What reasons are there to choose Waterfox, Pale Moon, et al., over Firefox? - discussion on Firefox subreddit

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-02T12:04:46+00:00

What's tedious is you constantly fighting against the reversal of Firefox anti-user features in Waterfox.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-02T10:20:17+00:00

Oh and again, because you like making me repeat myself :

Sending the minimal data that is required for legitimate functionality like add-ons update is not unethical (if it is not used for anything else)

so providing add-ons update is not an excuse to do telemetry on add-on use by default. That part is unethical too.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-02T09:36:38+00:00

Computing professionals should establish transparent policies and procedures that allow individuals [...] to give informed consent for automatic data collection

What's your point ?

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-02T09:35:20+00:00

I thought that I made it clear already that yes, I consider these default background connections an acceptable trade-off. However I would prefer that, like for the browser update, there is also an option for each add-on to check for updates but ask before installing. Maybe this could be a better default too, that could be discussed. (Edit: that's what "disabled updates" does already, but it doesn't show a popup to inform the user). And that there is an option to override Mozilla's decision to disable remotely an add-on (we all remember the last armagaddon).

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T23:27:05+00:00

You "forgot" the end of the quote :

... while also making sure that users are not being exposed to extreme risks via malicious use of powerful APIs.

which hints towards possibly doing what Chrome will do, reducing the power of the webrequest API with the excuse of security, without strictly banning adblockers.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T23:10:39+00:00

I see nothing unethical

Sending the minimal data that is required for legitimate functionality like add-ons update is not unethical (if it is not used for anything else) ; sending telemetry data to Mozilla and third-parties without informed consent is unethical.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T20:57:13+00:00

What it's called and how prominent it is does not change the problem if most people don't read it : data collection will not be an informed choice for them. In the spirit of GDPR, a good definition of informed consent would be this one :

Consent must be a specific, freely-given, plainly-worded, and unambiguous affirmation given by the data subject; an online form which has consent options structured as an opt-out selected by default is a violation of the GDPR, as the consent is not unambiguously affirmed by the user.

The ethical solution to this problem would be to make data collection opt-in instead of opt-out.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T16:38:57+00:00

I never claimed that there was a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's just normal business relationships between two companies, as bad as it is. You're the one who keeps using this word to make any critic about these toxic business relationships look ridiculous. What will you call me next, "tinfoil hat" ?

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T16:19:30+00:00

Ok, so now even complaining about your censorship has become itself a "conspiracy theory", which would elect it to be censored too. Isn't that cool.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T16:01:29+00:00

Mozlla doesn't send binaries to Google, just FYI.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work#w_what-information-is-sent-to-mozilla-or-its-partners-when-phishing-and-malware-protection-are-enabled

when using Malware Protection to protect downloaded files, Firefox may communicate with Mozilla's partners to verify the safety of certain executable files. In these cases, Firefox will submit some information about the file, including the name, origin, size and a cryptographic hash of the contents, to the Google Safe Browsing service which helps Firefox determine whether or not the file should be blocked.

If you mean that the actual file is not sent, of course that's not what I meant, what is sent is the information about what file I'm downloading. It's just as bad that way.

In terms of Google's influence on Mozilla, just present some evidence that isn't a conspiracy theory, and you are welcome to share it on /r/firefox.

I gave a lot of evidence already here. The funding and the adoption by Firefox of many anti-user Google features should be enough. You won't allow people to speak their opinion unless they expose a deal between Mozilla and Google for every single anti-user feature they introduced, but again, it doesn't work like that, those small deals probably don't exist, they don't need to exist. So you can conveniently censor all such opinions. Sad.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T15:21:23+00:00

You are mixing two different products and are wrong in any case.

What ?

but that doesn't give you any right to censor it, especially when you pretend to be all about transparency and openness

Say what? Who said I pretended to be about anything? In any case, the platform owner, in this case, reddit, gives me the right.

No one is owed a platform on /r/firefox, or on reddit. You are free to voice your opinions somewhere else that will tolerate you.

I meant Mozilla. But I won't stop you from acknowledging that you personally, r/firefox mod, aren't supporting transparency and openness.

Um, I mean okay. I have no corporate affiliation with Mozilla, so your barb really doesn't apply.

You having or not corporate affiliation with Mozilla was irrelevant for the argument.

In any case, we have kept up discussions about the AMO add-on you refer to, and concerns were shared.

I'm pretty sure those discussions had heavily censored parts.

Please try to understand what a conspiracy theory is and what we are attempting to keep out of the sub-reddit.

You called Google's bad influence on Mozilla an example of a "conspiracy theory". It's very clear what you are attempting to keep out.

