the fight is one level up at user-first economics, vs. big-tech's "users as sheep to shear or take to slaughterhouse" model.
Brave is chromium with different Ad model. What part of it is 'the new Mozilla'?
I pay $3 per month for my search engine now and i don't have any ads, neither in my search engine, nor in my browser. Very happy about that.
Mozilla hasn't managed to sell me something yet and in fact relies on money from google which makes money with ads.
Mozilla hasn't managed to sell me something yet and in fact relies on money from google which makes money with ads.
[deleted]
pl0x(6)
>"Big tech has built its success by exploiting your data. When you join Mozilla Rally studies, your data helps us uncover Facebook's tracking network, understand search engine choice, and help local news find sustainability."
Understand search engine choice? That's an absurd thing to say; 90% of their revenue comes from default-search-engine contracts...
https://www.pcmag.com/news/mozilla-signs-lucrative-3-year-go...
>"The majority of Mozilla's income (over 90 percent) is generated from relationships with search engines and Google has always been top of the list."
Understand search engine choice? That's an absurd thing to say; 90% of their revenue comes from default-search-engine contracts...
https://www.pcmag.com/news/mozilla-signs-lucrative-3-year-go...
>"The majority of Mozilla's income (over 90 percent) is generated from relationships with search engines and Google has always been top of the list."
Yeah, what I see here is a moralistic attacks on the "Facebook tracking network" from an organization that's 90% bankrolled by one of their largest competitors.
No doubt they'll report some true and nasty stuff about Facebook, but this is straight out of the "Big Tobacco/Oil" research funding playbook.
No doubt they'll report some true and nasty stuff about Facebook, but this is straight out of the "Big Tobacco/Oil" research funding playbook.
[deleted]
Brought to you by a company that abused their experiment system to install an advert for some TV show into your browsers.
It was worse. They abused their emergency security system to do that.
That is far from their only Anti-User violation.
To me Mozilla is barely distinguishable from Google at this point
To me Mozilla is barely distinguishable from Google at this point
Firefox sends search queries to Google by default, by agreement, and derives almost all of its revenue from that business partnership with Google ("Big Tech"). Mozilla is Google's ally. Rally purports to uncover the tracking network of Google's main competitor, Facebook, as well as to "understand search engine choice" (no pun intended), Google's formidable competitors for web search market share.
I've lost faith in Mozilla over the last decade and this initiative is a great example. The web is in a rough state but doing research on user data isn't going to solve anything. The way it gets fixed is new technologies that allow new apps and social networks that replace the old ones. This is what Mozilla should working on.
Mozilla is big tech. They are funded by big tech and they support big tech's censorship ideology.
If they want to actually break with big tech, they can retract and apologize for this pro-censorship advocacy piece: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...
If they want to actually break with big tech, they can retract and apologize for this pro-censorship advocacy piece: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...
It's sad but not unsurprising to see HN nitpicking this page. Normal website tracking and what companies like facebook, google, or amazon can do aren't comparable. The three partner organizations listed are extremely trustworthy and I know the Markup in particular has done very similar studies in the past, been excellent about informed consent and user data, and uncovered unique data on how social networks display content by doing so.
From "How we use your data":
>> ...put the power to create a positive change in the right hands.
No way would I touch something like this with your pole. This is langauge that paves a clear path for abuse. This isn't even modern day virtue signaling, it's been around for ages.
I can't manage to see Mozilla as standing on integrous ground, with their constant spewing of 'woke' bs and muddy objectives/chasing of butterflies.
Create something new to love, rather than fighting against what you hate.
No way would I touch something like this with your pole. This is langauge that paves a clear path for abuse. This isn't even modern day virtue signaling, it's been around for ages.
I can't manage to see Mozilla as standing on integrous ground, with their constant spewing of 'woke' bs and muddy objectives/chasing of butterflies.
Create something new to love, rather than fighting against what you hate.
I understand there seems to be a lot of pent-up frustration in these comments, some of it related to this specific initiative and some not.
I'd like to highlight a few reasons why this could be exciting and, indeed "pro-user".
