[nickvincent]

I understand there seems to be a lot of pent-up frustration in these comments, some of it related to this specific initiative and some not.

I'd like to highlight a few reasons why this could be exciting and, indeed "pro-user".

* The core value proposition in my view, though not spelled out on the linked page (I think because it's targeting a broader-than-HN audience), is that data collection can produce answers to empirical questions about "Big Tech" that would otherwise likely never be answered by anyone except in-house Big Tech data analysts. E.g., empirical questions about the impacts of search engine design choices, how newsfeeds influence behavior, etc. Of course, these studies will face issues with selection bias, but that's not insurmountable, and probably better than nothing. For instance, publicly shared data about Pixel tracking, even from a biased sample, is better than having no data on that topic, IMO!

* The collaboration with academics and journalists is important because it means the results of each study will be shared. It's in the incentive systems of both groups to publish results. Best case, individual users, people who build browser extensions, etc. can use findings about search engines and newsfeeds to change their behavior or build new tools. Policy discussions would also benefit from some quantitative grounding.

* The alternative ways to answer these questions: academics and journalists run scrapers, data-collection browser extensions, etc. on their own. Harder to do, especially post-Cambridge Analytica and more recently, NYU's ad observatory getting shut down (https://cyber.nyu.edu/2021/08/21/facebook-disables-ad-observ...). Or, the state forces tech co.'s to publish answers. Or, we just never know!

* A weaker point: This project is trying to set new standards about data management, e.g. providing a true "one click to opt out" option. I see this as an experiment, that other projects can follow if it works. This is a bit more of a stretch than the previous two points.

My bias: I'm an academic who wants to see the results of the various studies being conducted, so I'm very hopeful!

[JacobThreeThree]

>The collaboration with academics and journalists is important

It's not important to me.

Projects like this make me want to choose a browser other than Mozilla.

[nickvincent]

Yeah, that's fair! My view is not that everybody should use Rally, or even Firefox. Rather, it's that even though there's going to be massive filtering going on with regards to who will even contribute data to Rally, it's still going to benefit the public to have biased quantitative estimates of parameters of interest, and to surface qualitative findings from the group of people who do contribute.

It's always possible in the future that Rally, or other initiatives, will find other ways to incentivize contributions (more projects that align with specific interests, more "visualization" of how your data contributions might impact the world, etc.).

As to whether the cost-benefit accounting (producing new knowledge, informing design vs. scaring users off Firefox, creating new privacy harms) will come out in favor of the project remains to be seen, of course!

[staticelf]

Personally, I think most comments here just challenges Mozillas actions rather than just swallowing their marketing material. They clearly, in my and a lot of others opinion, just say stuff while doing something else completely.

It's a leadership issue and for an outsider looks almost like a hostile takeover. I stopped using Firefox years ago at this point and have stopped testing what I build for it since the relevance of Firefox unfortunately is miniscule anyway. They have too little market share now and they just continue turning their backs on everyone that used to support them.