Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#61

Post by kungtotte »

bscphil wrote: post #42
chalkandpaste wrote: post #24

I disabled everything from Pocket I possibly can when I downloaded and setup Firefox, in the `about:config`. That integration annoys me to no end. Who decided I needed pocket in my browser?

The belief most people have that Mozilla puts things in the browser they expect to be useful to users is mistaken and needs to die. They didn't decide you needed Pocket in your browser. They wanted Pocket in your browser, so that they could sell story spots (read: ads) to the highest bidder. They discuss advertising in the browser chrome here: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/04/30/a-privacy... Note the P…

I will absolutely take the Pocket integration in Firefox over ad-banners any day of the week. I've used browsers with ad banners in the past, and this is infinitely better.

I see three links (on mobile) of actual content; articles or blogs with substance that I may or may not find interesting. They fall below the list of my most visited sites, and they're eminently missable. Depending on how I open Firefox I will not even see them due to bypassing the start page.

I've read several of those articles and found them interesting. It's value added to me, and I don't have to see ad banners for stupid crap in the bargain.

I don't see the problem.

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#62

Post by Sylos »

narag wrote: post #59
dublinben wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most important differentiator will always remain that Firefox is free software and Chrome is the proprietary expression of the largest advertising company in the world. Anything else either of them does is peripheral to that.

IIRC Chromium is free software, even if it is a proprietary expression of something. There's only so much bs you can pull before people has you figured out. I still use Firefox, but it's been years since any news about it made me happy. Seriously considering now to compile Chromium myself and use it as my main browser.

Chromium is technically free software, yes, but it's a horrible example of it. Because Google entirely controls code contributions to it. Only a fork could be amended the way that the community wants it.

The same is obviously true for Firefox, with Mozilla being the gatekeeper, but this is where non-profit vs. for-profit does come back into play.

As for bad things in Chromium, as well as a fork that tries to fix it: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium

As for news articles: When Mozilla does things, they're open about it, which is why news articles get written about their fuck-ups. And they're held to a much higher standard by journalists, as they are a non-profit.

When Google does something shitty on the other hand, people are quick to dismiss it as them needing to make money somehow. And there's lots of instances where Firefox goes the extra mile, where Chromium conveniently forgets about it and then no one blames them, because it is the extra mile, not the standard among browsers.

A prominent example is Chrome Sync. It's not end-to-end-encrypted and Google does state in their Privacy Policy that they use the browsing history submitted to them with Sync for other purposes. Your browsing history being stored on Google's server in decryptable form also means that NSA, CIA, FBI have access to it. You can make it end-to-end-encrypted, which however requires a second password and is therefore something that only users will do that really care about it. Basically, it's there to calm those that would complain otherwise. Firefox Sync is end-to-end-encrypted by default, only one password needed.

And this is just the biggest and clearest example. We're talking about millions of lines of code with tens of thousands of design decisions. Google will have opted every time for the option that's not yet quite bad enough to gather bad press. Mozilla on the other hand has no reason not to protect users, if possible, even if it does not gather them good press.

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#63

Post by jamienicol »

chalkandpaste wrote: post #24

I disabled everything from Pocket I possibly can when I downloaded and setup Firefox, in the `about:config`. That integration annoys me to no end. Who decided I needed pocket in my browser?

Nobody decided you needed it. That's why you have the option to disable it. It's possible that other people get value from it though.

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#64

Post by jamienicol »

twblalock wrote: post #38
chalkandpaste wrote: post #24

I disabled everything from Pocket I possibly can when I downloaded and setup Firefox, in the `about:config`. That integration annoys me to no end. Who decided I needed pocket in my browser?

I wish they would remove the feature. People who really want Pocket can install an extension.

Why is that better than the current situation, where people who really dislike pocket can disable the feature?

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#65

Post by xg15 »

class4behavior wrote: post #48
xg15 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he wanted to be able to subscribe to people's pages and get updates when they post something new. Yes, but even this feature would be more like a traditional browser: A service-neutral, "dumb" feature where the user is directly in control. Not in an abstract marketing sense but literally: A user subscribes to a page and will get all events from tha page in predicatable order. The "news feed" as implemented by Faceb…

You've explained where Facebook's likely interest lies, but not why that feature is actually popular. I don't see any difference with how HN and Reddit attract people. They all seek the added social aspect to reading news; and Facebook is just what people know. >Apologies for being cynical, but I'm not surprised. Luckily cynicism doesn't equal realism. FF devs often make data-driven decisions, and none of the devs sh…

What was the data-driven decision in that case? You mean they looked at plugin usage stats and realized Pocket had more usage than the built-in RSS feature?