* The core value proposition in my view, though not spelled out on the linked page (I think because it's targeting a broader-than-HN audience), is that data collection can produce answers to empirical questions about "Big Tech" that would otherwise likely never be answered by anyone except in-house Big Tech data analysts. E.g., empirical questions about the impacts of search engine design choices, how newsfeeds influence behavior, etc. Of course, these studies will face issues with selection bias, but that's not insurmountable, and probably better than nothing. For instance, publicly shared data about Pixel tracking, even from a biased sample, is better than having no data on that topic, IMO!
* The collaboration with academics and journalists is important because it means the results of each study will be shared. It's in the incentive systems of both groups to publish results. Best case, individual users, people who build browser extensions, etc. can use findings about search engines and newsfeeds to change their behavior or build new tools. Policy discussions would also benefit from some quantitative grounding.
* The alternative ways to answer these questions: academics and journalists run scrapers, data-collection browser extensions, etc. on their own. Harder to do, especially post-Cambridge Analytica and more recently, NYU's ad observatory getting shut down (https://cyber.nyu.edu/2021/08/21/facebook-disables-ad-observ...). Or, the state forces tech co.'s to publish answers. Or, we just never know!
* A weaker point: This project is trying to set new standards about data management, e.g. providing a true "one click to opt out" option. I see this as an experiment, that other projects can follow if it works. This is a bit more of a stretch than the previous two points.
My bias: I'm an academic who wants to see the results of the various studies being conducted, so I'm very hopeful!
I'd like to highlight a few reasons why this could be exciting and, indeed "pro-user".
* The core value proposition in my view, though not spelled out on the linked page (I think because it's targeting a broader-than-HN audience), is that data collection can produce answers to empirical questions about "Big Tech" that would otherwise likely never be answered by anyone except in-house Big Tech data analysts. E.g., empirical questions about the impacts of search engine design choices, how newsfeeds influence behavior, etc. Of course, these studies will face issues with selection bias, but that's not insurmountable, and probably better than nothing. For instance, publicly shared data about Pixel tracking, even from a biased sample, is better than having no data on that topic, IMO!
* The collaboration with academics and journalists is important because it means the results of each study will be shared. It's in the incentive systems of both groups to publish results. Best case, individual users, people who build browser extensions, etc. can use findings about search engines and newsfeeds to change their behavior or build new tools. Policy discussions would also benefit from some quantitative grounding.
* The alternative ways to answer these questions: academics and journalists run scrapers, data-collection browser extensions, etc. on their own. Harder to do, especially post-Cambridge Analytica and more recently, NYU's ad observatory getting shut down (https://cyber.nyu.edu/2021/08/21/facebook-disables-ad-observ...). Or, the state forces tech co.'s to publish answers. Or, we just never know!
* A weaker point: This project is trying to set new standards about data management, e.g. providing a true "one click to opt out" option. I see this as an experiment, that other projects can follow if it works. This is a bit more of a stretch than the previous two points.
My bias: I'm an academic who wants to see the results of the various studies being conducted, so I'm very hopeful!
>The collaboration with academics and journalists is important
It's not important to me.
Projects like this make me want to choose a browser other than Mozilla.
It's not important to me.
Projects like this make me want to choose a browser other than Mozilla.
Yeah, that's fair! My view is not that everybody should use Rally, or even Firefox. Rather, it's that even though there's going to be massive filtering going on with regards to who will even contribute data to Rally, it's still going to benefit the public to have biased quantitative estimates of parameters of interest, and to surface qualitative findings from the group of people who do contribute.
It's always possible in the future that Rally, or other initiatives, will find other ways to incentivize contributions (more projects that align with specific interests, more "visualization" of how your data contributions might impact the world, etc.).
As to whether the cost-benefit accounting (producing new knowledge, informing design vs. scaring users off Firefox, creating new privacy harms) will come out in favor of the project remains to be seen, of course!
It's always possible in the future that Rally, or other initiatives, will find other ways to incentivize contributions (more projects that align with specific interests, more "visualization" of how your data contributions might impact the world, etc.).
