81–90 of 138 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Just commenting on the fact that the way the organization was setup was bad for Firefox as the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
> Additionally, we collect payment information if you choose to use our Premium services, and we automatically collect technical information, including log data and usage information, for legitimate business interests, such as improving our product and providing customer support.
You can bet that means they're building a credit profile of people and likely selling the information.
> We may share any of the information that we collect through the add-on with our third-party service providers in order to provide you with services, as required by law, to protect our rights or the rights of others, with your consent, or as otherwise legally permitted.
I'd really like to call out the "or as otherwise legally permitted at the end" which means essentially says that the previous list of things is a bullshit hand-picked subset of the set "legally permitted to perform." When I change it to:
> We may share any of the information that we collect through the add-on with our third-party service providers as legally permitted.
It all feels a bit different; which is to say, unless the law says its explicitly illegal for us to share information we collect, we can and will share it. For something that literally monitors everything you write/think, your payment information (probably invoices/site/etc), and then shares it with anyone the fucking please... I'm gonna say that's a big "terrible for security" from me, dawg.
Where I live it's illegal to walk around with a beer/booze in public. But whenever I want to drink a beer in public, I just walk around with it like any other drink. My behavior looks so normal, people just assume it's not a beer, helping me out even more is the fact is "it's illegal" so people's good intentions/will further push the idea out of mind "I don't want to think they're breaking the law, they don't look like they would."
I would say after reading what's literally on the page and thinking about it: the Grammarly extension authors are pretty proudly walking around with a beer right now...
Mozilla being like the friend who invites someone to your home to help tighten up some loose wobblywomps on the porch; but that person then drinks your beer, drinks their beer, goes through your fridge eats what they want, starts making their own batch of beer at your house, and then finally partially adjusts your wobblywomps. Departing, the drunken fat stranger looks to you and says "it was great doing business with you and I be back everyday this week to tighten your wobblywomps."
Now, it also means Mozilla is in the enviable position of offering ads to Firefox users which can not be blocked by Firefox ad blocking extensions.
Put another way, if you want to browse AMO ad free, you will need to use a different browser.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I understand the criticism, but isn't this exactly the kind of thing we need Mozilla to do in order to diversify it's income a bit?