Help! I'm at that point where…

This website has grown to the point where there's too much stuff for me to deal with and so i'd like to solicit some help. The Firefox junk alone is getting to be a rather large burden.

I'd like my readers to be more involved and make this more of a community project, especially those that know more than i do about the stuff i write about. At the moment i could use help with Everything Firefox, as well as the Rescuing Israel content, the latter of which needs a lot of work. Then there's a lengthy series of articles about the dangers of vaccines that i've been toying with for over a year and is still no where near publishing.

If you have knowledge in these areas, or in alternative/natural healthcare, along with a desire to become rich and famous (major LIE!), then i'd really like to hear from you. Following are the benefits of an editor position here at 12bytes.org:

Pay: $0
Medical insurance: 1 box of (mostly unused) Band-Aids/decade
Vacation: Virtual reality app, all expenses paid (by you)
Expense account: $0.00000000000/yr.
Knowing you're helping to educate others: $$$ PRICELESS $$$

I earn exactly nothing from this website, so it only costs me money to run. I'd be interested in monetizing it and sharing the earnings, but i am NOT interested anyone who want's to use it as an advertising platform for their own site (i've gotten several of these stupid offers and i ignore all of them). If you have some creative ideas as to how to monetize in an ETHICAL way that benefits readers, i'm open to discussing that, however i am primarily interested in improving existing content and adding to what is already here.

If you're interested, contact me.

New article: The Mozilla Monster

I have little (and not so little) rants about Firefox and Mozilla tucked into the crevices of several articles and posts and so i decided to consolidate. The Mozilla Monster is now my official watering hole for everything i hate about the Mozilla Foundation… or at least strongly dislike… or question. Don't get me wrong, i still use and recommend Firefox, but i think it's days are numbered.

The Mozilla Monster

My admiration for Mozilla and its flagship product, the Firefox web browser, has diminished greatly over the years. To understand why i have lost a huge amount of respect for Mozilla as a company, we'll explore what Mozilla is and some of its controversial activities.

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 the masses now know, 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 and Cisco. 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". How can Mozilla claim to be a privacy and free speech advocate while cultivating relationships with a laundry list of companies who have little or no regard for privacy and 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 around the time version 1.0 hit the streets in 2004 when it enjoyed a small but devoted audience comprised of people who appreciated its extensive customization capabilities. Indeed it was very hackable browser in that almost every element of its graphic interface, as well as its core functionality could be heavily manipulated. While Firefox still remains one of the most customizable web browsers, Mozilla began restricting what users and add-on developers could do with it with the adoption of the Web Extension API in 2015 and the release of Firefox Quantum in 2017.

The release of Quantum presented a very different graphic interface which was styled to look remarkably similar to Google Chrome and this caused quite a stir in the Firefox community. I think the uniqueness of Firefox was lost and this upset many users who liked it because it wasn't Google Chrome. The fallout continued as Mozilla caused several non-trivial headaches for add-on developers by changing the APIs, eventually settling on the Web Extension API which is far less capable then the older XUL/XPCOM APIs, albeit less risky also. As a result many add-on developers tossed in the towel in frustration and thus the community suffered another hit with the loss of their work.

It has become quite apparent to me 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 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 think the driving force behind many of the poorer decisions 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 always equal 'good').

StatCounter Browser Market Share

One of the problems that has caused numerous concerns regarding the ethics of Mozilla is the fact that Firefox ships with several 'system add-ons' which are installed by default and without user permission. Worse, these add-ons do not appear in the extensions management interface (about:addons) and therefore there is no obvious way for the average user to disable or remove them, or even be aware that they're installed at all in some cases. Even more worrying is the fact that these system add-ons have been used for highly controversial purposes, including the mass collection of user data. Let's take a look at a bit of the darker side of Mozilla's history…

2014Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-same-sex-marriage controversy

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. Nevertheless, this incident upset many users but i would submit that their reasons were not entirely justified.

2014Mozilla Firefox's 'Sponsored Tabs' Stir up Controversy

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.

2015Mozilla responds to Firefox user backlash over Pocket integration

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.

2017Mozilla Says It is Raising Privacy Awareness By Violating Privacy of Users

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 me be very clear here; what the corporate clowns at Mozilla did when they partnered with Mr. Robot for advertising purposes 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 uniquely identifiable. 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 is still available on AMO 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). 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.

And…

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.

And…

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.

2017Mozilla to launch Firefox Cliqz Experiment with data collecting

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.

2017The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative: Building a movement to fight misinformation online

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 apparently wants to influence what news people read. Mozilla lists a few potential partners they'd like to work with 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, and many of these add-ons are warning users when they visit 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 new corporations which they want to partner with, including those that promoted the invasion of Iraq, Syria and Libya and are currently fostering aggression toward Iran and Venezuela. The solution to this problem is not censorship and revenue generation under the transparent guise of community service, but rather to educate people on how to identify unreliable resources which obviously Mozilla is in no position to do given its desire to partner with those same sources.

2019Firefox caves to pressure, to shut down controversial screenshot upload feature

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.

2019Mozilla apologizes for recent add-on disabling issue and provides details

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 which you can read about in the post, Mozilla showed me what the interwebs look like and now i have mad cow disease.

The future

Meanwhile the market share for Firefox continues to sink like a lead balloon. 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 statistics seem to drive the Mozilla Foundation to a worrying extent 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 is forced to end development of Firefox? I think the answer is 'less than none'. I think Mozilla has pissed off enough people and stabbed its users in the back enough times that the demise of the Firefox brand is imminent absent a radical shift in ethics. That said, i still use and recommend Firefox because i think it is better suited to security and privacy hardening than the competition, for the time being anyway.

