Mozilla Slipped a 'Mr. Robot'-Promo Plugin Into Firefox and Users Are Pissed (gizmodo.com) 307
MarcAuslander shares a report from Gizmodo: Mozilla sneaked a browser plugin that promotes Mr. Robot into Firefox -- and managed to piss off a bunch of its privacy-conscious users in the process. The extension, called Looking Glass, is intended to promote an augmented reality game to "further your immersion into the Mr. Robot universe," according to Mozilla. It was automatically added to Firefox users' browsers this week with no explanation except the cryptic message, "MY REALITY IS JUST DIFFERENT THAN YOURS," prompting users to worry on Reddit that they'd been hit with spyware. Without an explanation included with the extension, users were left digging around in the code for Looking Glass to find answers. Looking Glass was updated for some users today with a description that explains the connection to Mr. Robot and lets users know that the extension won't activate without explicit opt-in.
Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy. "The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security," the company said in an explanation of the mysterious extension. "One of the 10 guiding principles of Mozilla's mission is that individuals' security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. The more people know about what information they are sharing online, the more they can protect their privacy."
Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy. "The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security," the company said in an explanation of the mysterious extension. "One of the 10 guiding principles of Mozilla's mission is that individuals' security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. The more people know about what information they are sharing online, the more they can protect their privacy."
When browsers jump the shark (Score:2)
Seriously, WTF?!
Re:When browsers jump the shark (Score:5, Funny)
"The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security. One of the 10 guiding principles of Mozilla’s mission is that individuals’ security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional."
So yeah, let surreptitiously install plugins on everyone's browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you let Gilligan drive.
Re:When browsers jump the shark (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget disabling all existing privacy extensions. Oh, and mails you get from Mozilla are pure gold: "Keep trackers off your trail" blah blah "evade tracking technology" blah blah "https://click.e.mozilla.org/?qs=e7bb0dcf14b1013fca3820..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy.
Bullshit. They did it because they got paid by the producers of that TV show to do it. This is what happens when a company is totally dependent on advertising for their revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Mozilla also have a pretty bad reputation for forcing stuff on people, a real clique arrogance. Your tabs, screw you, we want they where we want they, bugger your choice. Same as for appearance, like the old look, meh, we don't, new millennium style, don't like use IE suckers. They can be pretty bloody rude and like a lot of these types or orgs, a particular crowd worms they way in and it is all about serving their ego and fuck everyone else. Mozzilla certainly ain't what it used to be and it stinks of Goog
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To move tabs, I created the directory c:\Users\(username)\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\(yourprofile).default\chrome and then put a file named userChrome.css in it with this content. Note the 1,2,3 order you can modify to change where tabs, etc. are at the top of Firefox 57. The order below is for navigation bar, bookmarks, then tabs:
/* Tab bar below navigation & bookmarks toolbars */
#nav-bar{
-moz-box-ordinal-group: 1;
border-top-width: 0;
}
#PersonalToolbar {
-moz-box-
Re:When browsers jump the shark (Score:5, Insightful)
I want a browser to be fast, secure and protect my privacy. I don’t want it to tell me what I should watch or think.
I may want Firefox for reasons different then the organization goals. I don’t appreciate getting stuff pushed on me.
Re: When browsers jump the shark (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla has no business installing add-ons without user consent, especially when it's done quietly in the background. This is the type of behavior that one would expect from malware, and it may well be illegal. I am seriously considering filing a lawsuit against the Mozilla Foundation under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
good luck with that. remember to type it up; i hear the courts don't appreciate crayon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well, yeah, of course they can be. i'm just wondering what you're going to show them as damages.
Re: When browsers jump the shark (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to be a trend. I installed Chrome on a Linux partition and almost immediately, Yahoo tried to install their plugin into that browser.
Not forgetting Canonical's spyware which sent your local search queries for command options to their servers. It's anonymized they claim - well it isn't if your ISP decides to do a man-in-the-middle attack and deep packet inspection with your data.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/201... [omgubuntu.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
I believe Mozilla probably can be sued under the CFAA.
Anyone can be sued for anything. But you aren't going to do it. If you were someone actually capable of preparing and filing a lawsuit, you wouldn't be anonymously blabbing about it on Slashdot.
Litigating a case like this could easily cost $100k. Justice isn't cheap. I doubt if you, personally, could show more than $1 in damages.
