My admiration for Mozilla and its flagship product, the Firefox web browser, continues to diminish over the years. To understand why i continue to lose a huge amount of respect for Mozilla as a company, we'll explore what Mozilla is and some of the controversial decisions it has made and unethical projects it has undertaken. You might also want tot read Mozilla showed me what the interwebs look like and now i have mad cow disease.
Many of us probably tend to associate the free, open-source software (FOSS) community with individuals or small organizations that selflessly give away their work expecting little or nothing in return, however this perception is wildly inaccurate in the case of the Mozilla Foundation which rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The vast majority of this revenue is generated as a result of Mozilla's partnerships with various ethically challenged and proprietary search engine companies such as Google, Yahoo, and others (you can read more about this in the article, Firefox Search Engine Cautions, Recommendations). As a result of Snowden, many of the masses are now painfully aware that these corporations track our web activities and sell the collected data to advertisers, governments, intelligence communities and who knows who else or for what other purposes. Other nefarious Mozilla partners have included Microsoft, Telefónica, LG Electronics, Sony, Verizon, Cisco and Cloudflare. These kinds of partnerships could hardly be more at odds with statements Mozilla has made in its manifesto, including "Committed to you, your privacy and an open Web" and the current "Mozilla puts people before profit". Mozilla claims to be a privacy and free speech advocate while it simultaneously cultivates relationships with a laundry list of companies who have little or no regard for privacy or free speech.
The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit that owns the taxable subsidiary, Mozilla Corporation. The Foundation was launched in 2003 with financial and other assistance from AOL and the Mozilla Corporation was created two years later. It is the latter that controls the source code for Firefox.
I started using Firefox shortly before version 1.0 hit the streets in 2004. Back then Firefox seemed to cater to a small but devoted audience comprised of people who appreciated its customization capabilities. Indeed it was a very hackable browser in that almost every element of its graphic interface as well as its core functionality could be extensively modified without having to dig in to its source code. While Firefox still remains one of the most customizable web browsers, Mozilla began restricting what users and add-on developers could do with the adoption of the Web Extension API in 2015 and again with the release of Firefox Quantum in 2017.
The release of Quantum presented a very different graphic user interface which was styled to look remarkably similar to Google Chrome and this caused quite a stir within the Firefox community. The uniqueness of Firefox was lost in the minds of many upset users who had preferred it because it wasn't Google Chrome. The fallout continued as Mozilla caused several non-trivial headaches for add-on developers by changing the API (Application Programming Interface) several times, eventually settling on the Web Extension API which is far less capable then the older XUL/XPCOM API, albeit less risky as well. As a result many frustrated add-on developers tossed in the towel and thus the community suffered yet another hit with the loss of their work. Further controversy would soon follow.
It has become quite apparent to me (and others) that the goals of the Mozilla Foundation clash with the ethics of some of the developers writing code for Firefox. While at least a portion of the developer community has a strong regard for user privacy, decisions at the corporate level have made it abundantly clear that they are quite willing to sacrifice privacy in return for financial gain and market share. Some of these decisions have resulted in well deserved and severe backlashes from the community and it seems management is rather incapable of owning up to their mistakes. I'm sure the driving force behind many of the decisions by management is the perceived need to compete with Google Chrome which is by far the most popular web browser at this time (note that 'popular' does not equate to 'good').
Another issue that has caused numerous concerns regarding the ethics of Mozilla is the fact that Firefox has long shipped with several controversial 'system add-ons' and "features" which are installed by default without any user interaction. Worse, these add-ons do not appear in the extensions management interface (
) and therefore there is no obvious way for the average user to disable or remove them, or even be aware they're installed at all in some cases. These system add-ons have been used for highly controversial purposes, including the mass collection of user data.
Let's have a look at a bit of the darker side of Mozilla's history...
Just ten days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as CEO of Mozilla after sparking outrage over his donation to an anti-same-sex marriage campaign.
