Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
441–450 of 537 posts
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Looks like it's a promo for Mr Robot, which is really not ok. From what I've heard (I work for Mozilla), this is promo for Firefox. As I just wrote elsewhere in this thread: I believe the idea is that Mr. Robot fans use Firefox to participate in the ARG, not that Firefox users suddenly start watching Mr. Robot. So if anything I'd expect that Mozilla pays Mr. Robot for this.
> So if anything I'd expect that Mozilla pays Mr. Robot for this. The irony is that Mr. Robot is owned by Universal, a subsidiary of Comcast. So much for that commitment to net neutrality.
So much for the advertised protection of user privacy.
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#443This happened to me yesterday, so I looked for it. The Extension actually does nothing, but invert (make them upside down) a few words on specific sites. It's an experiment called "PUG ARG" to check whether page contents sniffing works. Its page doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue or Wiki page, while https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Shield/Shield_Studies/Queue doesn't list it. The source code references https://supp…
Is this something that was a test that just got merged into production? It sounds like an honest mistake that shouldn't have gone out?
Luckily this is intended and seems to be a paid for marketing/advertising scheme
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would have said the same thing until they integrated the W3C Encrypted Media Extensions. It's clear they lost their way some time ago.
I don't like EME either, but not implementing it would've killed any chance of regaining users: "Oh look, Firefox Quantum looks awesome, I should try it. ... Never mind, it doesn't play Netflix". Implemeting it, but disabling it by default was a good choice. People will have to consciously click "I accept DRM" to use it, which might get them to read more about what it is and ultimately raise awareness about how terri…
The world doesn't need another browser that sacrifices principles for market share. Chrome, IE, and Safari are perfectly good browsers for that. What I wanted was a browser (and software in general) that promotes security, privacy, open standards, and open source. You can accuse me of misinterpreting the situation, but that's what I thought Firefox was 10 years ago. It's not what Firefox is today. It's turned into just another organization that's optimizing for the continuation of the organization over it's own founding principles.
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#4451) Mozilla uses weird, spooky language in an add-on. 2) Users are justifiably concerned. 3) Mozilla explains that the add-on is actually anodyne; the developers responsible were having fun with an opt-in research service. 4) Some users try to justify their initial overreaction by painting Firefox as mysterious, dangerous entity, fabulating conspiracy theories about one of the most forthright and open OSS companies in…
They actually called it telemetry, but IIRC in the early firefox version it was a proprietary extension (I don't remember the name) which spurred the gnu iceweasel into existence to provide the browser without the proprietary spying extension.
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's written by a commercial company that produces advertisement content. It's not clear this code is audited. Do you have any evidence of this? Assuming their normal processes for SHIELD studies were followed, a _lot_ of different people have to review the plugin before it gets approved: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Shield/Shield_Studies#Who_A... Edit: Also, the contributors list on the plugin's GitHub repo li…
Unfortunately the most important person involved didn't get to review the plugin before it was installed on my computer. Me.
I worked at Mozilla for about four years (2011-2015), on MDN. It's built as a wiki, with wiki features open to everyone. The code is all open source and on GitHub. Its issues and tasks and roadmap are tracked in a public bug tracker. We operated in a public IRC channel. We didn't have to do that. We could have just built something targeted to only be used by the technical writing staff at Mozilla, and never bothered to open it up or make the code available or make it transparent about who wrote articles and when. In fact, it's much more work to do all the things we did (and not just in terms of implementing features, but also in terms of dealing with spammers and trolls and other malicious people who wouldn't have had access in a less open system), but we did it anyway because Mozilla is a radically open and transparent organization. But... in four years, not many people from outside Mozilla ever joined in and got involved with actually contributing (either code or articles or edits to articles or housekeeping or suggesting/arguing for ideas of how to improve MDN).
And I've been doing open source for much longer than that, and I see exactly the same pattern: a handful of folks do all that work, and go to the trouble of being open and transparent and providing ways for people to see what's going on and get involved... but people don't.
And then those same people willingly install the software and use it every single day, and complain that they were never consulted, or never got a chance to review, or never got to provide input. You had chances to look at the source code, to see what was being checked in, to read the referenced Bugzilla bugs on commits, to leave comments on them, to submit alternative ideas. You didn't. You did install Firefox, though (assuming your claim is correct that this was installed on your computer). By installing the software while not participating in the process, you absolutely gave your "review" of it, and your "review" was "just make a browser for me for free and don't bug me about how".
Now, if you want to be involved, go start watching Bugzilla and the Mozilla project wiki pages, and CC yourself on stuff and join mailing lists. Because it's Mozilla. You can do that. If you don't want to do that, or you don't think it's worth your time to do that, then don't do it. But don't then come charging onto HN to complain that nobody consulted you. People practically got on their hands and knees and begged you to join in the process of making Firefox and other open source software, and you decided not to.
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would have said the same thing until they integrated the W3C Encrypted Media Extensions. It's clear they lost their way some time ago.
Why? They allowed proprietary extensions (e.g. Flash) from the start. I don't like it, but I don't see how it represents a loss of their way. Mozilla was never GNU.
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
Links2. http://links.twibright.com No, it doesn't show PDFs or videos, but does that belong in the browser anyway?
I wonder if Links2 or lynx can be ported as Chrome add-ons.
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems kind of like it is part of an ARG. I can't say I'm totally against something like that; Mozilla's gotta make money somehow, and as long as it's not selling out user privacy it's a better tradeoff than Chrome.
> Mozilla's gotta make money somehow Actually they do not. their revenue is at an all time high despite the market share reaching an all time low. https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-revenue-jump-fuels-its-fir... https://www.computerworld.com/article/3240008/web-browsers/m... https://www.ghacks.net/2017/12/02/mozillas-revenue-increased...
Re: Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) One day you wake up and somebody is watching TV in your living room. 2) you freak out. Who is this guy? I didn't invite anyone last night! 3) The guy turns around and it's just your mate Chad. He didn't mean any harm, just wanted to watch TV and hang out. 4) This is not on, Chad is a psycho. Intentions don't really matter: they've just demonstrated a scary and invasive capability without any warning. Minimizing it…
This "scary and invasive capability" has been included in almost every larger piece of software for years and is widely accepted to be a mostly good thing - it's called automatic updates. Considering updates allow pushing native, even admin-level code, this capability of pushing little bits of JS becomes benign in comparison. Therefore, the only thing that's left to worry about are their intentions. And I, for one, w…
Actually talking of good/bad dichotomy is inappropriate here, automatic updates are a tool that can be useful and comes with benefits and downsides. Firefox automatic updates is among the first things I disable when I install firefox because it caused me more issues than it solved.
Starting firefox to discover it has auto-updated itself and had broken half the extensions you rely on to make the browser usable is not nice, specially when there are no option to undo the update other than removing and reinstalling.
But when the autoupdate installed a new firefox that simply broke audio in the browser and now forces you to install something you've been actively avoiding or that is not available in this specific distro is something else.
I have a working update hygiene I'd rather deal with updates myself, thanks.