[bagder]

"I better speculate on the reason here because surely Daniel is part of a conspiracy meant destroy the browsing experience of millions"

or...

It could be prepared for when the user gets asked what they want and then Firefox can remember an explicit "no" as compared to not selection ever made.

/ Daniel (author of the blog post)

[acqq]

Daniel is not responsible for the decisions made by other Mozilla managers who already used their powers to deliver an unsolicited ad to the millions using the means presented as having apparently other purposes.

Daniel’s own decisions aren’t in question here. If he works for Mozilla he is not more powerful than the whole company.

Having “off” and “off when selected by user” but not other variants still points to the intention of the default state not remaining off. Which is not problematic. Problematic is however naming the state that will obviously be changed “off.”

[Operyl]

It’s worth noting that Daniel is the GP here. You’re talking about him in the third person.

[acqq]

It’s worth noting that I know that but that he started this style of referring to him(self) in this thread! So it wasn’t accidental or due to unawareness in any its occurrences.

[tialaramex]

No, he didn't. What he's done there is use a rhetorical style in which he uses your voice, that's what those quote marks are for. He's loosely paraphrasing your comment in order to ridicule it.

That's arguably rude, but then your follow-up is exactly the type of conspiratorial bullshit he's implicitly accusing you of, so it was just foresight after all I guess.

[acqq]

Your selection of words says much more about you than about anything else.