Re: (Score:3)
So if it was just a browser update with the same code it's fine, but as an add-on it's illegal. Sure...
Look, the outcry is real and fair. But let's not call it illegal, because it's their software and you clicked to agree to updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, the outcry is real and fair. But let's not call it illegal, because it's their software and you clicked to agree to updates.
Legally they're in the clear, but I find that permission is given almost under duress. Like you can either agree to this or hackers can root your computer, steal your identity and blackmail you through cryptolockers. It's like refusing safety recalls to your car only worse because they're remotely exploitable, like if someone honks three times your brakes stop working. What sane, responsible person wants to run an Internet-facing piece of software with no support or security patches?
So I understand they nee
Re: (Score:2)
It isn’t about if they can, but if they should.
I want to be able to know what is on my system and what sites I am connecting to. Having a plug-in vs a software update is a bit different. Because the software update fixes the software while a plugin esptthe one from this article is trying to push some idea.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the type of behavior that one would expect from malware.
Actually, this is the type of behavior I’ve come to expect from Microsoft in Windows 10. Also lots of other software products. You clearly didn’t read the EULA, did you? We live in the age of no shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, don't worry, we won't be forgetting the fact they compounded their guilt by figuratively trying to sweep the mistake under the rug.
So fixing a mistake sucks too? Were they supposed to crawl back begging for forgiveness because they made an assumption that turned out not to be true in a few minor edge cases?
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Mozilla, shark jumps you!
One step forward, two back (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were trying to win back Chrome users, this is a pretty effective way to sabotage their efforts.
I hope they were paid a shitload of cash for this little stun, because it's gonna cost them.
Re: One step forward, two back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't find NPR any more credible (or less prone to propaganda) than Faux News, or any other tabloid.
Yeah! And Roy Moore rocks! And Trump Rulez!!!! LIbral Media can suck my dickzzzzzz!!!!! Did I get that right, homeboy?
Re: (Score:2)
You've got some derp on your chin... no, stuck your neckbeard... no, there's more...
Re: (Score:2)
Another surprise was hearing that NPR is still in business.
It's a pretty good business. If you're going to listen to radio, it's hard to get better. Except when they air some crazy stuff after midnight, and not whenever Prairie Home Companion is on.
Re:One step forward, two back (Score:5, Insightful)
“Firefox worked with the Mr. Robot team to create a custom experience that would surprise and delight fans of the show and our users. It’s especially important to call out that this collaboration does not compromise our principles or values regarding privacy. The experience does not collect or share any data,” Jascha Kaykas-Wolff, chief marketing officer of Mozilla, said in a statement to Gizmodo. “The experience was kept under wraps to be introduced at the conclusion of the season of Mr. Robot. We gave Mr. Robot fans a unique mystery to solve to deepen their connection and engagement with the show and is only available in Firefox.”
So, no apologies for those of us who spotted it, freaked out, and spent a bunch of time trying to figure out WTF this was, and if it was malicious or not.
Seriously, on what planet do you essentially prank all your users with a stunt like this? I was actually pretty happy with Firefox after the Quantum update, as it went better than I was expecting. After that, I immediately turned off telemetry and experiments, because they've now abused my trust with this stunt.
And now comes this statement, doubling down on their incredibly poor judgment. This is the last straw for me. If Mozilla had been the least bit contrite, I might have forgiven this. I've been using Firefox almost since it's inception 15 years ago. That ends today.
Re: (Score:2)
Saw Mozilla talking about not getting enough data from users for analysis of the browser, so they were considering having opt out on that (that got barked down quick). But I enabled it on mine just to help - no more.
Then this tone deaf - partner with the content megacorp / E corps to
Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousness (Score:2)
Mozilla certainly didn't handle this as well as they should have but it's important to keep sight of the bigger picture: switching to another comparable browser risks switching to a nonfree browser. I hope (for your own software freedom) you won't make that bad choice in a hasty emotional decision. That would be quite ironic: to give up on a free browser that can be made better because of an immature stunt ostensibly aimed at increasing user privacy.
Real user privacy simply cannot be had with nonfree browse
Re: Don't throw out SW freedom in self-righteousne (Score:2)
There's always Chromium, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah non-free blah blah. At least I know where I stand with Google.
With Mozilla I'm never quite sure. I saw an update the other day, well spin the barrel and pull the trigger, what did they screw up today.
Re: (Score:2)
At least I know where I stand with Google.