As to whether the cost-benefit accounting (producing new knowledge, informing design vs. scaring users off Firefox, creating new privacy harms) will come out in favor of the project remains to be seen, of course!
Personally, I think most comments here just challenges Mozillas actions rather than just swallowing their marketing material. They clearly, in my and a lot of others opinion, just say stuff while doing something else completely.
It's a leadership issue and for an outsider looks almost like a hostile takeover. I stopped using Firefox years ago at this point and have stopped testing what I build for it since the relevance of Firefox unfortunately is miniscule anyway. They have too little market share now and they just continue turning their backs on everyone that used to support them.
It's a leadership issue and for an outsider looks almost like a hostile takeover. I stopped using Firefox years ago at this point and have stopped testing what I build for it since the relevance of Firefox unfortunately is miniscule anyway. They have too little market share now and they just continue turning their backs on everyone that used to support them.
What a joke. Obvious controlled opposition sponsored by Google
To me, this seem like a fine initiative, all things considered.
There's a bit of a false dichotomy in some comments, where Mozilla Rally is preventing or hampering Mozilla from improving Firefox. They can and should do both at the same time, especially if both are positive things.
It doesn't mean all their initiatives are equally good, and that we shouldn't still criticize the bad ones. But this seems benign at worst, and could possibly do some good. it's completely opt in, transparent, and with very strong user control over the data.
Instead of chastising them for all their other shortcomings yet again, I prefer to be happy that this might benefit ethical research.
There's a bit of a false dichotomy in some comments, where Mozilla Rally is preventing or hampering Mozilla from improving Firefox. They can and should do both at the same time, especially if both are positive things.
It doesn't mean all their initiatives are equally good, and that we shouldn't still criticize the bad ones. But this seems benign at worst, and could possibly do some good. it's completely opt in, transparent, and with very strong user control over the data.
Instead of chastising them for all their other shortcomings yet again, I prefer to be happy that this might benefit ethical research.
Rust seems to be the only positive thing out of Mozilla these days. I don't know how much of that was a coincidence.
They've become some sort of an ethics firm that they front with their dying browser. A little like AOL being reduced to a web portal long after their Netscape days.
It's unfortunate because they really can't afford to compete with Google and continue with Servo or anything innovative.
They lost the race in browser performance and usershare. The only way I could imagine Firefox regaining the latter would be a political event of the popularity and significance of Net Neutrality "scaring straight" non-technical users into FOSS.
They've become some sort of an ethics firm that they front with their dying browser. A little like AOL being reduced to a web portal long after their Netscape days.
It's unfortunate because they really can't afford to compete with Google and continue with Servo or anything innovative.
They lost the race in browser performance and usershare. The only way I could imagine Firefox regaining the latter would be a political event of the popularity and significance of Net Neutrality "scaring straight" non-technical users into FOSS.
I'm kind of surprised they got two people to let them stick their faces with quotes that are so irrelevant to the pages content, other than being some kind of endorsement.
> “Mozilla Rally has the potential to be the Hubble Space Telescope of the Internet.”
> David Lazer, University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Computer Sciences, Northeastern University
and
> “Mozilla Rally is a revelatory tool that seeks to fix the information imbalance created by tech platforms at the public’s expense.”
> Julia Angwin, Editor-in-Chief and Founder of The Markup
> “Mozilla Rally has the potential to be the Hubble Space Telescope of the Internet.”
> David Lazer, University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Computer Sciences, Northeastern University
and
> “Mozilla Rally is a revelatory tool that seeks to fix the information imbalance created by tech platforms at the public’s expense.”
> Julia Angwin, Editor-in-Chief and Founder of The Markup
This is nonsense. The Firefox user base is narrow, self-selecting, and small. They won't be able to "uncover Facebook's tracking network, understand search engine choice, and help local news find sustainability" with that limited instrument. How many Firefox users actually use Facebook? Maybe 100 total?
You have to scroll to the bottom to see what kind of studies they are performing with Rally.
For example tracking facebooks tracking pixels (https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/facebook-pixel-hun...).
