[bobcall]

The posturing is quite strong with the Mozilla Foundation. It is quite laughable that the Mozilla Foundation would take this "holier than thou" position, considering that they (Foundation + Corporation) are pushing : tracking (telemetry), ADs (Pocket), malware (studies), MITI[1] (Ministry of Truth) and DRM (EME) in Firefox. The sad part here is the fact that the Mozilla community does not seem to care one bit about these issues[2].

At this point, I trust Apple more than I trust the Mozilla Foundation or the Mozilla Project (the bar is quite low for Apple). The Free Software / "Open Source" community has a critical problem with project supporting organizations pushing for things that undermine privacy, security and freedom to make a little bit of cash. If we don't address these issues now, it might not be possible to fix them in the near future.

[1] Mozilla Information Trust Initiative : http://archive.is/jcJWg

[2] For those who say : "you can turn these things off", this is not an excuse! Telling a new user that they have to fiddle with `about:config` settings out of the box is not acceptable.

[folkrav]

> For those who say : "you can turn these things off", this is not an excuse!

The telemetry is opt-in, the setting pops up once on first run. Ads are not tracking, you may disagree with their very existence, but they're not a privacy concern. Calling studies "malware" is just disingenuous. I don't see what MITI has anything to do with the rest. DRM does suck, but _not_ having it would be literal popular suicide, and in the current browser landscape, would literally mean letting Chromium take over even more than it already does.

[bobcall]

> The telemetry is opt-in...

It is not "opt-in". The popup tells you to change those settings and if you don't do anything, it is on. Just by unchecking the box in settings does not turn off all telemetry.

> Calling studies "malware" is just disingenuous.

I guess you don't remember the "Mr.Robot" incident[1] that we were not suppose to know about and many did not consent? Pushing an update with "Studies" enabled by default and then pushing this malicious software is not consent!

> I don't see what MITI has anything to do with the rest.

Mozilla* is not in a position to be calling out other companies when they themselves are guilty of doing the exact same things.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/16/firefox-mr-robot-extensi...

[Dylan16807]

> I guess you don't remember the "Mr.Robot" incident[1] that we were not suppose to know about and many did not consent?

That was not malware. I will explain this a thousand times if I have to. If you didn't manually configure its secret setting, it did literally nothing.

[FTLJohnson]

So, we can install software on people's computers and take up space on their hard drives without their permission now and it's not considered malicious? OK!

[folkrav]

Malware has a definition[1] :

> Malicious computer software that interferes with normal computer functions or sends personal data about the user to unauthorized parties over the Internet.

Taking up a couple KBs of space to do nothing is not even comparable. From a moral standpoint, was it okay from them to install that extension on people's computers? No. Was it malware? No.

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+malware&t=h_&ia=definition

[Shivetya]

consider that many options in firefox are not easily selected in dialog boxes it leaves a lot to be desired.

now what eventually will have be settled is that many sites have adopted the policy of blocking items in turn prohibits use of the site at all. this is the battle I am curious how it will pan out. currently most can be avoided by turning javascript off but someone will find other means to test

[greendude29]

I think you need to rethink most of your definitions.

> telemetry

is not tracking. please think about this rather than outrightly dismissing it.

> ADs

Ads are a legitimate way of making money on the Internet. I don't like them, but many services we use online are available because of them. Google is what it is because of Ad revenue. Firefox needs ads, there is no other way of surviving. It is laudable however that they are leading the movement in making ads transparent and building a framework of not having intrusive ads.

> malware

This is laughably innacurate. Mr. Robot was a terrible mistake, but it was not malware. Neither does Moz peddle actual malware.

> MITI

what does that have to with any of the above? Also the EU and many other orgs are thinking about the same thing. The Internet is new and we need to think about controlling the spread of misinformation. I'm going to make the best assumptions about you, so I'm hoping you can see why experiments in that realm can be advantageous.

> DRM

Again, a necessity. You cannot watch most news online without DRM. Supporting DRM is not the same as campaigning for DRM, which brings me to the biggest surprise I found in your comment of all the others...