For my education (please), where do you stand with Google? I'm looking for an answer in a context larger than a rehash of this (admittedly upsetting) Mr Robot thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I stand with Google is they collect a whole lot of information. This information is their critical bread and butter, it's their equivalent to the recipe for coke. They use this information to provide services to advert companies and to provide services to me with the benefit of knowledge that gives their services an edge over others. Their core competence is the strategic management of information.
Where I stand with Google is that they don't pull stupid shit like this. They protect my privacy by only
Re: (Score:2)
I trust google with my data, but I don't trust their browser to have the configurability I desire, nor can I trust them to let me make my own changes if necessary.
So I trust them a lot more in the browser, than on the browser.
Mozilla may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, and Google may be a wolf in wolf's clothing. I like wolves just fine. But I don't want my computer to act like a wolf. It doesn't even matter which clothing it wears if I already know they're both wolves.
Which is why I'm not going to update Fi
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah non-free blah blah. At least I know where I stand with Google.
With Mozilla I'm never quite sure.
Right, with Google, your privacy is always getting screwed. With Mozilla, you're sure that sometimes your privacy is going to get screwed over without your knowledge (or with it), but sometimes you'll get these weird periods where they don't screw you over at all. Much preferable to getting fucked all the time with Google!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
switching to another comparable browser risks switching to a nonfree browser.
Horse shit. If it is Free Software it will be labeled as such. Details about that are in the license.
Free Software users don't just accidentally stumble and land locked into a proprietary product, that isn't how choice and freedom work.
Re:One step forward, two back (Score:4, Insightful)
> After that, I immediately turned off telemetry and experiments, because they've now abused my trust with this stunt.
If you had those turned on, how is this an abuse of your trust? You had given them permission to do anything with your browser. If you don't want anti-privacy measures in Firefox, don't turn them on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I see you'd fit right in at Mozilla.
Re: (Score:2)
If Mozilla had been the least bit contrite, I might have forgiven this.
Really, this.
I get that the concept would've seemed like a great idea, and there may have been a way to make this work, but not by installing anything uninvited. I don't get why they didn't do something on their "new tab" page - yeah some people will have customised that so they wouldn't see whatever, but at least that way it's not actively pushing unexpected code.
Not in a malicious way, but I do think someone who made this decision at Moz needs to at the very least, take a little break from their positi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"it's gonna cost them."
no it won't. no one is going to remember this in a month, and there are other much more significant variables in the browser "market" (such as it is).
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think so? With one stupid mistake, they turned their browser into adware. People were already flocking away from it, but their latest speed update apparently gave a few pause. Then this stunt...and suddenly, no pause.
They've compromised their integrity, plain and simple. Sure, Chrome snoops on you, but that's hardly surprising to anyone, and when was the last time Chrome served you an add as part of the browser?
Shit, FF just ranged into windows 10 territory, and it took MS employing every dirt
Re: (Score:2)
see, to most people, browsers already are basically adware-delivery vehicles. they're going to hear about this, scratch their heads, maybe a few of them vaguely remember that one weird thing that happened on their browser, and then blip! they will never think about it again because they have much, much more important things to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
i was thinking more prosaic things like not being fired, feeding your kid, finding health insurance, not being evicted, etc. you know, all those things tech employees generally don't have to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the post-57 "Quantum" firefox does a little better than that. It doesn't freeze up completely, it tends to completely crash-- weirdly enough, this is actually much preferable behavior, it saves me the trouble of trying to run "xkill" when firefox is eating most of the system resources.
It's a good thing I like to complain or I would've given up on Firefox a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
no it won't. no one is going to remember this in a month,
Nerds can have a long memory. With every article that mentions Sony, there will invariably be a few 5-modded comments saying "remember when Sony included that root-kit on audio CDs? Never again, Sony!"
Of course, non-nerds never heard about that, nor will they hear about the Mr. Robot thing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Firefox is more supporting of privacy than Chrome so I'll be sticking with Firefox."
yup, that's what i was getting at. one little gaffe versus an entire business model. rofl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: its fine, just disclose one thing (Score:2)
You bet they did. Hell, they're even remarking how the plugin is a "Firefox exclusive" right in the explanation press release.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, they're even remarking how the plugin is a "Firefox exclusive" right in the explanation press release.
Another way of saying nobody else were that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good lord, get over the net neutrality bullshit already. You lost. It's done. Nothing bad will happen.