Mozilla showed me what the interwebs look like and now i have mad cow disease

I'm in rant mode. You've been warned. Wasn't Mozilla that got me started either. It was a tree, but that's slightly different story.

Since when do YouTube videos have ads? You seen what the interwebs look like lately? Without an ad blocker i mean? Holly crap i'm still seeing flashy things when i close my eyes. How do people tolerate that in-your-face pop-up bubble blinking animated obnoxious garbage?

The other day the M@Ms (that's short for 'Morons At Mozilla', corporate i mean) let a security certificate expire that's used to sign add-ons, the result being that pretty much everybody around pretty much the whole earth (apparently) had pretty much all of their Firefox add-ons disabled. F'n REALLY!?!? You couldn't have a CRON job to remind people when a cert is due for resurrection? A calendar app? A sticky note? A mental note? Do you guys remember to change the oil in your Veyron's?

I was using Firefox yesterday and writing something very (un)important (because somebody on the interwebs was wrong…again) when all of sudden i saw what everyone else apparently saw; a sickening yellow warning bar sliding slowly and sneakily down from the top of my screen notifying me that MY browser just disabled some of MY add-ons because… stupid stuff. WTF just happened i wondered, and so i went surfing for answers.

Among the disabled add-ons, which of course Mozilla made sure COULD NOT BE IMMEDIATELY RE-ENABLED by users, was uBlock Origin, my fav ad blocker. I can't remember the last time i surfed the web without an ad blocker. 15 years ago? 50? What a joke! There's ads everywhere and they stick 'em in every nook and cranny. Luckily i quickly found a hack to rectify the problem and so i don't think i was exposed to the viri long enough to result in permanent brain damage, other than permanently hating Mozilla corporate a little more than i hated them the day before and i don't even know if that's who was actually responsible for the Big Blunder, but when you're pissed you really don't care if the vitriol lands off-target. And this elevated level of intense dislike, by the way, puts me pretty close to the threshold of dislike which is required before i say 'F U You Bunch Of Idiots' and move to…………. to what? Chrome? NO WAY! Brave? Vivaldi? Pale Moon? Waterfox? Not even. What else is there that is as hackable and well suited to the plethora of extensions and config tweaks required in order to realize some degree of control over your web surfing privacy? Seriously, i'm not aware of any other browser that would meet my needs. Why do ya think the TOR project uses Firefox? Because they think it's the daises? I bet it's because they see it as the lessor evil. They're probably stuck with it like the rest of privacy geeks us are, for the time being anyway.

Firefox USED to be a "good" browser. Why the quotes? Because it wasn't a good browser, but it was the most hackable-by-noobs major-ish browser out there back in the day. The ratio was like 2:5, the 2 because of how it (failed to) preform and the 5 because it was so wonderfully hackable, and that made it a good browser. I think it was sort of a niche browser for a small but very dedicated bunch of tweak geeks and privacy phreaks. I think i still have my Firefox 1.0 T-shirt. I got some gas and a Bic too (the tree thing), so i hope i still have it. Well, let me tell you my friend, that ratio has flipped. It now IS a good browser from a performance and capability POV, but it's becoming less hackable. But it's not just that it's less hackable, no no no. You see, Firefox used to be thought of as a community project and i think that's another reason it was loved so, but it's not loved as much anymore, at least not by some of us. Nowadays Mozilla is raking in HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY because the M@Ms that vomit all the nice doo-doo that we like to rub ourselves in, like "Mozilla puts people before profit", think it's more profitable to put profit before people, and for the time being they're right, but we'll see who runs shit 'round here in the long run.

Don't get me wrong; i think there are some/many very talented developers spending too much time staring at glowing rectangles and pumping out really good code with a focus on privacy and security over there, but there seems to be a gap between the engineers and the idiots upstairs, as there often is in any corporation, and that gap seems to be widening to canyon proportions. I wonder what the engineers think about some of the lunatic ideas that the M@Ms at corporate come up with, like the whole Pocket fiasco where they decided to essentially bundle proprietary code in their "open source" browser and then make excuses all over the place when users revolted? Or how about the time when they decided it was a good idea to spy on their users (which they still do) and then make excuses all over the place when users revolted? Or the time when they bundled malware with the browser and then made excuses all over the place when users revolted?

Ya see where this is going? How many more revolts can Mozilla absorb in their seemingly desperate quest to find the next goofy gimmick that will convince everyone to love them again before the foxes become the foxineers for good? Absent a major shift in goals and ETHICS, Firefox's days are numbered and, frankly, i'm giving less of a shit every day. I wonder how many (more) developers are beginning to look out their windows instead of at their monitors while the M@Ms predictably trod along on their decent to doom?

These greedy sons-a-bitches will never learn.

The history of Monsanto (now Bayer), 1901-2014

This article was written in 2014 before Monsanto was absorbed by Bayer. One of the most striking realizations while reading it is how in the hell such an evil corporation could have possibly weathered so many storms and remain functioning. It nearly boggles the mind, until of course one realizes the role the legacy (mainstream) media plays. And today Monsanto/Bayer is being tested yet again with the massive attention being given to glyphosate and the utterly disastrous effects this toxin and carcinogen has and continues to wreck upon the planet and the people. One might think that the glyphosate scandal will surely sink the Bayer ship, but it likely will not. Bayer surely knew about the many legal problems Monsanto was facing, yet they acquired the company anyway. I can only speculate as to the why of it, but i think one possibility is that Monsanto might have sunk on their own and so a deal was made with Bayer.

Read: The Complete History of Monsanto, The World's Most Evil Corporation