[Latty]

Look, I absolutely agree it sucks they didn't deliver the opt-out/in interface day one, it was obvious people would want it, and yes, it's not the first time they've blundered.

At the same time, they did listen to the feedback and deliver. It now has a genuinely good interface for it where you don't have to opt out of everything, but can opt-in where you want it. It's not just a big off button, it's a general out-out including new features, but that then exposes individual opt-ins if you want for each feature. Most other browsers won't respond at all. Firefox is still by far the best browser out there for people who care about their privacy.

Especially on HN, Firefox just gets so much more hate than software that is way more user hostile for much less bad behaviour. I'm not saying we shouldn't hold it to a higher standard when that is what it's selling itself on: clearly we can't allow "not as bad" to let it slip into worse and worse, but at the same time, I don't understand how the narrative seems to trend towards "they are essentially the same as google" when that is so clearly not true (to be clear, not saying you are saying that in this post, just that's the vibe of HN's commentary as a whole).

[thisislife2]

That is true - Firefox is definitely held to a higher standard here and elsewhere. They marketed those values to us. So the criticisms, in my opinion, are definitely justified. And no, they aren't listening to their users.

If they had listened to their users they would have delivered what every users wants - just a browser. Not some kind of "platform" stuffed with lot of unwanted crap that makes it bloated and introduces possibly new unnecessary attack vectors in it (both malicious and / or privacy exploits). All those additional crap that every new management wants in Firefox should have been a browser extension or a plugin, instead of being bundled into the core browser. When a user installs / updates Firefox, they could be asked if they want to install any of these new feature available as an extension / plugin. That keeps the browser lean, transfers the choice completely to the user and is genuinely respectful of the user. The current way of force bundling everything into the browser, making it bloated, and then pretending that "users can opt-out" is not just arrogance but also misleading (to be polite) as it is common knowledge among software firms that most people often never change the default settings.

Think about it ... if every of these controversial features - Pocket, ads in address bar or home page, AI etc. etc. - had been made available as user opted extension or plugin, would there ever have been any controversies? The installation data itself would provide a feedback of how much the users actually care about these features, and provide unique insights to the management into the kind of user base that it has (which the article is spot-on about).

(Note that I know that some of these features are indeed implemented as an extension. But not as user controlled ones as they cannot be completely uninstalled. All the user can do is disable it (turn "off or on"). Why? It is stuff like this that makes it harder to trust claims of caring about user Privacy.)

[godelski]

  > If they had listened to their users

It seems to me like they are. A lot of people actually use those AI features. Particularly translate. The other I like is semantic search. Those are genuinely useful things.

When people are complaining about AI it seems vague and like they're complaining about something else not related to Firefox. What is it, the optional chatbot side window? I agree that's annoying, but it's pretty easy to go about your life not knowing it even exists. The new preview thing is annoying, but the complaints all happened when it was only translate and the chat box.

It seems like people are just complaining about AI but directing that to Mozilla. For translate I can say that they were much more ethical than most companies. They used volunteer work and have an open dataset. They don't seem to be out here stealing artists' work or scrapping the entire internet left and right, they seem to be using AI as directed useful features. Small and local models, not chatbots.

I'm not going to say Mozilla doesn't have lots of problems, it certainly does. But the outrage over this doesn't seem to be about those things. If those are the problems, any Geko browser is miles ahead of any chromium browser. Even if you use a degoogled chromium you're still giving Google control over the internet. If you have problems with Mozilla, then just be direct. If you have problems with AI, just be direct about it (it's not like there aren't a million problems there too!). But if we conflate the two we don't even give Mozilla the chance to respond to users because the feedback is meaningless. And if you expect them to "just know", well... how would they? They're not Google, they aren't monitoring every single little thing you do.

The reason people are pushing back against the Mozilla hate is because we're just tired of chrome winning. That's all that this hate has done. And if you're that passionate about AI, just go to a fork. There are plenty and you've already established yourself as a power user, so I know you know how to google. Fwiw, I like Zen, but it's not completely anti AI either.

