181–190 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some sort of pinky-promise. Nope. > * research partners are contractually obligated to abide by these procedures and protect your data.* https://rally.mozilla.org/how-rally-works/faqs/
Lots of abuses of data are "contractually" forbidden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whoever wrote this piece is way too close to... whatever it is Mozilla is doing here. It does appear that this piece was written by Mozilla, themselves… on their own blog.
>> Whoever wrote this piece is way too close to... whatever it is Mozilla is doing here. > It does appear that this piece was written by Mozilla, themselves… on their own blog. Haha! Captain Obvious strikes again. Joking aside, I think the other commenter knew the post was written by someone at Mozilla on the Mozilla web site. Their point, I think, was that the author didn't do a good job of selling Rally.
Could be, yeah.
My estimation is that Mozilla was making a desperately concerted effort to signal that they are not at fault in the Big Tech wars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fact they have significantly more than 250 employees in the first place is a bit mind boggling. As far as I can tell most of the spending is unrelated to Firefox. What do all of these people do and why are they needed? I sometimes have the same reaction when learning the number of people employed for what I would have otherwise thought to be some meager thing. Then I get reminded about the folks over in external…
I understand there are a lot of roles needed for non-trivial organizations to function, but Mozilla has over 1000 employees and, in my opinion, does not deliver a corresponding level of value. I would actually donate if I could be sure my money is going to Firefox. I do not care about any of their other initiatives.
That’s the bulk of the team that got layed off, by the way. I think there was some last-ditch effort that was able to preserve the MDN efforts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These are two VERY different definitions of "data", mingling the two is not helpful to discourse. Indeed, data has complex nuances that are sometimes missed. Let’s not mingle data intended for advertisement with data intended for social science research.
> Let’s not mingle data intended for advertisement with data intended for social science research. Well those are two different USAGES of the same type of data (tracking). That one is good and the other bad is a different discussion.
In my estimation, that is the current discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sounds like double speak That’s rather cynical. What’s wrong with someone wanting to share their data with certain people while also demanding that those people respect the data’s privacy?
You keep accusing people of being nihilistic / cynical in this thread. It isn't cynical to be extremely skeptical of any company's ability to keep your data private and safe given the constant barrage of breeches and ethical violations. Maybe I'm in the minority but Mozilla's brand had been permanently tarnished in recent years and I do not think of them as a 'privacy first' organization
By dictionary definition, cynicism is an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.
Skepticism is defined as the doubt as to the truth of something.
Extreme doubt as to the integrity of a company’s data privacy practices is the dictionary definition of cynicism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The motivation is enabling crowdsourced scientific research that benefits society. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27630188
> crowdsourced scientific research that benefits society. how, in your words, would the covid19 news misinformation study benefit society?
Identifying the specific mechanisms behind the dark patterns of social engineering.
There is a body of research, for example, that considers the spread of rumors by making use of the same mathematical models that epidemiology uses to model the spread of infectious disease (virality, in particular).
As I recall, that body of research led to the conclusion that the best weapon against misinformation may be the liberal and broad application of truth-telling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sounds like double speak That’s rather cynical. What’s wrong with someone wanting to share their data with certain people while also demanding that those people respect the data’s privacy?
You keep accusing people of being nihilistic / cynical in this thread. It isn't cynical to be extremely skeptical of any company's ability to keep your data private and safe given the constant barrage of breeches and ethical violations. Maybe I'm in the minority but Mozilla's brand had been permanently tarnished in recent years and I do not think of them as a 'privacy first' organization
Indeed, Google may have out-competed them on the marketing messaging front.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sounds like double speak That’s rather cynical. What’s wrong with someone wanting to share their data with certain people while also demanding that those people respect the data’s privacy?
You keep accusing people of being nihilistic / cynical in this thread. It isn't cynical to be extremely skeptical of any company's ability to keep your data private and safe given the constant barrage of breeches and ethical violations. Maybe I'm in the minority but Mozilla's brand had been permanently tarnished in recent years and I do not think of them as a 'privacy first' organization
I won’t pry, but I suspect that you are not a web developer, by trade.
It is common knowledge in the web development field that Mozilla is a, if not the, standard bearer for consumer privacy protection in the browser wars.
Safari is currently taking the helm, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Rally is transparent about how your data is used If Rally was not transparent about this, then you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered by it. But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.
I'm one of the very few people who actually read all of the disclosure documents. I wouldn't be surprised if I were the only person who read these documents in their entirety aside from the document drafter(s) themselves. And this wasn't in the privacy notice for a study but for the Rally browser extension. Rather confusingly, Rally has one privacy policy and each individual study will have their own, separate, priva…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it’s in any way “combative” to point out that I am indeed competent and capable of interacting with the online world safely without the assistance patronizing of strangers on the internet. And, whether your intention or not, that’s exactly what your comment was: patronizing. With undertones of “well what did you think would happen when you present yourself in such a way”. Whether you’re willing to admit…
I'd suggest looking up the "principle of charity". Additionally, claiming the self-perceived "undertones" as "the real truth" vs clearly (and reasonably) stated (subsequent) stance/explanation indeed is confrontative, at best. In my opinion and experience. When X claims they know better what was the intent or tone of Y's message when Y is already there precisely elaborating... X has to be realistic, admit no prior kn…
This is quite similar to a concept in psychology called Theory of Mind (ToM):
> Theory of mind as a personal capability is the understanding that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.
I have a theory: It is relatively more difficult for people who have faced adversity (whether it be from systemic bias and/or personal situations) to make unemotional assessments when conditions relate to those adverse situations.