Promoted Add-ons Pilot

Post by nsgi » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

rubyn00bie wrote: post #86

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…

FWIW-- I have never used either of those extensions (or products), but at least Grammarly (based on this alone) is truly awful. I think they're still violating user privacy, here's the excerpt from the bottom of the extension page from Grammarly: > Additionally, we collect payment information if you choose to use our Premium services, and we automatically collect technical information, including log data and usage in…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

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…

Post by jamienicol » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

anoncake wrote: post #124

jamienicol wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not. I work on Firefox. Just yesterday I spent some time helping a user debug an issue they had, and it turned out to be caused by them flipping a hidden pref in about:config. This is not uncommon, it takes up my time and my colleagues' time, which costs money.

We aren't talking about hidden preferences but about add-ons. And if you don't want to support people who installed add-ons you didn't verify, don't support people who installed add-ons you didn't verify.

Post by jamienicol » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #120

jamienicol wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hardly a bribe though, is it? The allowlist exists so it can guarantee users install add-ons which work, and don't break their browser. Both reviewing and adding support for required APIs costs money.

bribe: noun Something offered to induce another to do something.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 8:51 PM UTC

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…