If nothing bad will happen, then why were the big telecom companies and their government puppets so hell-bent on shoving this through? Are you really so naive as to think that they were antsy to make this change for any other reason than to extract more fees from their locked-in customers, as well as inflict brand new fees on content creators?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good lord, get over the net neutrality bullshit already. You lost. It's done. Nothing bad will happen. Stop drinking the kool aid already.
"Nothing bad will happen?" Were you asleep for the decade before Title II's implementation? Forgot about about Comcast's war with Netflix, resulting in higher prices for Netflix when they had to pay extortion money?
I guess everything is ok when it's only "opportunity cost" that is lost due to high prices? In which case Conservatives can shut the hell up whining about "job killing regulations," since they're totally fine with a legal monopoly like Comcast skimming off everyone else's revenue streams.
Does the plugin actually *do* anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
So I disabled the addon as soon as I read the article, and I am legit mad that Mozilla would do this, but... what does the addon actually do? I didn't notice any difference before disabling it, and I've dug through all the links and nobody seems to be saying what it does.
Even if it was just a blank addon, no effect other than putting what's essentially an ad into my addon list (pun unintended), that would be bad, but it would be less bad than if it actually disrupted the browser in some way.
Mozilla's half-assed apology seems to indicate the addon only starts doing things once you "opt-in", with no mention of how or where one would do that. Which is probably the least evil way you could do this, I'll admit.
Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything? (Score:5, Funny)
The plugin downloads U2 albums.
Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything? (Score:5, Funny)
The plugin downloads U2 albums.
With or without you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take Rick Astley over Bono any day.
Re:Does the plugin actually *do* anything? (Score:4, Informative)
According to https://github.com/mozilla/add... [github.com], it does:
* sends header "X-1057" to sites
* if the page contains certain strings, it flips those strings upside down for 2-6 seconds and then reverts to normal (ex. "privacy" and "control"). It'll also put an on hover box on them with a link.
Dunno if that's really the right plugin, test plan, or full list of what it does, but it was linked from the parents link, which was waaaay more to read than the above two bullet points. If someone sees the above and knows them to be wrong, please reply and correct me.
Never seen it... (Score:2)
Re:Never seen it... (Score:5, Informative)
If you hadn't enabled telemetry and studies, you wouldn't see it. Also, given that it's some sort of marketing tie-in to Mr. Robot, it might very well be US only.
That's a strike for me... (Score:2)
Definitely not happy that Mozilla installed it without my express permission. Nothing from me in their stocking this year.
What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete? (Score:5, Interesting)
(I wonder if this has anything to do with the weird XSS blocking dialog NoScript threw three times earlier today. It was blocking an XSS attempt between two domains, neither of which was open in any browser tab at the time.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Never ever trust again a browser that can pull stunts like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome has this ability too and has abused it in the past.
And it phones home all the time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(Sorry, can't logon from AC on this machine)
I really don't mind phoning home anymore since literally everything does it. At least Chrome provides useful reasons for being online like url auto completion and integration with my google cloud stuff like remembering my bookmarks.
What I REALLY FIND OFFENSIVE is when products (whoever they are, Google, Mozilla, Apple, whatever) install things without telling me, ESPECIALLY if they're written by a third party. I may trust Google, or Mozilla, but that doesn't mean
Re: (Score:2)
Simple.... https://www.google.com/chrome/ [google.com]
Never ever trust again a browser that can pull stunts like this.
Chrome is one of the worst browsers imaginable from a privacy perspective.
Re:What Config Key Do I Disable/Delete? (Score:5, Informative)
Presumably only Mozilla has access to this sort of system. But then again, that's just an assumption of mine.
You can turn this off in the Privacy section: "Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla", and under that "Allow Firefox to install and run studies".
It's the latter one that allows those experimental add-ons to be added and run. I had those both enabled, because I thought that Mozilla would be responsible in how it used them. Obviously, I was mistaken. So, at the very least disable the latter if you don't want more mysterious add-ons showing up. As soon as you uncheck that box, the add-on disappears.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing of this sort in Privacy Settings whatsoever.
I'm looking at it right now under Options -> Privacy & Security -> Firefox Data Collection and Use.
Re: (Score:2)
So if Mozilla can remotely jam new extensions in to my browser without so much as a dialog, that means malicious actors with even fewer scruples will be able to do it in about a week. Short of firewalling all of mozilla.org, how do I turn this shit off?
