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

371–380 of 384 posts

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#371

Post by JohnBooty »

Entinel wrote: post #154
notatoad wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>your chrome-specific shit okay, but does mozilla have a good reason for not supporting that stuff other than "we have limited resources to implement these things"? a lot of that chrome-specific shit is really really nice . like CSS nesting - that would be amazing. firefox has a bug for tracking the implementation, and supported the standardization of it. but there's no sign of any progress towards an implementation.…

> okay, but does mozilla have a good reason for not supporting that stuff other than "we have limited resources to implement these things"? That depends on what you are referring to. No there is not a one size fits all answer. For example, Chrome has implemented Filesystem API that Mozilla is still debating on because they see it as a security issue. You can agree or disagree but there reason is still something other…

    For example, Chrome has implemented Filesystem API 
    that Mozilla is still debating on
This also highlights the vastly differing goals of the various parties.

Google explicitly wants two major things from Chrome.

One, they obviously want to track as much personal information as they possibly can, because they are an ad company.

Two, they want "the web" to essentially be a full OS replacement, with filesystem access etc. Because Microsoft is one of their primary rivals (or frenemies, if you will) and they can't leave themselves to the whims of others' platforms. They need their own platform.

These goals are... well, let's say divergent (to put it mildly) from what "the web" means to others. HTTP was originally supposed to be a human-readable way to publish and link information, not an OS replacement, and certainly not a PII-siphoning tool.

And yet, some folks still default to simply assuming whatever Google decides for the web is right, simply because they seem to be moving the fastest.

Yeah, they're usually moving the fastest, but people should think about where they're heading and why.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#372

Post by Kbelicius »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #361
franga2000 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What makes you think they're not doing that now and Mozilla's existence even matters in this case? Funny enough, they're only keeping Mozilla alive to avoid any antitrust cases. Firefox developers are still in the standards organisations and their position on new proposals does have some weight on the way they're written. Google is funding Mozilla for good PR, it's not like they're in any real danger from antitrust…

> What was that about ethics again? We should not be talking about ethics if we're talking about Mozilla either. From shameless extension backdoors to not blocking trackers from Google on purpose, it's all over the place when it comes to ethics and privacy. At least Brave directly challenges Big Tech by making bolder decisions to block them instead of being afraid like Firefox, enabling trackers and not providing any…

> We should not be talking about ethics if we're talking about Mozilla either. From shameless extension backdoors to not blocking trackers from Google on purpose, it's all over the place when it comes to ethics and privacy. At least Brave directly challenges Big Tech by making bolder decisions to block them instead of being afraid like Firefox, enabling trackers and not providing any privacy against Google.

You mean the Brave that collected rewards revenue for websites that weren't enrolled in their program? Or the brave that literally changed the url that the users typed in the url bar?

Also, do you have any source for Mozilla not blocking googles trackers? AFAIK they do, and did, block their trackers thou they had to do it differently for google analytics as to not break some webpages. Because of that you did not see those being blocked in the UI but they were blocked.

> What Brave has done with respect to privacy features, Firefox couldn't even do it in decades:

Well, unlike Brave, Mozilla is making a whole browser.

> I do understand that Brave is a chromium fork and that they depend on Chromium for patches but this is still a FOSS browser that is independently funded

You asked earlier how long would Mozilla exist if google cut their founding. How long do you think would Brave exist if google decided to go closed source with chrome?

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#373

Post by Kbelicius »

EMM_386 wrote: post #366
Phrodo_00 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long ago did you switch? I also switched around 2010 or so, but since a few years the performance is definitely acceptable and I’ve been using it for like 6 years now

I switched last year, so 22 years of Firefox.

For a year or two now you'd hear people moving back to ff because of improved performance but you decided to ditch ff after the improved performance. Strange.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#374

Post by gsich »

NavinF wrote: post #367
gsich wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most? More likely than not you will not have such a card in a mainboard.

Yes, most. Look at X470 or z590 mobos that are 2 generations old. The majority have wifi though I personally don't see the point.

Random board: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/X470-AORUS-ULTRA-GAMING...

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#375

Post by NayamAmarshe »

Kbelicius wrote: post #372
NayamAmarshe wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What was that about ethics again? We should not be talking about ethics if we're talking about Mozilla either. From shameless extension backdoors to not blocking trackers from Google on purpose, it's all over the place when it comes to ethics and privacy. At least Brave directly challenges Big Tech by making bolder decisions to block them instead of being afraid like Firefox, enabling trackers and not providing any…

> We should not be talking about ethics if we're talking about Mozilla either. From shameless extension backdoors to not blocking trackers from Google on purpose, it's all over the place when it comes to ethics and privacy. At least Brave directly challenges Big Tech by making bolder decisions to block them instead of being afraid like Firefox, enabling trackers and not providing any privacy against Google. You mean…

[dead]

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#376

Post by [deleted] »

878654Tom wrote: post #364
cxr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of those three corporations are non-profits chartered for a specific purpose with an additional implied social contract with their contributors and users?

And is Mozilla suddenly not focussing anymore on Firefox after this acquisition? If I remember correctly the Mozilla foundation is more than Firefox. You also have Thunderbird for example.

[deleted]

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#377

Post by cxr »

nbar1 wrote: post #144
cxr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can this strike you as a great acquisition if you aren't sure what the advantage is?

FakeSpot will benefit from a parent company like Mozilla.

By that standard, I could call you buying a $100 Amazon gift card and mailing it to me a great acquisition.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#378

Post by godshatter »

mdaniel wrote: post #255
godshatter wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if they'd just turn off the extension restriction That's basically Fennec. Download it from F-Droid. It's basically a clone of Firefox with extensions turned back on.

Negative, I just tried https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ (which, delightfully, wasn't 0.99.beta-patch3 or some such nonsense) but it for sure was not "allow me to install whatever add-on I want". It's the same stupid list as normal Firefox for Android Maybe you're thinking of Firefox Nightly, which I do run from the Play store and is better than "normal people Firefox" but this for sure is no…

Weird, I thought Fennec had those. I downloaded it and use it for browsing, but I mostly don't browse on my phone. From a web search though, I found out you can go into settings, click on "About Fennec" and click on the logo five times to unlock debug mode which apparently gives you access to custom add-on collections. You have to go to the firefox add-ons page and make a custom collection under your account for it to be useful. This presumably allows all add-ons through this method.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#379

Post by swores »

nl wrote: post #369
swores wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As anyone who remembers the Office 2.0 vs Office 6 update on Windows will remember I think you're misremembering or mistyping the numbers, unless Wikipedia is wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Office

Ah it was Word 2.0 vs Word 6.0 (which was roughly Office 3.0 vs Office 4.0) Word 2.0 shipped on a lot of Windows NT computers with Office 3.0 and these were the days when there weren't forced updates and you had to pay so it hung around for ages.

Makes sense!

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#380

Post by ktosobcy »

saagarjha wrote: post #327
ktosobcy wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

like Google and apple - they use exact locations of WiFi hotspots most of the time...

That’s not something a webpage can access.

Browsers have geolocation api, webpage uses it. Then browser utilizes underlying OS capabilities to determine the location. On the phone it could use GPS, regular PC may relay on SSID of wifi networks, etc.
Post reply on HN