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

Promoted Add-ons Pilot

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#71

Post by AnthonyMouse »

random_dork1 wrote: post #51
aaomidi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except when they fired basically all their talent. I don't really have any love for them after this. Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.

> Except when they fired basically all their talent. That is an extreme exaggeration. From firing about 25% of their workforce, to 'basically all their talent' is a looong way. > Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op. Please fork their software and start one. If you are successful, I will say I always believed in you, if not, I will say that you should've always been structured as a social purpose corpo…

The problem being that forks work for ideological differences, not for resources differences.

If you forked Firefox and made unambiguous improvements, Mozilla would presumably incorporate them, because why wouldn't they? Then everybody would get your improvements from firefox.com instead of notfirefox.com because that's what they're familiar with, and with Mozilla's default search instead of yours, so they still get all the money.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#72

Post by AnthonyMouse »

laksdjfkasljdf wrote: post #68
Animats wrote: post #63

I just applied. I don't want my add-on "promoted". I just want to get rid of the Mozilla message: "This is not monitored for security through Mozilla's Recommended Extensions program. Make sure you trust it before installing." I wrote back to Mozilla: "This is an old add-on. I just want to get rid of the warning label. How much will that cost me?" I feel like I'm asking the extortionist goon how much it's going to co…

What's so bad about reminding people to "Make sure you trust it before installing"?

The part where there is only one party who can make the scary warning go away and doing so requires paying them.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#73

Post by surround »

Animats wrote: post #63

I just applied. I don't want my add-on "promoted". I just want to get rid of the Mozilla message: "This is not monitored for security through Mozilla's Recommended Extensions program. Make sure you trust it before installing." I wrote back to Mozilla: "This is an old add-on. I just want to get rid of the warning label. How much will that cost me?" I feel like I'm asking the extortionist goon how much it's going to co…

Meanwhile, commercially owned extensions which are terrible for privacy and security, like Grammarly and Honey, are going to get promoted by Mozilla.

The open-source projects with no income are the ones getting hurt.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#74

Post by surround »

Mozilla has been recommending a copy-cat extension for ~3 years, despite reports from users and developers.

https://twitter.com/Pythux/status/1154403982342852609

https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1165747661691064322

https://github.com/mozilla/addons/issues/1078

This is an unpaid recommendation. Why would I trust Mozilla now that they’re getting paid?

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#75

Post by gnicholas »

edjrage wrote: post #59
gnicholas wrote: post #34

I don't understand what exactly it means to be reviewed. I have an addon and they review every time I update it. [1] I provide them with source code, and they often have issues with this or that, and we make changes to satisfy them. If this isn't reviewing, what is? It makes it seem like this new program is less about actually reviewing (which they already do) and more about pushing for advertising revenue. That's a…

The second paragraph of the article answers your question. Recommended extensions go through a stricter review and, if approved, are then "prominently recommended on AMO and other Mozilla channels". Mozilla has been doing this curation "for free" and at their own discretion; now they're adding a paid "shortcut" for anyone whose extensions are under their radar.

I guess my point is that they've been looking at things pretty darn strictly already, poking through our source code and asking for all sorts of changes, even between submissions (that's right—we'd just be sitting there minding our own business, and we'd get an email saying we'd be pulled from the store if we didn't address issue). And to be clear, we have never collected any user-linked browsing data or even usage data, so it's not like we're a high-risk addon.

If what we've experienced isn't considered a strict review, I'd hate to see what the next level looks like.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#76

Post by chrisweekly »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72
laksdjfkasljdf wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so bad about reminding people to "Make sure you trust it before installing"?

The part where there is only one party who can make the scary warning go away and doing so requires paying them.

to be fair, that one party is trying to account for a pretty diverse set of constraints. I'm not in the "they can do no wrong" camp, but it's pretty easy to beat up on nearly any company or entity involved w software (name one and I'll list a handful of gripes). much harder to mostly get it right, as I think mozilla does.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#77

Post by Spivak »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72
laksdjfkasljdf wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so bad about reminding people to "Make sure you trust it before installing"?

The part where there is only one party who can make the scary warning go away and doing so requires paying them.

How would you want the system structured? You’re paying for Mozilla to vouch for your add-on and say that it’s safe.

I mean you could try to do a web of trust kinda thing but you would still end up paying someone.

I get where you’re coming from that they could just not have the scary warning but the fact that it’s hosted on Mozilla’s site without a warning already lends a lot of legitimacy to what should be seen as “some random person’s add on.”

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#78

Post by outworlder »

acdha wrote: post #53
beervirus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1: fire everybody who isn't a programmer. Step 2: budget problem is solved.

Step 3: learn the hard way why companies founded by nerds who are dismissive of entire other professions tend to go out of business even faster

> by nerds

Really? Was that necessary?

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#79

Post by outworlder »

aaomidi wrote: post #39
marsrover wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the positivity comes from the fact that Mozilla has struggled to survive since its inception and is generally a good company.

Except when they fired basically all their talent. I don't really have any love for them after this. Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.

Look at the bright side. Executive compensation didn't even have to change!

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#80

Post by Cyphase »

surround wrote: post #73
Animats wrote: post #63

I just applied. I don't want my add-on "promoted". I just want to get rid of the Mozilla message: "This is not monitored for security through Mozilla's Recommended Extensions program. Make sure you trust it before installing." I wrote back to Mozilla: "This is an old add-on. I just want to get rid of the warning label. How much will that cost me?" I feel like I'm asking the extortionist goon how much it's going to co…

Meanwhile, commercially owned extensions which are terrible for privacy and security, like Grammarly and Honey, are going to get promoted by Mozilla. The open-source projects with no income are the ones getting hurt.

How are the Grammarly[1] or Honey[2] addons terrible for security?

I can guess why you say they're terrible for privacy, but they both mention what data they share on the addon page. So it seems not so much that they are violating users privacy, but that you think people should be more concerned with the amount of privacy they give up.

For the record, I am pro-privacy, and would never want to use addons like these that send my browsing and other data to a third-party. And I know the vast majority of people don't read privacy statements and might not fully realize the amount of privacy they're giving up. But that's a much bigger problem than Mozilla giving these addons that openly collect this data a Verified tag. Also, the tag will ostensibly indicate some level of verification that the addon isn't doing anything sneaky (on the client side), so it's not "just" promotion, according to the announcement. If you don't believe Mozilla is going to do that verification well/honestly, that's a different discussion.

Regarding open-source projects, I share your concern, but would be interested to see some evidence that they will be hurt by this.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/grammarly-1/

[2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/honey/

Post reply on HN