61–70 of 77 posts
Your decision to show ads to your users this last week without their consent was the last straw for me. And believe me, I've stood A LOT from you. My relationship with you has been practically abusive. Farewell Mozilla, it's been real.
(Source: https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/MozillaStillTru... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everything can be disabled. If it is enabled by default, then they are doing it wrong.
That's just your opinion. I do not mind sharing data with them by default because I know the data helps their long-term survival. Especially because I know I'm lazy (like most people are) so if it's opt-in I wouldn't bother turning things on.
Your decision to show ads to your users this last week without their consent was the last straw for me. And believe me, I've stood A LOT from you. My relationship with you has been practically abusive. Farewell Mozilla, it's been real.
Where on earth are you going? Chrome? There are no other independent browser engines left besides Firefox, web browsers are a duopoly now and if you think Google is better on data collection and ads than Mozilla, I have a bridge to sell you.
That being said, as much as I've been unimpressed with Mozilla's decisions over the last half-decade, I don't really see the issue with putting an ad on the new tab page, given that they claim it wasn't targeted and didn't use any user data.
The convenience of Chrome extensions that I use daily is a major hesitation from me switching to any browser.
Does anyone else find it strange that threads on Mozilla articles submitted to HN are filled with privacy-absolutists while articles about Google/Chromium are disproportionately commented on by Google apologists? Are there two radically divergent subsets of HN users who hardly comment on articles about the other major browser?
Dear Mozilla, you have no business having my data in the first place. If you're promising to keep my data safe, things have already gone wrong.
> you have no business having my data in the first place... ??? Mozilla doesn't have your data. The only way Mozilla would ever have any of your data is if you explicitly signed up for one of their services to hold your data for syncing purposes or something. Unless you very actively said "Take my data please!" at some point, there really are very few things Mozilla would be able to do to get at your data. (In fact,…
That is not my definition of explicitly signing up for their services.
Does anyone else find it strange that threads on Mozilla articles submitted to HN are filled with privacy-absolutists while articles about Google/Chromium are disproportionately commented on by Google apologists? Are there two radically divergent subsets of HN users who hardly comment on articles about the other major browser?
Could possibly be brigading by Google (or whoever).
Mozilla bragging to me about how they're defending me on the web is like Smith & Wesson telling me they're keeping me safe from guns. It also seems like the height of hypocrisy to complain about data privacy when people use almost exclusively free services online. Somebody has to pay for it all, and since users refuse to do so, advertising has to. It's simple math: if you don't pay for content, your data will be mone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your browser history _is_ a personal profile of your browsing preferences. What's the difference?
Nobody said it wasn't? What's your point? The only thing that's being debated is whether sending a personal profile of your browsing preferences compiled from metadata is ok simply because it's not a personal profile of your browsing preferences consisting of your entire browsing history. You're right that both things are profiles—that's not being argued.
As far as I can tell, the only data that's sent is what Pocket-recommended links were displayed, and if you clicked on them. Is that what you're claiming constitutes a "profile"?