[thisislife2]

Thank you for engaging politely and reasonably in discussing this. My complaint wasn't about AI ... it is about force-bundling whatever this-will-make-us-money-feature or we-think-its-a-great-feature idea into the browser without giving the user any real choice (or control) in the matter.

I am not against Firefox management exploring alternate revenue streams or even "innovative" feature ideas. In fact, mostly everyone here supports Firefox diversifying its revenue stream from Google, in an ethical manner. Personally, all my criticism (and increasing mistrust) stem from the way they have gone about and done it when there are better alternative ways to present these ideas to the user and respectfully persuade them to accept it without outraging them. (Especially the "power" users, because that's who are the most irritated by these shenanigans and are the loudest with their criticism). And in my previous comment, I've already outlined one way to do it - ensure the core browser (the actual product that you offer) is independent and separate. Everything that isn't a "core browser" feature or has a privacy implications or has a monetising component in it should only be offered as extensions or plugins that the user (not Mozilla or Firefox) fully controls (which means no more bundling these kind of features as "system" add-ons - https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/toolkit/mozapps/exte... ).

Do you agree with me that this approach is better, as it would not only increase trust in Firefox but also reduce complaints?

[zzo38computer]

I agree with you.

The extensions and plugins should be separated from the rest of the program, like any other extensions, and can be configured and disabled by the end user.

Some of the extensions might come with the distribution, but if so, there should also be another package available which is the same program but without any of the extensions included with it (and should be just as easy to find and use, rather than making it difficult), and also the possibility that if you downloaded it with the extensions it can be disabled, and that if you downloaded it without the extensions then you can still install them like any other extension if wanted.

People who do want the AI features can have them, but not as a core part of the browser (the extension mechanism can be enhanced if it is found to be insufficient, which would help with many other things as well; however, the end users should still be able to control the security features of extensions regardless of who wrote them or where they come from), and possible to get it without those and other potentially unwanted extensions.

Even many official features of WWW may be potentially unwanted; in some cases, these might be made as extensions, and in some cases, they might be made as options which can be configured and disabled. Either way, they should be documented; it is good to have good documentation for any software (and should not require an internet connection to use, even for a web browser).

[godelski]

  > Do you agree with me that this approach is better, as it would not only increase trust in Firefox but also reduce complaints?

I agree the approach is better but doesn't work in reality. I mean how many people actually end up donating to Mozilla to help keep them out of the grips of Google? The better approach is that a small set of users donate a little bit each year and that accumulates to millions of dollars. Personally, I do it through my work because my employer does donation matching

[thisislife2]

It is fair to say that the approach I have suggested wouldn't generate as much revenue as force-bundling something to every user of Firefox. But it would generate revenue. Diversification is really possible because if you offer some monetisation component that a user voluntarily opts into, you can experiment with a lot of such things that would otherwise be controversial. (For example, Firefox could tie-up with some ad company that uses some Mozilla tech like "privacy-preserving ad-measurement" that offers to share revenue with the user if they allow ads on the "partner" sites they visit - some % of users would be willing to try it out to make money and / or to support Firefox).

Of course, before they do all that, they should really divert some of the 100's of millions of dollars they have into making a Firefox actually better - faster and less resource consuming. Developers have long complained that despite the money, 20+ years of development, the codebase isn't modular and Gecko still isn't available as a stand-alone module that could be used in other application development or to even make other browsers.

Those working for Mozilla / Firefox need to understand that they have lost substantial trust with their users for some genuine reasons (and not just bad PR from their competitors), and that is one of the major reason why their user-base is dwindling. The way to fix that is to first repair that trust. Reinforce the values that Firefox marketed to its users.

[halJordan]

No one marketed luddite anti-values to you. And it's a step too far to act like anything that contradicts those wants are actually immoral

[account42]

You might want to look up the terms you are using because you are not making the argument you think you are making.