(I wonder if this has anything to do with the weird XSS blocking dialog NoScript threw three times earlier today. It was blocking an XSS attempt between two domains, neither of which was open in any browser tab at the time.)
Look around in about:config
Searching for 'http' and '.enabled' ... is usually a good starting place.
Personally I modified most of the URLs to point to a local web server just out of curiosity so I can get a better idea what Mozilla is up to but they can just as easily be sabotaged... http://0.0.0.0/ [0.0.0.0]...
As for the XSS browsers have retarded heuristic filters which in my view are dangerous and should be disabled. The filters are naÃve it is basically impossible because the browser lacks necessary conte
Auto-update abuse (Score:3)
You know it's crap like this that encourages end-users to find ways to block auto-updates, because of abusive use of it.
Need to reel that BS in, it's not a good idea, auto-updates should be a good thing. Don't be muddying the waters any further, it's getting pretty obnoxious as it is.
Firefox Studies (Score:5, Informative)
The extension was able to be installed if you had the "Firefox Studies" checkbox selected. To prevent Firefox Studies from installing extensions on your behalf:
Re: (Score:2)
Funny users we didn't know by "studies" Mozilla management doublespeak actually meant "marketing campaigns". Disable all 3 things they don't deserve to get them.
Re: (Score:2)
This must be a v57 option as it's not in v56.
(I upgraded to v57 and downgraded a few days later because I couldn't live without my extensions. I'll have to try again later if/when the ecosystem has solidified a bit. )
Disable Firefox "shield" studies. (Score:4, Informative)
A little Googling leads me to think the Looking Glass add-on was installed via the Firefox built-in Shield Recipe Client [mozilla.org] Feature, also described here: Firefox/Shield/Shield Studies [mozilla.org], which is documented as:
Shield is a Firefox user testing platform for proposed, new and existing features and ideas.
Shield Studies is a function of the Shield project that prompts a random population of users to help us try out new products, features, and ideas.
I have this disabled via the following pref.js settings:
// Disable Shield Recipe Client
user_pref("app.shield.optoutstudies.enabled", false);
user_pref("extensions.shield-recipe-client.enabled", false);
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Irony, thy name is Mozilla (Score:2)
So, Mozilla, a company that claims privacy is important to them and in their web browser product Firefox, silently mass auto-force-installs an add-on into already installed software, using a built-in feature that almost no one knows about (that comes enabled by default), that promotes the television show Mr. Robot, in which just about everyone in that show routinely breaks the law, breaks into other people's computers (installing backdoors, trojans and root kits), and violates people's privacy. Nice going.
i can't say i'm that surprised... (Score:2)
after seeing mr robot crap at def con 24 (rofl), this isn't that surprising i guess. i wonder how much actual money the showrunners shell out for this.
Mr. Robot promotes user privacy? (Score:2)
Mozilla justified its decision to include the extension because Mr. Robot promotes user privacy. "The Mr. Robot series centers around the theme of online privacy and security," the company said in an explanation of the mysterious extension.
Have they even *watched* the show? I'm not sure the word "promotes" is apt here - unless they mean "promotes violating user privacy". The protagonist Elliot Alderson has violated *everyone's* privacy and broken into everyone's computer, as has just about everyone else who owns a keyboard -- though they all do seem to get really pissed when *their* privacy and systems get violated, hmm ...
Fine, I'll say it (Score:2)
A new add on is needed (Score:2)
v57 (Score:2)
Manjaro saved me (Score:2)
well here goes my karma.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry folks, but Slashdot just revealed it's true colors. The chorus of OMG! WTF! down with Mozilla, witnessed in this thread is, sadly, proof that the Slashdot audience has become those who the hackers of yore were hacking against. Is there not an ounce of rebellious spirit left on this site? Whether you like the show, Mr. Robot, or not, I just can't fathom the reaction here.
For those those who say this is the last straw for Mozilla-good riddance, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Look there are lots of things I could complain about regarding Firefox, but a chance wanderer coming to Slashdot would think this site is full of nothing but chrome shills and misanthropes who actually *hate* Free software. What made this site so interesting in days long ago was the tension between the rebellious spirit of Free Software and those who made their living working for the man or trying to make a living selling proprietary software. Nowadays corporate shills and libtards reign supreme on this site and the very notion that technology can actually be a source of societal change is completely and utterly lost.
Well duh maybe that's why most here don't even get what Mozilla is, what it represents and how much it actually changed the world around us.