I can't determine if this is "fighting big tech with their own weapon" or "adding more tracking to the problem of too much tracking".
For example tracking facebooks tracking pixels (https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/facebook-pixel-hun...).
I can't determine if this is "fighting big tech with their own weapon" or "adding more tracking to the problem of too much tracking".
I think this is one of the main reasons why Firefox keeps decreasing in popularity. They focus so much on activism instead of building a great browser. The best activism they could do is to improve Firefox so the Chrome market share decreases. After using Firefox for many years, I recently switched to Brave which has everything I wish in a browser(minus the Crypto stuff which you can disable).
why brave though? It lacks even basic customization options compared to Vivaldi, been Firefox user for years, then I used for year or two Edge, but got sick being afraid of every new update messing things up, now I moved to Vivaldi, tried also Brave but lack of options was horrible, if I wanted barebone browser i would go for Chromium woolys
its almost like they have different departments.....
I never understood this argument. Yeah they have different departments, but wouldn’t it be better (for us, Firefox users) to fire the virtue signaling marketing types and funnel the money into developing their dying browser?
Oh wait, that’s exactly the opposite of what Mozilla is doing - they fired a hundred of engineering people some time ago. I guess the activist talking heads stayed though.
Oh wait, that’s exactly the opposite of what Mozilla is doing - they fired a hundred of engineering people some time ago. I guess the activist talking heads stayed though.
To play devil's advocate, in 2022, how much is an established browser's success is determined by technical merit vs. the economic clout of the entity behind it? Suppose, FF releases the browser that is 5x better than Chrome. Most people wouldn't notice! Microsoft installs Chromium-based browser by default, and Google, which is what most people use for search, gently pushes everyone to install Chrome. Apple obviously also defaults to non-FF. There really seems to be no pressing need for an average user to go out of their way for a better browser experience.
Other than PR and growth hacks and maybe activism, which is what they seem to be trying now?
Other than PR and growth hacks and maybe activism, which is what they seem to be trying now?
I wasn't making an argument. I was simply pointing out different groups have different priorities even within a single organization.
I wish firefox would focus on getting the browser up to snuff for daily usability things like basic profile switching and better defaults for privacy.
but c'est la vie.
I wish firefox would focus on getting the browser up to snuff for daily usability things like basic profile switching and better defaults for privacy.
but c'est la vie.
This doesn't make sense at all. Isn't Mozilla mostly financed by their agreements with Google and other search engines?!
Even if you're getting a lot of money from someone, you can still bite the hand that feeds you a bit. For example, Apple receives a lot of money from Google so that Google is the default search on iOS. The UK government has noted that Apple receives a "substantial majority" of the $1.5B Google spends to be in the default position in the UK alone. Let's assume that substantial majority is at least two-thirds of that so Google gives Apple $1B to be the iPhone's search engine in the UK every year. That's $15 for every person in the UK - including infants, people with Android phones, etc. At the same time, Apple is working hard to limit ad tracking.
Some people have estimated that Google gives Apple $15B in total for its default search position. That could mean that around 16-23% of Apple's profits come from Google paying for being the default search engine. Heck, analysts said it would probably reach $18-20B for 2022 (https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/27/google-could-pay-apple-...). Apple's profits for the past 12 months was $94.7B (which is up around 66% against the previous 12 months). $20B would still be 21% of that. Even $15B is 16% of that.
The default search on iPhone is one of Apple's largest businesses. It's bigger than its Mac business or its iPad business or its wearables business.
Yet Apple is still biting the hand that feeds them by working against ad tracking. One can argue that it might help Apple in other ways like customer goodwill, making marketers more reliant on Apple-provided data if third parties can't track as well, weakening Google in ways that might weaken the Android ecosystem, etc. Similarly, Mozilla is trying to get a certain amount of customer goodwill and potentially finding other ways for marketers to reach their customers.
