[ABCLAW]

Am I the only one looking at this and thinking that the so-called controversies are absurdly tame in comparison with the outcry associated with them?

They're missteps, not trust breakers. Quantum was a massive step in the right direction. The Mr. Robot Easter Egg was non-malicious poor execution. I don't think it's a free pass to just contextualize how small their missteps have been in the grand scheme of things.

[freshhawk]

I think you are wrong about them not being "trust breakers" and right about them being fairly tame.

The reason the response seems outsized is because of the breach of trust involved, much more so than the technical impacts.

Quantum is great, and I just like a lot of the UX decisions Firefox makes. But a major reason for my support of Mozilla is their stated mission. And regularly making bumbling moves that overtly compromise that stated mission makes you start to question their commitment to it. Is it really their mission, or is it just a thing it is good for them to keep saying? POSIWID and all that.

[Vinnl]

Of the named examples, you can only somewhat reasonably make the argument that it goes against the mission for Cliqz. The rest did not negatively impact making the internet a global public resource, accessible to all.

[themistocle]

I’m afraid that the current environment means outcry is always around the corner. I’m rooting for Mozilla but I’d like it if they could learn to avoid drawing negative attention.

[toxican]

Despite the non-maliciousness of the easter egg, I do think the act of just installing an extension into a browser could be viewed as a trust-breaker. I think the other "controversies" are overblown, but them remotely installing an extension like that doesn't sit right with me.

[Vinnl]

But that's only because it's called an extension. Nobody is up in arms about Mozilla "just installing" about:mozilla.