things like an os, browser etc are now at utility level. and should be funded through taxes and grants. you know like nato contribution grants but at the un level. everyone needs a reliable, privacy based browser and os. & I would reckon it a human right.
Promoted Add-ons Pilot
91–100 of 138 posts
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#92What is the difficulty in accepting payment from more countries. Don't most of the payment providers like Stripe support a broad range of countries.
If you take money in exchange for services in a country, then you have to deal with taxes and regulations of that country...
Is it though? Mozilla would still be providing the service based in their country of incorporation and where their website is hosted regardless of where the customer is based. As long as they comply with the regulation of their host country (export restrictions, sanctions, etc) they should be in the clear.
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#93Earlier 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?
Becoming a house of ill repute might makes you some money, but it generally is not seen as a net positive for a neighborhood.
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#94Earlier 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?
That same defense could be used to defend them selling heroin.
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yawn... https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=grammarly+spying
I only saw a security issues from years ago from that link. Is there anything active right now? I couldn't find anything. Or are you suggesting that an issue from years ago means they are forever tainted?
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yawn... https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=grammarly+spying
I only saw a security issues from years ago from that link. Is there anything active right now? I couldn't find anything. Or are you suggesting that an issue from years ago means they are forever tainted?
In this case yes. Bad corporate/engineering culture. Massive and annoying advertising campaigns. Typically handwavy response to problems.
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide it. Sites like Facebook and Ghacks automatically opt you in if you start scrolling down, because they said they would do this in the banner they show. You didn't read it, because you were blocking it with the extension. The dev is just trying to save himself from silly lawsuits.
The only thing that a banner "by scrolling down you opt in to something" means according to GDPR is that the people who wrote that banner are liars. Quoting GDPR definitions (Art 4.12), '‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes [..]'. If the site owner wants to assert that the user provided consent, it's up to them to demonstrate…
I'm not saying it's a good way to do this. But they clearly state so. 'By scrolling, you are agreeing to use of cookies for marketing ' .
They give you a good,easy way to opt out too.
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin. The whole point is for people to pay to have their add-on manually vetted by Firefox staff to verify that it meets the recommendation standards. As the article says, this process is…
It does create a conflict of interest, and a significant risk that at some point greed will win - compare e.g. AdBlock Plus that started with the "acceptable ads" program and then allowed the worst of clickbait (Taboola & Co.) despite heavy user complaints. On the other hand, it also provides an opportunity to have a trusted addon ecosystem. If the price is reasonable, popular free addons can collect it through donat…
That might even be an interesting next step: allow users to chip in for review, right on the AMO page.
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#99There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty small ( The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or comme…
Are you sure about the counting? Years ago it looked like they count the same add-on in multiple categories, and in reality there were a only a few thousands, not 10s of thousands, and yes, I already excluded things like color-schemes, personas, and even themes.
edit: That was before the discontinueing support of XUL-based extensions. I can't imagine there are more webex-based now. Except when adding the endless persona/colorscheme stuff which adds no real functionality, only changing some looks.
Or, they count the symlinks, instead of the original file.
Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot
#100Will people be paying for review (with angry developers of rejected add-ons) or approval (with misaligned incentives to approve them)?