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

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#101

Post by Animats »

Spivak wrote: post #77
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 “…

Mozilla used to have volunteer add-on reviewers, which meant slow turnaround, but worked OK.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#102

Post by _odnes »

dzonga wrote: post #91

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.

How would state coercion bear better fruit that the love of freedom?

I'm not yet a taxpayer, but I'm not looking forward to having my money be wasted on yet another "service" that neither I nor most people would choose to benefit from. I'll wager the postal service is an example of waste of public funds that translates well across borders.

Evidence that open source leads to better software abounds. I don't think one could say the same about state-funded anything unless one lives in that fictitious country called Finland.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#103

Post by bartvk »

Cyphase wrote: post #41
bartvk wrote: post #3

I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries" I've got two extensions which I'm really fond of: "I don't care about cookies" (1), and its paid version "No thanks" (2). The creator, D…

That whole bullet point reads as follows: > You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries. (If you’re interested in participating but live outside these regions, please sign up to join the waitlist. We’re currently looking into how we can expand to more c…

I saw that sentence about it, but accepting 7 out of more than 200 countries seems incredibly limiting to me. The bit about expansion, it seems not much more than a vague promise.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#104

Post by bartvk »

lukaa wrote: post #28
bartvk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty hefty statement that really needs more than just you thinking so, in my opinion.

That's why I said ''It looks like'' not ''It is''. When you have Ublock this really looks unnecessary.

Maybe, but you'd certainly have to put in a lot of time into getting it right.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#105

Post by kiboke »

lukaa wrote: post #15
ffpip wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, you don't need another extension for the 'Don't care about cookies' Go to the home page and click the 'AdBlock Plus' link to add to uBlock Origin - https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ 1 less addon with access to all sites you visit. To remove cookie banners permanently on lesser known sites, follow this 30 second guide by the dev - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o

Yes, this addon looks like repackaging and selling someone others open source work. I'm really not sorry for that author.

I'm the author.

I maintain both the "I don't care about cookies" and the premium "No, thanks" extension and the filter list. All by myself, for the last 8-9 years. Please don't write stuff you didn't recheck first.

While the list is a cool addition for those who can't install the extension, it really can't do much when cookie policy needs to be accepted for the website to work properly. The extension accepts policies automatically when it's needed.

Cheers, Daniel

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#106

Post by cassepipe »

gilrain wrote: post #83
Cyphase wrote: post #80

Earlier 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…

Open source extensions already wait weeks or, more often, months to be reviewed and have that scary warning removed. As this program is planned, any commercial or other well-funded extensions will be jumping the queue ahead of them. That seems strictly worse, unless they also pay to play.

Well the Mozilla add-on website maybe isn't the only way to distribute webextensions. Mozilla already hosts and lists the add-ons for free. It seems only normal it warns users that no verification has been made as they might assume since it's on an official website. Extensions may be hosted elsewhere and reviewed by online communities too. For example, the Krabby extension that add Kakoune keybindings to web navigation is hosted on github.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#107

Post by bachmeier »

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…

This is a very developer-centric view. I have no idea what extension you're trying to get people to install, but your complaint is ridiculous. I've run into more than one extension with tons of good reviews that did things like hijack links. You don't even know what's going on when it happens, or why.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#108

Post by ormax3 »

ffpip wrote: post #11
bartvk wrote: post #3

I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries" I've got two extensions which I'm really fond of: "I don't care about cookies" (1), and its paid version "No thanks" (2). The creator, D…

FYI, you don't need another extension for the 'Don't care about cookies' Go to the home page and click the 'AdBlock Plus' link to add to uBlock Origin - https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ 1 less addon with access to all sites you visit. To remove cookie banners permanently on lesser known sites, follow this 30 second guide by the dev - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o

uBO alreay has a list to remove cookie banners, it's listed under "annoyances": (EasyList Cookie)

it's not enabled by default

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#109

Post by ormax3 »

gilrain wrote: post #87

An interesting side effect of an earlier policy means that the sponsored ads for extensions will not be able to be blocked. Firefox extensions are prevented from operating on AMO. This is or was to ensure malicious addons can't interfere with its operation. 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 wa…

Look up `extensions.webextensions.restrictedDomains` in `about:config`, you can remove Mozilla domains from the restricted list.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#110

Post by nicbou »

kiboke wrote: post #105
lukaa wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this addon looks like repackaging and selling someone others open source work. I'm really not sorry for that author.

I'm the author. I maintain both the "I don't care about cookies" and the premium "No, thanks" extension and the filter list. All by myself, for the last 8-9 years. Please don't write stuff you didn't recheck first. While the list is a cool addition for those who can't install the extension, it really can't do much when cookie policy needs to be accepted for the website to work properly. The extension accepts policies…

I love your extension Daniel. Installing Firefox Mobile, then this was a revelation. Unfortunately, it was killed by the Firefox update two weeks later.
Post reply on HN