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

Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 295 posts

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#251

Post by notyourday »

mirthandmadness wrote: post #86
nathanyukai wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, statistically the majority of people are using Chrome

The majority of people are not digitally literate enough to care about what they're using. How do people preserve social justice if they're not aware that it is being violated in the first place? Who would deliberately step sideways and do something that requires effort when they have no incentive to? Most people just do what is convenient, without bothering to think twice about it.

The unwashed masses are the only ones that actually matter for a non-premium product.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#252

Post by JohnFen »

wayneftw wrote: post #242
zzzcpan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem with Mozilla's privacy propaganda, their funding depends on violating privacy, so they can only talk and pretend, but not actually do anything about it. Which makes them look bad, dishonest and fake, when they are talking about privacy.

You’re not allowed to say anything bad about Firefox or Mozilla around these parts without being heavily censored in case you hadn’t noticed :)

Sure you are. I often criticize both. But what you have to say needs to be based in something resembling actual fact, and it helps a lot if you avoid stating opinion as fact.

It also helps to be even-handed and call out when Mozilla and/or Firefox does something right as well as when they do something wrong.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#253

Post by zzzcpan »

JohnFen wrote: post #252
wayneftw wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not allowed to say anything bad about Firefox or Mozilla around these parts without being heavily censored in case you hadn’t noticed :)

Sure you are. I often criticize both. But what you have to say needs to be based in something resembling actual fact, and it helps a lot if you avoid stating opinion as fact. It also helps to be even-handed and call out when Mozilla and/or Firefox does something right as well as when they do something wrong.

> needs to be based in something resembling actual fact

If you can't recognize something as a fact, it doesn't mean it isn't. I don't care about downvotes on such topics though, I didn't even know I was downvoted until someone pointed it out.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#254

Post by heartbeats »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #240
heartbeats wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a deal - they stop it so that they may be granted a Firefox monopoly on advertising. Then, site operators are left with a choice: 1) abandon tracking, earn ad revenue from Firefox and Chrome 2) keep tracking, earn no ad revenue from Firefox Yandex ads will be more pleasant due to not having the large amounts of tracking, meaning they'll reduce page views less. As a result of blocking ads, Firefox will become…

>they may be granted a Firefox monopoly on advertising What are you talking about? Anyway, it's up to webmaster to decide which ads to show, and it's up to user to decide which ads to block. Browser vendor shouldn't be involved here.

If Firefox blocks Google due to privacy concerns, this gives Yandex a de-facto monopoly.

The user can of course opt out of it, but most people just follow the defaults. Inertia and all.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#255

Post by hvis »

luckylion wrote: post #244
hvis wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a non-profit doesn't imply any of that. And nobody has ever demonstrated that this ostensible "dependence" has any adverse effects on Mozilla's policy.

It's hard to demonstrate anything if you don't have a control group and can't turn the thing in question on and off. Conflicts of interest are real, you don't need to demonstrate that they are, though it's not clear how much they sway Mozilla's decisions. And you're right, the non-profit-status doesn't imply that, they could just as well do the same as a commercial enterprise. It would be more obvious that way. Would…

It's a difficult problem. Unless a majority-marketshare browser does that as well (and we know that Chrome certainly won't), a lot of websites might choose to block all Firefox users instead.

And perhaps you and I know how to disable an ad blocker selectively. An average user might simply see problems with websites and uninstall Firefox as "not working", tanking its marketshare even more.

So Google doesn't necessarily factor into that decision, really.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#256

Post by wayneftw »

JohnFen wrote: post #252
wayneftw wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not allowed to say anything bad about Firefox or Mozilla around these parts without being heavily censored in case you hadn’t noticed :)

Sure you are. I often criticize both. But what you have to say needs to be based in something resembling actual fact, and it helps a lot if you avoid stating opinion as fact. It also helps to be even-handed and call out when Mozilla and/or Firefox does something right as well as when they do something wrong.

No, this is incorrect. I was down-towned for simply pointing out that Firefox nags you to sign in. I detailed each UI measure they took. Nothing but pure facts that are easily verifiable.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#257

Post by JohnFen »

wayneftw wrote: post #256
JohnFen wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you are. I often criticize both. But what you have to say needs to be based in something resembling actual fact, and it helps a lot if you avoid stating opinion as fact. It also helps to be even-handed and call out when Mozilla and/or Firefox does something right as well as when they do something wrong.

No, this is incorrect. I was down-towned for simply pointing out that Firefox nags you to sign in. I detailed each UI measure they took. Nothing but pure facts that are easily verifiable.

My comment was tailored toward blowski's remark at the top of this thread, not anything you said. I'm not sure what comment you're talking about, so I can't speak to that.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#258

Post by Aachen »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #137
mirthandmadness wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of people are not digitally literate enough to care about what they're using. How do people preserve social justice if they're not aware that it is being violated in the first place? Who would deliberately step sideways and do something that requires effort when they have no incentive to? Most people just do what is convenient, without bothering to think twice about it.

"People made a different decision than I did, therefore those people must be ignorant."

That's not what they said or meant.

Re: Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

#259

Post by wayneftw »

blackearl wrote: post #187
wayneftw wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've got it plastered around the UI. It's the very top menu item. It's also in the Pocket address bar button right under where they advertise to you to "Sign up for Pocket. It's freeeeeee!" Not only that, but on new installs and after some updates Firefox nags you to sign up whenever it can, for instance when you log into a website - right after you save the password it will show some animated crap in the address…

None of this is true on Windows

Yes it is. Just confirmed on Windows with a new install.

The very first screen on first open nags you to signup, the top menu item is “Sign in to Firefox”, there’s a notification dot on the user icon with the Sign in nag there, the Pocket button asks you to sign in and after I log into a website I immediately get an animated recommendation nag to also sign in to Firefox.

It’s absolutely 100% plastered around the Firefox UI.

Post reply on HN