fastcompany.com
www.fastcompany.com

“Last month, Mozilla made a quiet change in Firefox that caused some diehard users to revolt…”

  • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
    4·
    4 months ago

    I am doubly pissed off:

    • Mozilla opts me into an analytics scheme without requiring my permission. That’s bad.
    • Mozilla partners with fucking FACEBOOK to spring this shit on me? Now THAT takes the cake!

    But… I would be pissed off if I used straight Firefox, and I don’t: I use LibreWolf, and I have no doubt they’ll strip this latest round of Mozilla nonsense from the LibreWolf browser.

    I don’t know… I have a love/hate relationship with Mozilla: on the one hand, they’re pretty much the only thing that stands between the final overrun of the web by the Google monoculture and still having some kind of a choice what you use to hit the internet, and they make one of the only email clients worth its salt in Linux. On the other hand, every time they decide to do something, it’s always a screw-up, and it’s been like that for decades. Surely in their position, they should know what not to do to piss off everybody all the time, and yet… What a weird bunch.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      1·
      4 months ago

      LibreWolf is great as long as they’re able to pull out malicious advertising.

      I hope some of the completely independent projects start taking off. Chrome is cancer. Manifest V3 is metastasized cancer. Mozilla is basically taking up smoking.

      I miss the days when we had functioning software without telemetry whenever we wiggle a mouse and ads in every corner.

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pubEnglish
    4·
    4 months ago

    Mozilla wants us to love Firefox again? Ok, well, it’s actually pretty simple: treat us like customers users, instead of products again. Make the product for us, not for the corpos. Strange how betrayal turns a friend into a foe, isn’t it…

    E: changed customers to users, as another user here suggested the difference between them. (thanks, fellow lemming!)

      • flatlined@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        1·
        4 months ago

        Which (pr nightmare aside) I wouldn’t be against. It’s not gonna fly, people are accustomed to ‘free’ browsers to the point they’d balk at the idea. Even if they weren’t most would take a free chromium based browser or Firefox fork over a paid alternative that doesn’t give them anything extra. But browsers are massive pieces of tech, they need a lot of dev time, and the money needs to come from somewhere, just relying on volunteers won’t cut it.

        Mozilla has been looking for sources of funding for years, sometimes in ways that are their own type of pr nightmare and sometimes in ways I’m not thrilled by, but I get their predicament. I wish there would be (more) state funding. EU, US. Whatever. Much like governments should invest in public transit we should invest in critical software infra.

        I also wish Google’s other branches were divorced from their browser dev branch. The stranglehold on the web given to Google by chrome is a huge part of the problem.

    • refalo@programming.dev
      1·
      4 months ago

      The problem is in our current society it’s simply not possible for something to get very popular without being taken over by a corporation or government, who are usually driven by profits because we live in a capitalist world whether you like it or believe it or not.

      • Luke@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        it’s simply not possible for something to get very popular without being taken over by a corporation

        Please don’t excuse unethical and exploitative behavior by pretending that it’s unavoidable.

        There are examples of other funding models available; for example, what the Blender Foundation does. It turns out, if a FOSS effort focuses on their community, makes users feel involved and important, asks in good faith for contributions and suggestions, treats people with respect, maintains funding and organizational transparency, and has consistent ethical standards… it can work out very well for them. No selling out required. No data harvesting required. No shady deals with Google required.

        • refalo@programming.dev
          1·
          4 months ago

          For the purposes of my argument I don’t consider blender to be “very popular” in the same way that Chrome or even Firefox is. Blender has less than 2% of the number of users that even Firefox has. I think if Blender were to get Firefox-level popular (for example, over 100 million users), then it too would succumb to greedy corporate interests.

          If you know of this funding model working successfully at the scale of 100 million users/customers or more, I would be interested to learn about it though.

          • Luke@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            Your statement did leave some wiggle room to quibble over what exactly “very popular” means, though I don’t see how popularity is a useful metric when we’re talking about free software which doesn’t rely on user purchases for revenue. Ultimately it comes down to how funding the development of each software is accomplished, and whether that can be done effectively without selling out.

            However, if we must compare funding strategies based on popularity, then we can. I’m not sure where you got your usage numbers from, but I’ll use your percentage to normalize for the number of employees paid through the funding strategies of both examples to compare the effectiveness of the approaches:

            For purposes of discussion, I’ll assume that you are correct that Blender has 2% of the popularity of Firefox. Normalizing that for comparison, 2% of 840 Mozilla employees is 16.8 employees (round down because you can’t have 0.8 of a person).

            In other words, if Firefox were only 2% as popular as it is now (thus making it equally as popular as you say Blender is), Mozilla would be paying 16 developers with it’s funding strategy.

            Conversely, Blender is able to pay 31 developers using their funding strategy. This means that, even when accounting for popularity, Blender’s funding strategy is 2x more effective than Mozilla’s at paying developers to work on their software.

            Again, I don’t agree that popularity is an important metric to compare here, but even when we do so, it’s clear that it is entirely possible to fund software without resorting to tired old capitalistic funding models that result in the increasingly objectionable violations of user privacy that Mozilla engages in lately. They could choose to do things differently, and we ought not to excuse them for their failure of imagination about how to fund their business more ethically. Especially when perfectly workable alternative funding models are right there in public view for anyone to emulate.

