Issue 1: "Some fields, such as "URL" and "Email Address", are privacy-sensitive and are only visible to users with minidump access."[1] - So yes, you should not send crash reports when you are dealing with sensitive data.
Issue 2: That is unfortunate and should be fixed.
Issue 3: The issue for Fenix is not 5 years old, it is now one year old, see [2].
Regarding your ban:
- "I will not apologize for being spicy about these things"
- "It is a fact that you've made it intentionally difficult to use your own product to replicate functionality present in most browsers"
-> See the Mozilla Participation Guidelines - "Be respectful in all interactions and communications, especially when debating the merits of different options." [3] I guess you could have phrased things differently. I will not judge if this is "enough" to ban you, but I do also not know what you were posting before this specific comment, you mention additional comments.
Thanks for clarification on #1. It confirms what I was most concerned about and that was that my phone was leaking private info to Mozilla. On Linux I don't build the crash reporter, any crashes I used to backtrace and open with my distro first before moving to upstream. On mobile, Fennic had a specific option to turn off crash reporter, Fenix only has the two 'data sharing' sections.
I included the singular prior message posted the day before in my last comment on HN. I removed the part that was baseless in my second response which is what you saw.
@ #1: To be clear, I am not a Mozilla employee. So do not take this as a confirmation, I am just quoting the documentation.
@ "Fenix only has the two 'data sharing' sections." - You can always untick the checkbox in the crash reporter, see [1]: The data choice in the settings was removed in [2] and tickboxes were added at the same time in [3]. Fenix will also remember you crash reporting choice in the following crashes, you can test this yourself using - warning, this will crash your browser - about:crashparent.
Thanks for including your previous message: I think the ban was primarily based on your first message, but that is just my personal opinion. Hopefully you get more details from your report.
I mean, that’s the last text you sent. There was clearly other text you sent that was baseless speculation. There was history there you’ve not shown. Pretending as if this is the only text that mattered is dishonest.
I can see why they “banned” if you can’t even be honest to third parties.
>There was clearly other text you sent that was baseless speculation. There was history there you’ve not shown. Pretending as if this is the only text that mattered is dishonest.
Comments like this only further strengthens my point that rather than discourse this 'community' seeks to erase history and attack my credibility. Since Mozilla also censored it out and here's a screenshot of the original single text sent a day earlier: https://ibb.co/dgXBdJK
I handled all this (including attaching both screenshots) and more in my report to Mozilla. I don't believe it's dishonest to include the specific text that was censored amd banned when requested, especially when that text references the earlier 'baseless speculation' and I did not bring it up again. They asked what I was banned for, it was expressing my frustrations that caused me to send the original message in the first place.
Furthermore, its extremely concerning that the move to Matrix over IRC seems to be so that rather than just remove users they don't like, they can scrub the history of their message content and tag it with labels like 'baseless speculation' and 'conspiracy theories' to further debase the removed user.
I would include the text of the report I sent to Mozilla but it includes some personal information.