In 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to California's Proposition 8 campaign. Prop 8 was a ballot initiative that sought to make same-sex marriage illegal in the state. News of Eich's donation was first made public in 2012, but attracted a new wave of attention last week when Eich was promoted to CEO from his previous job as chief technology officer.
There is actually a lot more to this story than meets the eye and frankly i find it a little odd that a donation to Prop 8 by Eich, who co-founded Mozilla, would be used against him six years later in what may have been a coup d'état. Nevertheless, this incident upset many users but i would submit that their reasons were not entirely justified.
Mozilla, the maker of the popular web browser Firefox, recently announced that it still plans to follow through on its controversial plan to sell advertisements on "sponsored tabs."
Mozilla's original plan, introduced in February, called for new "Directory Tiles" to be added on a new tab for new users. In the past, these tiles were left blank until they were customized with recommendations based on a user's browsing history. Mozilla planned to sell these tiles to companies as sponsored ads, much to the chagrin of Firefox users.[...]
In other words, Firefox plans to sell ad space on its tabs to monetize its user base of over 450 million users, who account for 17% of all web browsers used worldwide.
The complaints center around the fact Pocket is a proprietary third-party service, already exists as an add-on, and is not a required component for a browser. Integrating Pocket directly into Firefox means it cannot be removed, only disabled.
Mozilla’s latest Firefox release is better than Google Chrome, both in terms of speed and violating user’s privacy.[...]
As Drew pointed out, this extension is actually an alternate reality Game. This extension will invert text that matches a list of Mr. Robot-related keywords like "fsociety", "robot", "undo", and "fuck", and does a number of other things like adding an HTTP header to certain sites you visit.
While this might sound fun, doing it without end user’s consent is a borderline privacy violation.
Let's be very clear here; what the corporate clowns at Mozilla did when they partnered with Mr. Robot and forced the Looking Glass add-on on its users as part of that fiasco, was not "a borderline privacy violation", it was a flagrant violation of user privacy and trust, period. Ignoring the fact that these 'systems add-ons', 'experiments' and 'Shield Studies' are often enabled by default, manipulating HTTP headers for certain websites as the Looking Glass add-on did, was not only possibly breaking web standards, it was making Firefox users easier to fingerprint. That they did this without warning users, some of which may have implemented precautions precisely to guard against such concerns, is unforgivable. The community backlash was immediate and widespread. As a result of the beating they took, Mozilla removed the add-on in the following version of Firefox and reworked their 'Shield Study' rules. The Looking Glass add-on his still available on AMO however where, as of this writing, 17 people gave it a 5 star rating and 52 a 1 star rating (make that 53 since i just dropped my two cents). Mozilla has never offered an apology for their stupidity. Following are some of the comments left by disgruntled users...
Mozilla is not better than Google. It's maybe worse, because we expect it from Google but not from Mozilla. Mozilla has no ethics.
Until today I thought that Mozilla's ethics would forbid this kind of action; indeed, it's the kind of thing I thought Mozilla would actively campaign against. I guess I'm disillusioned now.
I'm also concerned that Firefox is, on a technical level, able to install add-ons without explicit user/administrator approval. This seems like a MAJOR security vulnerability to me.
This blunder is astonishing. It's not just that Mozilla installed it without permission or notification; it's also the implication that the company doesn't understand why this was a mistake. The apologies I've seen so far amount to "We're sorry we got caught. We didn't know better."
I don't like Chrome. And today I don't like Firefox. I have used Firefox from when it was Phoenix version 0.67. Last night I downloaded Vivaldi and Opera, and I will check them out.
Mozilla notes that it is necessary to transfer address bar content to Cliqz servers to power the functionality. This means, essentially that anything that is entered into the address bar, either automatically or manually, is transferred to Cliqz.
In other words, users who are selected for participation are opted-in automatically in the data collecting.
Today, we are announcing the Mozilla Information Trust Initiative (MITI)—a comprehensive effort to keep the Internet credible and healthy. Mozilla is developing products, research, and communities to battle information pollution and so-called ‘fake news’ online. And we’re seeking partners and allies to help us do so.
