←back to thread

Unknown Mozilla dev addon "Looking Glass 1.0.3" on browser

(support.mozilla.org)
757 points shak77 | 4 comments | 15 Dec 17 13:47 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
shak77 ◴[15 Dec 17 13:47 UTC] No.15931738[source]▶
This is what it looks like: https://imgur.com/a/mriUw

It scared the hell out of me! Are these guys losing their minds?

It was reported as a bug and the response thus far is indeed underwhelming for such a severe issue: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1424977

replies(2): >>15931793 #>>15931902 #
grawprog ◴[15 Dec 17 13:57 UTC] No.15931793[source]▶
>Are these guys losing their minds?

Yes

replies(1): >>15931833 #
shak77 ◴[15 Dec 17 14:05 UTC] No.15931833[source]▶
I don't know what the hell is going on with Mozilla. Ever tried to install Firefox on Android? The new tab page is full of ads by default!

And this is the company we are supposed to trust? Because right now I feel like I trust Google more, and that's a lot to say.

replies(4): >>15931917 #>>15931924 #>>15932006 #>>15932699 #
teekert ◴[15 Dec 17 14:28 UTC] No.15932006[source]▶
Adds are annoying yes, but they are only bad for your privacy if they track and profile you. Adds allow for free stuff and they can be done the right way. Granted this is becoming more and more rare so I understand your standard association of adds with distrust. The adds you refer to are non tracking (please tell me if I'm wrong though) and will slowly be replaced by sites you visit (often).
replies(3): >>15932053 #>>15932073 #>>15932442 #
Karunamon ◴[15 Dec 17 14:33 UTC] No.15932053[source]▶
Ads abuse the user's time, attention, and privacy. Minus the tracking, that's still two factors of abuse rather than three.
replies(1): >>15932276 #
teekert ◴[15 Dec 17 15:03 UTC] No.15932276[source]▶
How do they abuse your privacy without tracking? Of course if they didn't abuse your time and attention they wouldn't make sense. But someone has to be paying Firefox's development, and it is not you. I'll take that last part back if you contribute to Mozilla. Hey, maybe it's an idea for a donation: make a 5$ Firefox without adds. I'd pay. To bad part goes to Google that way.
replies(1): >>15932951 #
1. makecheck ◴[15 Dec 17 16:31 UTC] No.15932951[source]▶
The irony is that people pay, just not to the right place. Every unnecessarily-bloated download tears through data plans and costs people money to their ISP that never makes it to the provider.

I want plain-text ads that provide just as much revenue to web sites but without obnoxious experiences and fat downloads.

replies(1): >>15933124 #
2. palunon ◴[15 Dec 17 16:54 UTC] No.15933124[source]▶
> Every unnecessarily-bloated download tears through data plans and costs people money to their ISP

Only in third internet world countries like the US... Elsewhere, we don't have limited data plans.

replies(1): >>15933414 #
3. Karunamon ◴[15 Dec 17 17:30 UTC] No.15933414[source]▶
This is going to put me in weird company but I really don't see why metered billing is such a terrible thing. Most other utilities are pay-for-amount-used. And as a bonus, this creates an incentive for developers (via customer pressure) to not use insane amounts of data.
replies(1): >>15936075 #
4. franga2000 ◴[15 Dec 17 23:12 UTC] No.15936075{3}[source]▶
It is because data, unlike water or electricity, isn't a finite resource. Your electricity bill includes the generation in the power plant and the transmission over the power lines. When it comes to Internet access, you're paying for the transmission (bandwidth), but there isn't a "packet generation plant" that you should have to pay for.

Also, data caps mean people will use less data, meaning using less bandwidth, meaning ISPs will have less of an incentive to upgrade their already ancient infrastructure. It would be giving them more money to use less of what they provide.