While Apple's position in the market is quite secure, Mozilla might be seeing a future where Google doesn't think it needs to pay Mozilla for that default search position. Firefox users are likely people who know how to switch browser defaults and Firefox marketshare is getting small and continuing to decline. I think that's a big reason that we're seeing Mozilla search for new sources of revenue. It looks like Firefox usage is down more than 50% over the past 5 years alone. That means its default search position is a lot less valuable. Even if Google will continue to pay, those payments are likely shrinking. Firefox's position on mobile is even worse.
Even if Mozilla is mostly financed by Google, that financing is likely shrinking. At the same time, software engineers in the US are getting really expensive and Google is pouring money into Chrome (engineers and marketing). Chrome also benefits from a lot of third parties putting money into Chrome. Microsoft is now using Chromium for Edge and Node and the rest of the JS world uses V8. That puts so much weight behind Chromium for Mozilla to fight against - while likely seeing their funding from Google shrink.
It looks like Mozilla's royalty revenue is declining a bit (probably around 10% over the past 5 years), but not too substantially so far (and there's always some noise). But it's also not growing which puts them in a bit of a precarious position given that Google and others are investing more and more in Chromium, their marketshare is declining (which will likely lead to declines in search engine payments in the future), and the increasing cost of software engineers. So do you try to stick it out with the Google search agreement knowing that your users landing on Google's website will be told to upgrade to Chrome or do you try and find a source of revenue that isn't a competitor?
Some people have estimated that Google gives Apple $15B in total for its default search position. That could mean that around 16-23% of Apple's profits come from Google paying for being the default search engine. Heck, analysts said it would probably reach $18-20B for 2022 (https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/27/google-could-pay-apple-...). Apple's profits for the past 12 months was $94.7B (which is up around 66% against the previous 12 months). $20B would still be 21% of that. Even $15B is 16% of that.
The default search on iPhone is one of Apple's largest businesses. It's bigger than its Mac business or its iPad business or its wearables business.
Yet Apple is still biting the hand that feeds them by working against ad tracking. One can argue that it might help Apple in other ways like customer goodwill, making marketers more reliant on Apple-provided data if third parties can't track as well, weakening Google in ways that might weaken the Android ecosystem, etc. Similarly, Mozilla is trying to get a certain amount of customer goodwill and potentially finding other ways for marketers to reach their customers.
While Apple's position in the market is quite secure, Mozilla might be seeing a future where Google doesn't think it needs to pay Mozilla for that default search position. Firefox users are likely people who know how to switch browser defaults and Firefox marketshare is getting small and continuing to decline. I think that's a big reason that we're seeing Mozilla search for new sources of revenue. It looks like Firefox usage is down more than 50% over the past 5 years alone. That means its default search position is a lot less valuable. Even if Google will continue to pay, those payments are likely shrinking. Firefox's position on mobile is even worse.
Even if Mozilla is mostly financed by Google, that financing is likely shrinking. At the same time, software engineers in the US are getting really expensive and Google is pouring money into Chrome (engineers and marketing). Chrome also benefits from a lot of third parties putting money into Chrome. Microsoft is now using Chromium for Edge and Node and the rest of the JS world uses V8. That puts so much weight behind Chromium for Mozilla to fight against - while likely seeing their funding from Google shrink.
It looks like Mozilla's royalty revenue is declining a bit (probably around 10% over the past 5 years), but not too substantially so far (and there's always some noise). But it's also not growing which puts them in a bit of a precarious position given that Google and others are investing more and more in Chromium, their marketshare is declining (which will likely lead to declines in search engine payments in the future), and the increasing cost of software engineers. So do you try to stick it out with the Google search agreement knowing that your users landing on Google's website will be told to upgrade to Chrome or do you try and find a source of revenue that isn't a competitor?
Or maybe the premise that Mozilla is beholden to Google because of their income stream is false?
It seems like every other month there's a thread complaining about how Mozilla would never really do anything against Google's interests because of their income stream, and then every other month in between those rant threads Mozilla launches some new tracking protection [0] or privacy initiative directed specifically against Google.
[0] https://twitter.com/__jakub_g/status/1365400306767581185
It seems like every other month there's a thread complaining about how Mozilla would never really do anything against Google's interests because of their income stream, and then every other month in between those rant threads Mozilla launches some new tracking protection [0] or privacy initiative directed specifically against Google.
