Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Karunamon 2793 days ago
As I tell everyone that tries to defend this, it's not about what the plugin did or didn't do. It could have literally been a copy of about:blank, it changes nothing.

The entirely justified outrage was its purpose for being put there (which boils down to advertising) and the lack of consent for its being put there. That's it.
2 comments
Dylan16807 2792 days ago
Doing nothing is not advertising. The only way for this to be used in advertisement was from Mr. Robot fans to Firefox.

> lack of consent

Pretend it was a copy of about:blank when you answer this question: What makes this different from the giant pile of patches merged into each release of firefox that you don't read?

link
Karunamon 2792 days ago
How many of those Firefox patches are advertising references to then-popular media as opposed to new features, security fixes, and so forth?

Again. Purpose.

link
Dylan16807 2792 days ago
That's not answering why it would be wrong even if it was about:blank.
link
Dylan16807 2792 days ago
(I'm making this a separate post because I don't want any distractions in the other one.)

If they had done it correctly, it would have been invisible and it would not have advertised anything to firefox users. That is the purpose. It showing up the way it did was an oversight.

link
bigiain 2793 days ago
Agreed.

(At the same time, how much of the automated Chrome updates end up being audited for their "boils down to advertising"ness?)

link