Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

fakespot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 384 posts

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#201

Post by b112 »

bcx wrote: post #15

This feels like a good long term vision for Mozilla. The browser wars are basically over , and Mozilla as an organization would benefit from a longer term vision to improve veracity on the internet. With the ability to generate content at the cost of basically 0, figuring out what's real and not real is going to be an increasingly hard challenge. Browser stats (as of Feb): 79.7% - Chrome 8.6% - Edge 4.8% - Firefox/Mo…

The browser wars are basically over

That's silly. More than once, browsers have had more marketshare than chrome. IE's highest marketshare makes chrome look silly in comparison.

Now, is not the same as "what will happen".

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#202

Post by JohnFen »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #94
bcx wrote: post #15

This feels like a good long term vision for Mozilla. The browser wars are basically over , and Mozilla as an organization would benefit from a longer term vision to improve veracity on the internet. With the ability to generate content at the cost of basically 0, figuring out what's real and not real is going to be an increasingly hard challenge. Browser stats (as of Feb): 79.7% - Chrome 8.6% - Edge 4.8% - Firefox/Mo…

>This feels like a good long term vision for Mozilla. >The browser wars are basically over and why is that? Oh because Mozilla hasn't put any energy into getting better or pulling back market share from the moment it started to bleed out to Chrome. Let's not just sit back and go "Oh well, they lost nothing they could do" shrug . They built their tech in such an obtuse and opinionated way it's impossible to integrate…

> This company will literally do anything else than work hard on their browser.

OK, I'm not a fan of Firefox anymore but this isn't the case. They undeniably worked very, very hard and poured a lot of money into the revamp of Firefox.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#203

Post by PaulHoule »

blowski wrote: post #72
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

Normally I'd say... "They'd better write it in the bylaws that Mozilla isn't allowed to buy any more companies" but a system for identifying fake content on the web might (unlike all the other Mozilla acquisitions such as the thoroughly pizzled Pocket) improve the web browsing experience.

I agree with your comment, but I’m curious what “pizzled” means.

It's a reference to a Phillip K. Dick short story, see

https://scatter.wordpress.com/2018/03/13/thoroughly-pizzled-...

A group of people who are receiving manufactured products of an automatic factory that they don't want get a chance to fill out a feedback form and write "the product was thoroughly pizzled" as a deliberate neologism to confuse the computer. The factory sent a representative who asked what this meant and they defined it as "unwanted".

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#204

Post by wslh »

waboremo wrote: post #43
wslh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they can work on many things simultaneously but it is worrisome when the execution of their core product fails [1] it shows a big management failure. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+market+share&oq=fire...

I would argue the opposite: their core product is great, best in market. However, due to the browser landscape, your core product is virtually WORTHLESS. Every browser does just enough right to be interchangeable, so unless you are drastically taking a new approach to browsing in general (and your brand), you have zero chance in hell without being able to leverage your own hardware/added services.

Best in market? Why?

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#205

Post by PaulHoule »

derefr wrote: post #191
unethical_ban wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Pocket was that it was a separate brand name with a weird UX. If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir. I use Vivaldi now for two reasons: One, it is better than Firefox Mobile, and two, I like the ergonomics of its bookmarks and reading list sync. Having the ability for the browser to be a suite isn't crazy.

> If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir. I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was that they should position the feature so that people who already use Pocket will realize that Firefox isn't adding a separate reading list (like the Safari one nobody uses), but rather that you can just sign into your existing Pocket account in Firefox, and see y…

Exactly, it's basically offensive to put any product in a customer's face.

I remember how Microsoft killed OneNote (a rather good note taking application) by (1) trying to shove it up your fingernails, into your armpits, etc. (I remember there being three onenote icons pinned to the task bar) and (2) going 100% cloud as opposed to the XML files OneNote used to leave on your computer that were very easy to parse and build tools to process.

People are automatically going to assume a bundled product is crap because we're so used to drive-by downloads and other dark patterns.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#206

Post by JohnFen »

derefr wrote: post #191
unethical_ban wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Pocket was that it was a separate brand name with a weird UX. If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir. I use Vivaldi now for two reasons: One, it is better than Firefox Mobile, and two, I like the ergonomics of its bookmarks and reading list sync. Having the ability for the browser to be a suite isn't crazy.

> If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir. I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was that they should position the feature so that people who already use Pocket will realize that Firefox isn't adding a separate reading list (like the Safari one nobody uses), but rather that you can just sign into your existing Pocket account in Firefox, and see y…

That makes sense. Mozilla's handling of Pocket was very poor.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#207

Post by iudqnolq »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #181
ncann wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point: network ping spikes after using Geolocation that will persist until FF is closed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1711854

I never understood what geolocation was supposed to be within the context of of a desktop browser. If a website asks for this information, and I approve, what information is transmitted that couldn't be determined serverside via geoip?

I think this is a gnome bug rather than an ff one, but it's pretty shit on my desktop. It reports absurd (Edit: s/100ft/10ft after I remembered better

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#208

Post by threeseed »

agumonkey wrote: post #134
Arainach wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bias disclaimer: I've worked on Chrome and Edge, opinions strictly my own >and why is that? Oh because Mozilla hasn't put any energy into getting better or pulling back market share from the moment it started to bleed out to Chrome. Could and should Mozilla have done better? Yes. "Any energy?" is uncalled for, however. There was the entire Quantum rewrite for significant performance boosts (around the time Chrome sta…

That's how it felt to me too. Stretched too thin. Yet as a small company compared to MS or Google, I can imagine how hard it is to try to thrive or just survive and maintaining a stable path when you're fighting big pockets. I just wished they could rebalance their allocation and focus on simple daily usability things. Just a bit more. ps: for instance, the screenshot tool is brilliant

Size of the company is actually irrelevant.

What's important is the number of developers they put on the project.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#209

Post by samstave »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #127

You'd think that Mozilla has an excess of funding and has covered absolutely all needs in the browser space leading them to branch out like this... but the browser really needs a lot more hands and funding, I honestly can't make sense of this. And Fakespot: they present themselves as a company that focuses on detecting AI-generated content from human-generated content. It sounds like they've set out to play Whac-A-Mo…

At least its a small step for mankind...

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#210

Post by kelnos »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #181
ncann wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point: network ping spikes after using Geolocation that will persist until FF is closed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1711854

I never understood what geolocation was supposed to be within the context of of a desktop browser. If a website asks for this information, and I approve, what information is transmitted that couldn't be determined serverside via geoip?

GeoIP tells you at best what city someone is in, and even then, for smaller towns, will usually report the nearest large city, which could be quite a ways a way. Not to mention it's often even just flat-out wrong. VPNs and other things distort where you are. Sometimes a website might need (or at least think it needs) correct, fine-grained location information.

I do suspect that most websites that ask for location information could do fine with GeoIP, but that doesn't mean there isn't any use for more reliable, fine-grained location data.

Post reply on HN