[0] https://twitter.com/__jakub_g/status/1365400306767581185
Isn't it a funny coincidence that Firefox offers a Facebook container, but not a Google one, despite both companies having the same amount of tracking across the web? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/facebook-container-prev...
For those who are interested, a Google Container add-on is available for Firefox here:
- Add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai...
- Source: https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google
- Add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai...
- Source: https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google
Facebook is a boogeyman and a distraction from the huge and shady ad-tech industry as a whole. Zuck takes a few on the chin in front of an inept US Congress, who eventually proposes some weak legislation that doesn't actually protect anyone, and the industry chugs happily along making money and not giving a shit about the repercussions. Pretty much the same as oil & gas, big pharma, big ag, etc.
It is disingenuous when they, themselves, collect so much data about users by default.
Yes, the premise might be false but Mozilla is not doing a great job clarifying this.
Can we just accept that Mozilla is a social justice organization now, not a software development organization? A place where bigcos can donate to, to make their ESG numbers look good to investors.
It's gonna be awkward when the browser's market share drops below Lynx but they have to keep working on it as a fig leaf
I wish there was something like an "unmozilla'ed firefox".
I've heard really good things about Librewolf, which is a privacy focused fork of Firefox.
https://librewolf.net/
https://librewolf.net/
[deleted]
You are talking about IceCat.
Have you tried Waterfox ?
Didn't Waterfox get purchased by some sketchy company? Or was that a different Firefox fork.
Waterfox was acquired by System1. Here's their description of what they do:
https://system1.com/what-we-do
https://system1.com/what-we-do
> We combine our best-in-class technology & data science to operate one of the world’s most advanced Responsive Acquisition Marketing Platforms (RAMP). RAMP enables us to build powerful brands across multiple consumer verticals, develop & grow our suite of privacy-focused products, and deliver high-intent customers to our advertising partners.
Really disturbing that there is not even a word on Apple browser engine ban on iOS, holding the mobile web back for years. Mozilla can't ship their own browser on a billion devices worldwide and they're just fine with it.
I'm now waiting for this to be installed by default, 'a la' Pocket. It is yet another feature the users are not asking for.
Give me privacy and, after that, speed. I don't want ANY data collection that is not opt-in. As it is I have to go out of my way to use a custom `user.js` to get this instead of it coming out of the box.
Give me privacy and, after that, speed. I don't want ANY data collection that is not opt-in. As it is I have to go out of my way to use a custom `user.js` to get this instead of it coming out of the box.
Pocket is a weird thing. It integrates with my Kobo, and that makes it useful for reading long-form articles on my e-reader.
But it should have been opt-in.
But it should have been opt-in.
Doesn't Mozilla's main source of revenue come from putting Google in their browser? I.e., they are dependent on Big Tech partnerships for their continued existence.
Anytime someone uses "big" as an adjective like a pejorative, the argument should be obviously weak to anyone with a critical mind. Why should the size of a company have any relevance to its unethical or abusive actions?
If a company engages in monopolistic, anti-competitive, or abusive behavior, call it that.
If a company engages in monopolistic, anti-competitive, or abusive behavior, call it that.
There is an argument that the larger the company, the less human - the more admin and beholdenness to anonymous shareholders after short term profits and therefore it correlates to the type of anti-social behaviour you reference even if it will vary from company to company.
More practically: larger means more power, which means greater market asymmetry and general power asymmetry in society. Such situations should always IMO be viewed with skepticism at best.
Easy. Imagine an asshole restauranteur who kicks you out without recourse every time. Annoying, fuck that guy, but not too bad. Say he owns a few places. Still not too bad, the world's full of competition. Now imagine that asshole owning almost all restaurants and enforcing his fuck-beebman-in-particular policy.
Or, say, a bookseller delists some book for ideological reasons. If it's one private location, little harm, little foul. Amazon? Uh oh.
Size and market share do matter, and some effects depend on that.
Or, say, a bookseller delists some book for ideological reasons. If it's one private location, little harm, little foul. Amazon? Uh oh.