> I trust Apple more than I trust the Mozilla Foundation or the Mozilla Project

...seriously? Apple? Apple is your privacy company? And you were just complaining about telemetry and pushing updates and DRM. Ugh.

[bobcall]

> ...seriously? Apple? Apple is your privacy company? And you were just complaining about telemetry and pushing updates and DRM. Ugh.

My Original comment:

> At this point, I trust Apple more than I trust the Mozilla Foundation or the Mozilla Project (the bar is quite low for Apple).

Way to take things out of context ;)

> what does that have to with any of the above? Also the EU and many other orgs are thinking about the same thing. The Internet is new and we need to think about controlling the spread of misinformation. I'm going to make the best assumptions about you, so I'm hoping you can see why experiments in that realm can be advantageous.

I guess maybe you should look into the black mirror before you think about censoring others (I guess you are in favor of speech for me and not for thee). You already spread misinformation with the redaction of my original comment.

> DRM >> Again, a necessity. You cannot watch most news online without DRM. Supporting DRM is not the same as campaigning for DRM, which brings me to the biggest surprise I found in your comment of all the others...

More false information being spewed. I have never been prompted to install the DRM plugin on any (mainstream) news site that I've visited. Point me to just one.

[FTLJohnson]

"we need to think about controlling the spread of misinformation"

When low information people use subjective words like NEW and NEED it's clear that they are spreading misinformation. So, your comment IS misinformation as the internet doesn't "NEED" to be controlled. If it does, I propose we start by censoring you.

[Dylan16807]

> malware (studies)

Uh huh.

> MITI[1] (Ministry of Truth)

"Coral is a Mozilla project that builds open-source tools to make digital journalism more inclusive and more engaging."

"Mozilla will develop a web literacy curriculum that addresses misinformation, and will continue investing in existing projects like the Mission: Information teaching kit."

"Later this year, Mozilla will be releasing original research on how misinformation impacts users’ experiences online."

"Imagine: an augmented reality web app that uses data visualization to investigate misinformation’s impact on Internet health. Or, a virtual reality experience that takes users through the history of misinformation online."

Terrifying, really. They want to make an ~educational pamphlet~.

> DRM (EME)

Very reluctantly joining other browsers is 'pushing'?

[bobcall]

> Terrifying, really. They want to make an ~educational pamphlet~.

Cherrypick much?

> Mozilla’s Open Innovation team will work with like-minded technologists and artists to develop technology that combats misinformation.

Goes hand in hand with:

> ...cognitive bias, belief echos, and algorithmic filter bubbles.

> Mozilla will partner with global media organizations to do this, and also double down on our existing product work in the space, like Pocket...

I would have less of an issue with this if traditional media organizations where less bias and publicly retracted stories or incorrect information. It seems that, in modern times, the bar for what counts as real journalism is quite low and breaks down when journalists and media organizations won't admit when they are wrong. Mozilla is also a bias organization since Brendan Eich was forced to resign[1] just because he donated his own money to an unfavorable organization. As a gay man, I don't want to live in a world where people are not allowed to express how or why they feel a certain way about a given topic. Mozilla* is not the right organization/company/project to combat the problem of "fake news" or assert that they are.

With the long laundry list of issues with Mozilla, they are not* in any position to take the moral high ground when it comes to the issue at hand (tracking/telemetry) or in the case of being the gatekeeper of the truth.

.. > Very reluctantly joining other browsers is 'pushing'?

They were in a position to say no but they always seem to take the "everyone else should stop doing this thing except for us" route. The choice they made sure did not help their market share in any way (since that is what many argue).

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation/m...

[Dylan16807]

They're trying to combat fake news through education and platitudes. Even though they're not the ideal candidate, I don't think they will do any harm.

And I wasn't happy with the EME decision but how the web goes there is almost entirely chrome's fault at this point.

[zeveb]

Mozilla seem to think that being just slightly less evil than Google is good enough. No, no it's not.

I don't trust Apple, either — they seek to pull everyone into their walled garden and don't respect their users' freedom.