So the company that is "committed to an open web" wants to limit its openness. Mozilla lists a few potential partners they'd like to work with in this venture including one of the kings of mainstream news bias and propaganda, The Wall Street Journal, whom Mozilla sees as a "credible news-gathering organization". I have also seen an influx of 'fake news' detection add-ons in the AMO repository being developed by companies, including The Self Agency, LLC and Trustie, many of which are flagging highly creditable websites run by battle scarred, independent, investigative journalists.
As Mozilla correctly recognizes, there is indeed a massive amount of misinformation, disinformation and heavily biased information floating around on the web in the alternative news scene, however they conveniently ignore the fact that some of the most dangerous offenders are the mainstream "news" corporations which they want to partner with, including those that promoted the Iraqi chemical weapons bullshit and subsequent invasion of the country, the regime change wars in Syria and Libya, and those which are currently frothing at the mouth over the nuclear weapons that Iran doesn't posses and how terrible the elected president of Venezuela is because he's not another U.S. puppet. The solution to this problem is not censorship and revenue generation under the laughably transparent guise of "community service", but rather to educate people on how to identify unreliable news sources which obviously Mozilla is in no position to do given its desire to partner with those same sources.
Mozilla has positioned Firefox as the champion of privacy and independence on the internet but appears to be increasingly at risk of losing the trust of users.
The latest controversy regarding the company is its implementation of the screenshot feature, which uses clear dark patterns to trick users into uploading screenshots to their online screenshot gallery screenshots.firefox.com, which promoted but does not require the use of your Firefox Account.
The last week has not been great for Mozilla. Last Friday, reports started to come in from around the world that installed add-ons would not verify anymore and were disabled as a consequence. Users could not download and install add-ons from Mozilla AMO anymore either.
Latest figures show that about 60% of Firefox users install add-ons in the browser; any issue affecting 60% of the user base, especially when it comes to personal choices made by those users, is as critical as it gets.
I was one of the millions of victims of this stupidity upon which i elaborated in the post, Mozilla showed me what the interwebs look like and now i have mad cow disease.
"We put people over profit", and "a product to support user privacy", they say. However, with their decision to make Cloudflare the default DNS provider for DNS over HTTPS, they are definitely not supporting user privacy or putting people over profit.
DNS over HTTPS is by itself bad enough, and highly criticized with good reason, but by combining it with a US based company like Cloudflare makes it even worse.[...]
Last, but not least, Cloudflare is an American company subject to American law, a law that pretty much undermines the foundation of any kind of privacy.[...]
Mozilla should be ashamed! They are promoting Firefox as a product to support user privacy, yet at the same time they make Google the default search engine in the browser and Cloudflare the default DNS over HTTPS resolver.
Some users of the latest stable version of the Firefox web browser for Android have received a push notification by Mozilla itself. The notification links to this blog post on the Mozilla website in which the organization states that it has joined the StopHateForProfit coalition and asks its users to do the same. One of the goals of the campaign is to pressure Facebook into controlling certain content more tightly on the platform.
The user selection process is unclear, but it is possible that the notification is limited to users from the United States.
The Mozilla blog post that the 'arkenfox' article links to contains the following:
Facebook is still a place where it’s too easy to find hate, bigotry, racism, antisemitism and calls to violence.
Today, we are standing alongside our partners in the #StopHateForProfit coalition and joining the global day of action to tell Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: Enough is Enough.
Will you join hundreds of thousands of people who stand with this coalition to tell Zuckerberg to #StopHateForProfit?
No one should be using any of the data-slurping, perception engineering, mainstream social media platforms as far as i'm concerned, but that isn't the point here. This is at least the second time that Mozilla has attempted to censor content on the web. Perhaps these corporate clowns ought to stick to focusing on software development and keep their noses out of politics and interfering with free speech. That Mozilla used the built-in push notification capability of Firefox to spam users with a personal political message is yet another blunder in a growing list of unforgivable blunders it has made and, more disturbingly, failed to learn from or even properly acknowledge.