Size and market share do matter, and some effects depend on that.
I agree that small evil companies exist.
But, large non-evil companies do not exist.
But, large non-evil companies do not exist.
Do you genuinely believe in the existence of an "evil"? Like as in, Satan, bad spirits, other supernatural phenomena?
Why must evil be supernatural?
The term "evil" came from some of the oldest written languages and was originally used in a religious/supernatural context, and almost always is used in a religious/supernatural context today. If you intend on using it without a supernatural context, you could say "bad".
"But, large non-bad companies do not exist." I hope this helps you realize how unbased in reality this statement is. Maybe you could give me some basis as to how you justify this opinion?
"But, large non-bad companies do not exist." I hope this helps you realize how unbased in reality this statement is. Maybe you could give me some basis as to how you justify this opinion?
Evil as in
> monopolistic, anti-competitive, or abusive behavior
> monopolistic, anti-competitive, or abusive behavior
I would like a web browser to be a web browser, not a platform of activism.
whoever is in charge of Mozilla needs to go. They are no longer "fighting for the user" but virtue signal while doing the same things so-called "BigTech" does.
Mozilla should go ham on Rust. Make a Rust GUI and then an app store and a cloud hosting service. Become the one stop shop for building anything Rust and make money that way.
That ship has sailed. They have abandoned any pretext of caring about Rust with that last big round of layoffs.
Their poor decision making, including Pocket integration, started after they forced Brendan Eich out.
Their poor decision making, including Pocket integration, started after they forced Brendan Eich out.
The poor decision making started far earlier than when Eich was CEO.
Like what? I'm just curious, I didn't really notice any major bullshit before 2014.
Starting Firefox OS and expecting it to be viable in less than a year?
They laid off most of the people that work on Rust and Servo.
I dislike Rust the community but Rust the language was a good fit for an alternative browser, IMO Mozilla could afford to hire competent developers outside high paid cities and have them continue doing developer work then just putting more money in side-projects. A faster and safer browser would make a larger difference then some marketing and a giant difference then poor side projects.
The art style on that page makes me think of Soviet bloc propaganda.
Of course it's subjective but I also find it hideous.
Sovietology jokes aside, it's actually "Corporate Memphis" (I think!):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27107820 ("Why does every advert look the same? Corporate Memphis (wired.co.uk)") [189 comments]
>"The illustration style is flat, geometric, figurative, and usually made up of solid colours... It’s an aesthetic that’s often referred to as ‘Corporate Memphis’, and it’s become the definitive style for big tech and small startups, relentlessly imitated and increasingly parodied. It involves the use of simple, well-bounded scenes of flat cartoon figures in action, often with a slight distortion in proportions (the most common of which being long, bendy arms) to signal that a company is fun and creative."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27107820 ("Why does every advert look the same? Corporate Memphis (wired.co.uk)") [189 comments]
>"The illustration style is flat, geometric, figurative, and usually made up of solid colours... It’s an aesthetic that’s often referred to as ‘Corporate Memphis’, and it’s become the definitive style for big tech and small startups, relentlessly imitated and increasingly parodied. It involves the use of simple, well-bounded scenes of flat cartoon figures in action, often with a slight distortion in proportions (the most common of which being long, bendy arms) to signal that a company is fun and creative."
That's kind of always been Mozilla's thing.
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/10/they-live-and-the-secret-hi...
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/10/they-live-and-the-secret-hi...
this site could easily be of parody of Mozilla
but no... it's real
but no... it's real
Isn’t Mozilla hand in glove with Google? Paid for search traffic, for example.
And those Pocket ads.
And why isn’t there an easy reader view at one click?
And why do they make it so hard to disable JavaScript? In Safari it’s just one easy key combo.
And those Pocket ads.
And why isn’t there an easy reader view at one click?
And why do they make it so hard to disable JavaScript? In Safari it’s just one easy key combo.
Firefox has had a one-click reader view for years, on desktop, Android, and even iOS:
- Reader view (desktop): https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
- Reader view (Android): https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/view-articles-reader-vi...