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#66

Post by narag »

Sylos wrote: post #62
narag wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC Chromium is free software, even if it is a proprietary expression of something. There's only so much bs you can pull before people has you figured out. I still use Firefox, but it's been years since any news about it made me happy. Seriously considering now to compile Chromium myself and use it as my main browser.

Chromium is technically free software, yes, but it's a horrible example of it. Because Google entirely controls code contributions to it. Only a fork could be amended the way that the community wants it. The same is obviously true for Firefox, with Mozilla being the gatekeeper, but this is where non-profit vs. for-profit does come back into play. As for bad things in Chromium, as well as a fork that tries to fix it:…

So you say that the basic difference is the non-profit status of Mozilla, in a discusion about things that Mozilla does to make money. I'm not convinced.

Non-profit status doesn't mean that they refuse to take money, but that there are no stock holders. The organization as such is still interested in maximizing revenues and people working in it are not necessarily volunteers. How is decided who works for Mozilla and what's the direction it takes?

The fact that I said that I'm considering compiling Chromium doesn't mean that I trust Google. There's a top level comment that hits the nail in the head: we have been Mozilla users because we trusted Mozilla, even when it was technically inferior to competition. It they lose the differentiation factor...

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#67

Post by class4behavior »

xg15 wrote: post #65
class4behavior wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've explained where Facebook's likely interest lies, but not why that feature is actually popular. I don't see any difference with how HN and Reddit attract people. They all seek the added social aspect to reading news; and Facebook is just what people know. >Apologies for being cynical, but I'm not surprised. Luckily cynicism doesn't equal realism. FF devs often make data-driven decisions, and none of the devs sh…

What was the data-driven decision in that case? You mean they looked at plugin usage stats and realized Pocket had more usage than the built-in RSS feature?

>What was the data-driven decision in that case?

That based on telemetry data the RSS feature was barely used in general. I haven't seen any commentary that suggests any relation with their support for Pocket.

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#68

Post by class4behavior »

Techonomicon wrote: post #52
class4behavior wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've explained where Facebook's likely interest lies, but not why that feature is actually popular. I don't see any difference with how HN and Reddit attract people. They all seek the added social aspect to reading news; and Facebook is just what people know. >Apologies for being cynical, but I'm not surprised. Luckily cynicism doesn't equal realism. FF devs often make data-driven decisions, and none of the devs sh…

Reddit and hn are quite different in the sense that HN actively (allegedly) attempts to fight against clickbait / mislabeled titles where resdit (in general) leaves that up to the subreddits to manage which (in general) do nothing.

Indeed, but it's the same concept, just different target groups.

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#69

Post by shock »

class4behavior wrote: post #67
xg15 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the data-driven decision in that case? You mean they looked at plugin usage stats and realized Pocket had more usage than the built-in RSS feature?

>What was the data-driven decision in that case? That based on telemetry data the RSS feature was barely used in general. I haven't seen any commentary that suggests any relation with their support for Pocket.

Is it surprising people don't use a feature they don't know exists? This is a catch-22 problem.

I would very much like to see a banner at the bottom of the new tab page introducing RSS and how it can be used, similarly to how Mozilla did for Firefox Sync.

Re: How Firefox is using Pocket to try to build a better news feed than Facebook

#70

Post by isaiahg »

SyneRyder wrote: post #3

I'm nervous about a Pocket news feed in Firefox. The idea sounds promising, but in practice Pocket's Discovery feature surfaces a kind of pseudo-personalized clickbait that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Here's some of the stories my Pocket Discovery feed found for me today: "Why your brain hates other people" "The most hated Bachelor in America explains himself" "You're doing Scrum wrong and here's how to fix…

> pseudo-personalized clickbait that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

I'm not sure this is possible anymore. Even legitimately well written articles and sources now use clickbait titles to just be competitive. And you can't really blame them, they're just trying to stay in business using the systems people like us make. I'm really concerned that we're conditioning new generations to expect clickbait titles. It makes me wonder how long until this is just the norm for all titles. And the most abrasive thought, how long until we've reached a point where avoiding clickbait titles actively stunts your ability to get information and knowledge?

At this point, I've stopped worrying about the titles and just focus on the sources.

Post reply on HN