RegretsReporter is yet another Mozilla Foundation initiative to tamper with the flow of information on the web, this one aimed at YouTube and packaged in the form of a browser extension. From the description:
The RegretsReporter extension gives you a way to report YouTube Regrets—videos that YouTube has recommended to you that you end up wishing you had never watched. This extension is part of a crowdsourced data campaign to learn more about what people regret watching, and how it was recommended to them. RegretsReporter is only for people who are 18 or older. By contributing your data to our research you can help us improve one of the most powerful recommendation engines on the planet.
James Corbett did explains what Mozilla is doing with RegretsReporter.
I would also encourage one to read Mozilla - Devil Incarnate.
In yet another stunning, radical left-sided display of utter contempt for free speech and mind-numbing hypocrisy, Mozilla published a blog post following the defeat of President Trump in the fraudulent 2020 U.S. presidential election.
There is no question that social media played a role in the attempted coup and take-over of the US Capitol on January 6.
Protestors were allowed to enter the capital building, there was no coup nor insurrection, nor any attempt at one, but for the radical leftists, facts don't matter.
Since then there has been significant focus on the deplatforming of President Donald Trump. By all means the question of when to deplatform a head of state is a critical one, among many that must be addressed. When should platforms make these decisions? Is that decision-making power theirs alone?
...says the corporation who states that "we work to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to all", except of course when someone says something these corporate clowns don't agree with.
But as reprehensible as the actions of Donald Trump are, the rampant use of the internet to foment violence and hate, and reinforce white supremacy is about more than any one personality. Donald Trump is certainly not the first politician to exploit the architecture of the internet in this way, and he won’t be the last. We need solutions that don’t start after untold damage has been done.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable. The same bunch of radical left retards who support and fund violent, self-admitted Marxists and extremists like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, who spent 2020 burning, bombing, looting, beating, killing and defunding police departments, are now calling largely peaceful protestors who were permitted to enter the capital building, violent white supremacists, lumping in with them the many thousands who didn't enter the building and the 10's of millions who supported Trump.
Once again the feedback from Firefox users was immediate and harsh, or what feedback can be found that is since social media is censoring it:
your bio is literally "We work to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to all."
-- Seb Parker
I've used your browser for 15 years. No more. I'm out.
-- Piping Hot Centrist Takes
Uninstalling Firefox as soon as I wake up tomorrow, thanks for the tip.
-- Oyvey Shutitdownstein
What the ACTUAL fuck?
Thank GOD I stopped using Firefox.
You people have categorically fucking LOST it.
When i tried to submit feedback from Firefox's 'Help' menu, i found that Mozilla had disabled the feedback system and it has been disabled for at least several days (it's still disabled as of 12-Jan). Did they disable it because they knew they were going to be inundated by angry users?
Meanwhile the market share for Firefox continues to sink like a lead balloon and the corporate idiots calling the shots continue to grapple for any and all gimmicks they can dream-up in an attempt to reverse the trend which they themselves are responsible for. I don't think the hardcore audience that has stuck with Firefox through the years cared much about how popular it was, but like any corporate behemoth, what the users care about is of secondary importance; growth, market share, revenue and other useless corporate buzzwords and statistics are the primary drivers of the Mozilla Foundation and i think this has caused the gap between Mozilla and its user base to widen even further. I know it has for me. The question is, how much more self-inflicted blow-back can Mozilla handle before it decides to end development of Firefox entirely, or perhaps sell Firefox to Google who it is very much in bed with. Mozilla cut its workforce by 250 in Aug. '20, allegedly due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. I think Mozilla has stabbed its users in the back enough times that the demise of the Firefox brand is imminent absent a radical shift in corporate overlord ethics.
That said, i still use and recommend Firefox because i think it is still better suited to security and privacy hardening than anything the mainstream competition has to offer, at least for the time being. If you'd like to consider another web browser however, read Choose your browser carefully.
Click here for more articles about Mozilla.