- Reader view (iOS): https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/view-web-pages-reader-v...
A Firefox support page recommends using the NoScript extension for quickly toggling JavaScript, which works on both desktop and Android:
- JavaScript support page: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/javascript-settings-for...
- NoScript: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
- Reader view (desktop): https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
- Reader view (Android): https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/view-articles-reader-vi...
- Reader view (iOS): https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/view-web-pages-reader-v...
A Firefox support page recommends using the NoScript extension for quickly toggling JavaScript, which works on both desktop and Android:
- JavaScript support page: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/javascript-settings-for...
- NoScript: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
I was looking for Reader view on Linux though…
Does it not work for you on Linux? When I use Firefox on Linux, the reader view icon shows up for me at the right end of the address bar on supported sites.
- Guide: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
It even works on HN discussion pages (though HN is such a simple site that there's no benefit). You can test it on this discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30061672) or any Wikipedia page.
- Guide: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
It even works on HN discussion pages (though HN is such a simple site that there's no benefit). You can test it on this discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30061672) or any Wikipedia page.
Mozilla's reader view is actually one of the browser's strengths compared to their Chromium competition. Firefox offers a reader view far more often than Chromium-based browsers do, and probably more often than even Brave offers their new Speedreader. It's one of the things I miss from Firefox for sure.
If it was working correctly though. On the desktop version it seems to be working almost flawlessly, but on mobile it requires an internet connection when you're reopening a tab in reader-view mode which is a bit odd. I'm starting to thing this is probably due to the existence of pocket integration (there's an old bug report).
And the fact that we are connected 99.9% of the time doesn't make it less annoying on the next flight (whenever that will be in this pandemic :)).
And the fact that we are connected 99.9% of the time doesn't make it less annoying on the next flight (whenever that will be in this pandemic :)).
How "open-sourcey" is Firefox these days? i.e. is there a health community contributing commits a la the linux kernel or are most of the development done in-house these days?
redhat contributes to firefox, and firefox contributes a bunch downstream in the form of bug fixes and reporting due to their error telemetry.
Great! Another "phone home" feature that will bring the browser to its knees in case of some unexpected infrastructure bruhaha!
The title is editorialized; the phrase in quotes ("fight big tech") appears nowhere on the linked page.
Even putting aside the usual (valid) complaints against Mozilla, what even is this?
Uncover Facebook tracking. For what outcome?
Help local news find sustainability. What does this even mean?
What meaningful outcome comes from this Mozilla either for myself as a user or the wider community? Give me a tangible example of the benefits, please!
Uncover Facebook tracking. For what outcome?
Help local news find sustainability. What does this even mean?
What meaningful outcome comes from this Mozilla either for myself as a user or the wider community? Give me a tangible example of the benefits, please!
Umm stop taking money from big tech?
[deleted]
By accepting even more Google money?
[deleted]
Left fist raised... Yeah, I know where this is going.
We want you to make a browser that is so good, that it can function independenty of Google and Chrome financially and technologically. This is not an end in itself. Google is just not a very trustworthy steward of the marketshare that they have on the browser market.
You are in a unique position to make this possible. Please double down on it instead of throwing away your hundreds of millions of monies that you have on unfocused, irrelevant bullshit that noone will remember in two years.
You made a whole browser engine that actually improved on current engines in Rust and then you basically threw it away. What on earth was that about ?
Mozilla we want you to make Firefox without any tracking, and without and advertizing shit in it , and we want it fast and secure, and we love your extensions. Some of us here are even willing to pay you subscription fees to support the browser! But keep in mind that you have millions of dollars already.
We loved you all the way from when your product was still called phoenix, Mozilla suite even, and everyone was so excited to have this excellent browser. We pooled money to take out full page ads in a paper newspaper for Firefox. Because we believed in your product so much. I still have the page here. Do you remember ?
Please. Stop with this stupid bullshit.
Focus, Mozilla, Focus!
From the depth of our hearts,
PS: and if you find some time, go fix that bug that makes the active tab so difficult to differentiate if lighting conditions or eyesight aren't perfect.