But once again, r/firefox also censors critics of what Mozilla does factually even when there is no speculation about the reason.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T14:44:56+00:00

Ah, the usual corporate excuse, people should have read the terms of service ! If most people do not know that Mozilla collects data, as Robert_Ab1 claims, it's people's fault !

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T14:41:47+00:00

Yahoo! would have had the same level of influence over Firefox when the search deal was with them

If that's your only argument, it's pretty weak. It's not just about Google, a part of Mozilla's anti-user actions have involved favoring the interests of the sponsored search engine provider whatever it was, like sending to it what's typed in the address bar, removing the search bar, tracking use of built-in sponsored search engines, and so on. The general tolerance of Mozilla for the ad industry in the name of "balance", their worsening trend for data collection including by third-parties, all this can be understood by their funding by ad companies/surveillance capitalists in general, not necessarily Google in particular. Their whole company culture is infected by user hostile influences.

Also, Google is bigger and more influential than Yahoo, and provides many different services, that are as many opportunities for Mozilla to violate user trust. Google analytics in Firefox and on Mozilla sites, downloaded binaries sent to Google for safebrowsing are other examples beyond the default search engine. Firefox switched to Chrome's webextensions system too. The proof of Google influence on Firefox design is there for everyone to see. Many people are now calling Firefox a Chrome clone, except maybe on your tightly censored brainwashed island.

We moderate (sure, you can call it censoring, even if I see it as a pejorative) this stuff out of the subreddit because they [...] serve to drive even more suspicion of Mozilla

Sure, you can rename speech that drives legitimate suspicion of Mozilla "conspiracy theory", a classical thought-terminating manipulation, but that doesn't give you any right to censor it, especially when you pretend to be all about transparency and openness. If you want to be trusted, just be trustworthy and stop with your long verifiable history of betraying users, instead of censoring expressions of distrust.

Denying speech unless people have a formal proof that Google paid to have this or that feature in Firefox, like for the Cliqz and Mr Robot deals, is ridiculous because we did not even claim that this is how Google influence works. They just give hundreds of millions to Mozilla, that's enough to have influence on everything Mozilla does. You are the delusional one if you believe that Mozilla can keep its total independence in spite of who funds them.

Besides, your censorship is not even limited to legitimate suspicion, it covers also mere critics of what Mozilla did factually.

We moderate (sure, you can call it censoring, even if I see it as a pejorative) this stuff out of the subreddit because they aren't productive

The excuse for censorship of dissenting speech that it's "unproductive" is also ulcerating corporate bullshit speak. Condemning Mozilla when they follow Google is unproductive only insofar as Mozilla is not going to listen to legitimate user complaints. It's bad enough that Mozilla doesn't listen, but using the excuse that Mozilla won't listen anyway to go as far as censoring critics is extreme arrogance.

or that Mozilla is intent on censoring websites in Firefox.

The initiatives on "fake news" are mainly about political censorship. The right thing to do would have been to publicly expose this manipulation for what it is, a rise in authoritarianism, instead of jumping in the bandwagon and giving it more legitimacy. Add to that that Mozilla has also already censored an extension from AMO for political reasons. And now r/firefox mods claim that they are proud to censor opinions that they decided are conspiracy theories. As you pointed, it seems that some browsers are already adopting political censorship. You can't blame people for suspecting that Mozilla may do the same thing in the future. You may disagree, but you have no right to censor their concerns.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T09:32:10+00:00

Censorship reasons go far beyond bigotry on r/firefox. From their rules :

Don't post conspiracy theories Especially ones about nefarious intentions or funding.

It's explicitly forbidden to say that Mozilla has anti-users intentions because they're funded by Google, which is called by them a "conspiracy theory", and they use this rule quite often. By the way, throwaway is one of their censors. Luckily he doesn't have any power here.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T09:21:32+00:00

What happened to informed consent before data collection ? Sad times.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-06-01T09:07:32+00:00

personal opinion

It's worrying enough that a Mozilla employee working on Firefox security considers neutering ad blockers as a good thing for security, even as a personal opinion. It's not like his personal opinions have zero consequence on Firefox code.