But oh my God they rendered my extension useless, oh my God one of my 80 tabs is leaking memory, or Oh my God it takes a full 1.7 seconds to launch on a modern computer.
Oh well I guess I am just a fanboy, forgot to check the mail and get my check for promoting not only Firefox but Mozilla as a an organization, foundation and corporation. Am I the only idiot here who jumped for joy back in January of 1998 when the mozilla source code was made free and downloaded it just so I could see the code?
My guess is that anywhere from %30-50 of all currently existing jobs in software development wouldn't even exist without Free Software, and Mozilla did more to promote and garner mainstream acceptance of Free Software than the GNU movement ever dreamt of. In all likelihood there would be no Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc. without the courage and commitment that founded Mozilla. Alas without Richard Stallman and the GNU movement there probably would never have been a Mozilla.
Long live Mozilla
Re:well here goes my karma.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
... Is there not an ounce of rebellious spirit left on this site?...
Yes, there is an ounce of rebellious spirit left on this site. Unfortunately, Mozilla (through their poor management decisions) is mischanneling said rebellious spirit against the Firefox developers, and not in the manner you hope.
How low will Mozilla sink? (Score:2)
...Mozilla justified its decision...
The decision cannot be justified. Period. Full stop. Are the completely wrong people in charge of, and making decisions at, Mozilla? Do those people care not one iota about what the customers want? OK, that last question was rhetorical because these past few years Mozilla has shown a stunning indifference to what the Firefox users want. Stunning indifference.
Screw "experiences." Fix the bugs first. (Score:2)
I am sick of having "experiences" pushed in my face by marketing drones who think I need to know what's "cool" or "interesting." The "experience" I'm really interested in is a browser that functions properly, doesn't crash, supports standards, and which doesn't eat all of the available memory or CPU. I'm even willing to PAY for something like that. If the management team at the Mozilla Foundation has time and resources to surreptitiously load unwanted extensions hyping some television show on the browser
Re: (Score:3)
This, this, a thousand times this.
Nobody cares about privacy, or really even about security, as long as they get their new fresh modern stuff.
The dream of the web died years ago, and the dream of personal computing is dying right now before our very eyes.
It was inevitable. There is nothing that the corporate shitheads can't co-opt, corrupt, and ruin - the genius of Capitalism at work.
Oh well, it was fun there for a while...
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody cares about privacy, or really even about security, as long as they get their new fresh modern stuff.
These more or less have to go hand in hand. Things are changing so fast and so broadly that the only way to keep up is to make that trade off. Of course the smart move might be to not keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It has become a fashion industry. What people will give up in order to be shiny and modern is astonishing. Oh well.
Re:"privacy-conscious users" (Score:5, Insightful)
Things are changing so fast and so broadly that the only way to keep up is to make that trade off.
What an odd thing to write. We used to compensate people who provided new things we liked to have by paying them.
The reason privacy is dying is because invading privacy has become profitable, and that in turn is because it provided a way to monetize people using a service or enjoying some digital content online without them having to do anything or even necessarily realising what was going on.
Google and Facebook, with their culture of spying-for-ads, and Apple, with its app store culture of software-costing-$3-is-expensive, have much to answer for.
Re: (Score:2)
What an odd thing to write. We used to compensate people who provided new things we liked to have by paying them.
Yup, the Internet definitely changed that.
The default assumption is that things are "free" and you have to put up with advertising. Advertising gets more invasive the more money that needs to be involved. It's because we decided that we don't need to pay for the newspaper anymore, we just get it for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fun part. In your spiel, you misspelled "communism". This movement to spy on every citizen through backdoors of every kind imaginable started in China as a tool to maintain population control by their Communist Party about two decades ago. This funded a lot of research into knowhow, that was quickly put into use in China.
And once people in power realized just how easy it is to spy on everyone, for profit and/or control, it snowballed very quickly and since most of the ground work was already done, all you n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try waterfox, drop-in replacement for Firefox 52 or so.
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome? Chrome?! Out of the frying pan, into the fire. I will not have anything to do with any Google product whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla: "We did it for money!"
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us want IE 6 to die more than we hate what Mozilla has just pulled here.
Re: (Score:3)
And the males there would be too excited.
I guess that's one way to defeat those sorts of guys.
When a pervert masturbates at you, acting offended is what they want. Instead, masturbate back! It will freak them out and ruin their fun.