            • vaderaj@lemmy.world
              1·
              4 months ago

              Its been a long time since I came acorss such a calm and composed discussion, this is just an appreciation comment. I do not have anything valid to add to this conversation

  • kuneho@lemmy.world
    3·
    4 months ago

    If I understand all this correctly, Mozilla teamed up with Meta to create a method that helps advertisers in a user privacy-friendly way. Aside from the initial trigger people have here reading the word “Meta” or by just the existence of ads, is there any problematic with this, without going really deep into tinfoil hat territory?

    Also, am I understanding it correctly that the outrage is mainly because this feature is enabled by default? So again, a function that helps protecting your privacy, is enabled by default? Because, it seems most people just offended by only this fact alone.

    But I’m maybe missing something here.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      2·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, they failed to communicate it. Which people chose to interpret in the most uncharitable way. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” - Hanlon’s razor

      Misconceptions about Firefox’s Privacy Preserving Ad Measurement – Andrew Moore

      Of course people who complain about this loudly are most likely people who block all ads and tracking anyway so it doesn’t even affect them. My ideal would be the total ban of all advertising. Then let the free market sort it out lol.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      2·
      4 months ago

      Because Mozilla promised us privacy, and “privacy-friendly” ad tracking is still worse privacy than not baking ad tracking into the browser in the first place.

      And they tried to sneak it in under the radar because they knew they were being sketchy.

      • kuneho@lemmy.world
        11·
        4 months ago

        Because Mozilla promised us privacy, and “privacy-friendly” ad tracking is still worse privacy than not baking ad tracking into the browser in the first place.

        I don’t think “privacy” works in a way you snap your fingers, and bam, you have privacy, without any progress or stations in your way. Especially in today’s web. Also, it’s not just on Mozilla. On the contrary. I feel like Mozilla is the only “bigger name” in this market who tries to navigate in this shitstormy sea that is the web now.

        Tho, it’s just me, but it sounds much better if my browser handles all the tracking and data sharing business in a controlled manner with advertisers in a “privacy-friendly” way than no control overall (especially since it’s Firefox and not Chrome/Edge), hoping only the other side would respect my preferences and requests.

        But in the end, as I read other comments here, the problem is just the default state of the checkbox, got it. Feels a bit silly - in this particular case - but I can understand it.

    • mattreb@feddit.it
      0·
      4 months ago

      Does not “help protecting privacy”, that is marketing. It’s a system for ads that track you in a more privacy-friendly way then other alternatives.

      Peoples are mostly angry at the fact that they just silently slipped this system in without asking for consent.

      • kuneho@lemmy.world
        1·
        4 months ago

        Peoples are mostly angry at the fact that they just silently slipped this system in without asking for consent.

        But why? Does it expose more data? More sensitive data than before?

        What I don’t get, but maybe because of the lack of information I have on the topic is that if it’s better in terms of data privacy than before, or is it better if it’s turned on than off, why is it such a great problem, if it’s turned on by default? In this case, not turning it on would be something that one should be noted. Any technical, real-world reasons why not giving my consent to enable this feature gives reason to get mad, or is this really just about “not having a choice”, regardless the outcome?

  • sushibowl@feddit.nl
    2·
    4 months ago

    Laura Chambers, who stepped into an interim CEO role at Mozilla in February, says the company is reinvesting in Firefox after letting it languish in recent years,

    It’s sort of amusing to me that Mozilla would let the Firefox browser languish. Is that not the raison d’etre of your entire organization? What are you doing with your time and effort if you are allowing your core product to languish? What would people say if Microsoft said “yeah, we’ve allowed windows to languish in recent years.” What an insane notion.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        0·
        4 months ago

        And I wouldn’t call it serious, the performance is atrocious.

        It’s so bad I went and installed outlook from 2016

        • Empricorn@feddit.nlEnglish
          01·
          4 months ago

          You’re not arguing from a position of strength if your personal anecdote is performance issues, 8 years ago.

          • Roopappy@lemmy.mlEnglish
            01·
            4 months ago

            I think you misread that. This poster’s experience isn’t from 2016. They installed a program called “Outlook 2016” recently.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      0·
      4 months ago

      It was a hidden, opt-out feature.

      But thanks for your denigrating comment. We now know the value of your thoughts.

      You should perhaps watch this: “Taking Control of Your Personal Data” by prof. Jennifer Golbeck, published by The Teaching Company, ISBN:978-1629978390, likely available at your local library as a DVD or streaming.

      I suspect you don’t realize the extent of the tracking occurring today.

  • No1@aussie.zone
    0·
    4 months ago

    All I need is mozilla on android to be able to load local html files.

    It’s the only reason I left.

    It’s the only reason I will return.

      • Dicska@lemmy.world
        1·
        4 months ago

        I made a very simple HTML page to count the money for my work. I’ve tried everything and I ended up hosting it just to be able to access it from Firefox. It might work with Android, I don’t know, but on this internet aids MIUI it’s impossible. But MIUI is just some pimped Android so chances are it’s the same.

        I managed to open it locally in chrome (spits), but the URL didn’t even say the usual file path but some sus looking mi.com address, so I’ll stick with just hosting it.