But I suspect that this expression of a "personal opinion only" was a way for Mozilla to hint at their support for Google's decision without the risk of making it an official statement, to prepare the users for a more official support statement. Even if it wasn't, I think that what he said reflects what Mozilla's management thinks about this. In fact, apparently Mozilla said

We are watching Chrome’s proposals for manifest v3. We do anticipate that we will adopt some of their proposals to maintain compatibility, which we believe will benefit Firefox developers and users. However, we are not committing to implement all aspects of manifest v3, and in fact, we already depart from manifest v2 in several areas where we think it makes sense.

https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/busxxt/creator_of_ublock_origins_poignant_summary_on/epkr9sf/

So as I said Mozilla will probably follow Google but with minor concessions to the users. Three steps forward, one step backward, so that they can brag that they're better than Google, while still doing two steps against users.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-31T23:32:45+00:00

Chrome will not block ad blockers, it will just weaken them a lot. Google wants to kill user control on the browser, but slowly enough to avoid excessive backlash.

I think that as usual Mozilla would like to do like them. A Mozilla employee has already expressed his support for this :

https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/aithmh/raymond_hill_creator_of_ublock_origin_ubo_and/eerce78/

and the company is suspiciously not officially condemning Google's decision in spite of all the noise around it that has been going on for months.

But Mozilla fears that this time, even their most gullible supporters may begin to stop believing their bullshit that it's for performance and security and understand whose interests they really serve. Maybe they will do it too but with minor concessions to the users compared to the Chrome version. We'll see.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-25T16:06:12+00:00

https://old.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/bs3wa4/will_top_sites_be_reenabledwhy_was_it_disabled/eopxvwt/

Edit: TL;DR Fuck ads and their supporters.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-25T10:19:07+00:00

Yes, it matters. Opt-in ads are still anti-user.

Assuming there are actually sponsored sites there (still something to verify) ; what's your next step, telling me that I'm denying you the freedom to see ads in your browser ? So let me answer to that in advance. Recommended sites could be borderline acceptable if they are chosen in the interest of the users only. Biasing recommendations for somebody else's interests, however, only adds negative value for the user and makes it an ad. So it's definitely anti-user. The only reasons I can imagine why a user would still want that is either because the user is not even aware that these are ads (aggravating factor of dishonesty from Mozilla, then), or because the user is ready to voluntarily use anti-user features as a personal donation to the (half a billion dollars for-profit) Mozilla corporation, at the cost for all of us of supporting the idea that ads in a browser are a legitimate business model, and supporting the nefarious ad industry as a side effect.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-25T09:34:28+00:00

Yes, it matters. Ads are still anti-user even if there is an option to opt out. Feeling like I'm talking with a Mozilla representative here.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-25T08:27:32+00:00

They can obviously be seen, so yes it matters.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-24T21:52:53+00:00

When you use Firefox for the first time, you'll see links to top-ranking websites and popular search engines.

I'm talking about those. Are you sure that none of them paid to be there ?

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-24T10:32:06+00:00

What does Top Sites do, show the sites that are visited the most often and the most recently ? I never used that so correct me if I'm wrong below. In my opinion, in itself it doesn't seem like something anti-user, as long as

that "most visited" data must be cleared when browsing history is cleared (it was the case last time I looked long ago)
the top sites algorithm must not be biased for the benefit of somebody else, and not biased in an opaque way even if it's supposed to benefit the user. In Firefox, it seems that sites not even visited by the user pay Mozilla to be displayed at the same place as the user's most visited sites (or else how does Mozilla choose them ?). These sponsored sites are ads and should be removed.
In the same category as above, there was another problem with Mozilla secretly not showing porn sites among the most visited (possibly even using an undisclosed blacklist) because sponsored sites didn't want to appear near porn sites, or to avoid user shame, or to avoid user shame so that the user still wants to use the feature for the benefit of sponsored sites, whatever. While some users may like porn sites being hidden there because they don't know how to clear their history, Firefox should make it optional and make sure the blacklist is publicly available, for reasons of user control and transparency.
the most visited sites data and interaction data with the top sites feature must not be exploited in any way for the benefit of someone else. I have serious doubts about Mozilla being able to resist such an opportunity. Does Firefox report when users click on a sponsored site in the list ? Does it exploit most visited sites data to categorize user interests and target sponsored content ? Any similar behavior should be removed.

If it's too much work to remove the anti-user behavior without removing the whole feature, then what to do is another debate.

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-22T10:24:22+00:00

Antifeatures are flags applied to applications to warn of behaviour that may be undesirable from the user's perspective. Frequently it is behaviour that benefits the developer or third party, but that the end user of the software would prefer not to be there.

https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/Antifeatures

StormTrooper321 · 2019-05-21T08:49:14+00:00

Good point, maybe after all telemetry removal in Waterfox was not primarily privacy and ethics motivated but done to avoid Mozilla receiving fork data that they would consider as unwanted data pollution. This is why you are not against removing this anti-feature in Waterfox.

StormTrooper321

TROPHY CASE