[vitally3643]

People are mad because Mozilla refuses to listen to users until backlash becomes a threat to the company. They keep pushing users to the limit and only pull back slightly when the screaming gets too loud.

People are mad because Mozilla is clearly and unashamedly trying to boil the frog and doesn't seem to even be interested in hiding that fact.

People are mad because Mozilla is speed-running SV software-shittifying strategies without even doing us the dignity of pretending they aren't.

[ekianjo]

> it's not the first time they've blundered

It's a recurring pattern of not reading the room

[b112]

Indeed, and it's on purpose.

Everyone was forced to be exposed to it. To see it. Only after that happened, did they let users disable it.

It's effectively the equivalent of a spam campaign.

[jlarocco]

I think Firefox gets hated on more than the others because they advertise putting the user in control but in practice they seem to undermine it at every opportunity.

A browser that puts users in control should make features like AI and advertising opt-in because there is a sizeable group of people who are concerned about those things. It's meaningless if they only put users in control who agree 100% with Mozilla's ways of thinking.

After so many times of blundering in ways that are favorable to their corporate sponsors, it's hard to believe they're not doing it on purpose.

[DANmode]

Say what you need to say: Google pays the bills over there,

it’ll never be an effective, scrappy organization again as long as that’s the case.

[godelski]

  > as long as that’s the case

So until people decide it's worth donating to.

[DANmode]

or until they can go back to shipping a browser for under $400M yearly.

[kgwxd]

The only correct move would be remove the option, remove all AI code, and move it into extensions. If the extension security policies, and other restrictions, don't allow all the things they want to put in, then GOOD, they don't go in.

[zzo38computer]

I also think should be moved into extensions. However, extension security policies and other restrictions do not have to necessarily be so restrictive; there can be permissions but for extensions that you can install and uninstall by yourself it can be useful to be able to load native code .so files (since you might want to do things other than what the browser does by itself). This permission would not be made available to the official extensions, so that you can write it in C and then must compile them by yourself if you want them with native codes

[thisislife2]

Older Firefox extension feature-sets were quite powerful before Google financially coerced / induced them to support the kind of crippled version that is today's "Web Extensions". Many developers were angry enough to fork Firefox just to retain that feature ( https://www.palemoon.org/ ).

[meibo]

People had to raise hell to get that, while being made fun of by their CMs on social media. Even the opt-out is full of silicon valley dark patterns. Whoever is calling shots about the product at Mozilla doesn't have your best interests at heart.

[Krssst]

What are those dark patterns? It's an off button, it works, and it does not get back on. It's the polar opposite of the "maybe later, I'll ask again every week and reset the setting in your back" unfortunate norm that plagues a lot of major proprietary software/service.

[vitally3643]

"You can turn it off" is not in the same category of "would you like to turn this on?" or even "do you want this in the first place?"

Opt-out is not consent, nor is it respect.

Opt-out is a dark pattern, period. Opt-out is forcing something onto users and hoping they don't go out of their way to disable it. It is the same as "maybe later".

[godelski]

  > Opt-out is a dark pattern, period.

No it isn't. All you're doing is making it harder to talk about dark patterns.

You want to know dark patterns?

How about having to physically mail a letter to cancel your news subscription or gym membership?

How about burying your "delete account" button so its only findable by third party websites who keep the correct link up to date. And they still try to convince you to deactivate instead.

How about making you pay to cancel your subscription?

How about the frequent tip begging on online orders or at a fucking fast food location? Especially when the lowest option is 20%!

A default with a clearly labeled section in the settings (that's searchable!) is NOT a dark pattern. It is not tricking you in any way. You may be annoyed by the default, and you have every right to, but by calling this a dark pattern you just make it harder to talk about all the above stuff because you trivialize them. Because at the end of the day, every binary option has to be toggled in one direction or another. Do not conflate these things