I'm a big supporter of Mozilla and everything they do and stand for, but I think the way this is explained leaves people (including myself) thinking "why would I want to do that?" The promotional video uses a lot of flowery words, but I'm missing the message, so I imagine the average user would as well.
For me, "control your data" means I own it, I own the only instance of it, I know everything about how it's being used and by whom because I've granted those specific uses (but not through policy notices and disclosures), and can revoke its use at any time. Kind of like how Amazon, Google, etc, treat your purchases.
It seems they want to "fight for privacy" by collecting[1]:
> On specific news websites: the full URL of the website you are on, the full text of the article you are reading, the size of ads on the article’s webpage, and the amount of time you spend browsing and playing media
> On news aggregators, search engines, and social media websites: the domain (no webpage information) of the website, and the amount of time you spend browsing and playing media
> All other websites: the amount of time you spend browsing and playing media (no domain or webpage information)
I get what they're trying to do but it's a hard no for me.
Seems centered on what data they collect rather than on limits to how said data can be used. Privacy policies should limit what can be done with collected data. Practically, such policies only seek to limit what I can litigate against.
What the hell is Mozilla doing? If they want to protect peoples' privacy, they need to ship Firefox with an adblocker by default, not ask people to install spyware to surveil ads.
Firefox already blocks ads (via the "Tracking Protection" feature: https://i.imgur.com/Z3050xN.png ). Does it block as much as an addon like uBlock Origin? No, but stuff like Google Adsense or Analytics should be blocked.
I think in the ideal world, "control your data" means something like what Rally is trying to do: controlling how much data you give out, and knowing who you give it to, and who is using it. Being intentional about it, and also ensuring you're getting something commensurate in exchange.
The problem is the first step is you need to have leverage. As long as advertising companies just have your data already without your consent, a tool that lets you thoughtfully give them data is... completely superfluous.
This reminds me of the Do No Track thing. Like, you have no leverage, they decide if they want to respect it, so ... they aren't going to respect it.
Once tracking companies are completely locked out and they can't get your personal data, then the tables are flipped and tools like this could be useful to let people decide if they want to share some data to get something in return.
They were perfectly positioned in the late 2000s, all they had to do was to keep laser focused on (1) offering a Web agent working for its user vs Google's Web client (privacy, extensibility, compatibility), (2) web standards, which would have limited the damage from Chrome and resulted in a healthy competitive landscape.
I for one refuse to believe that Google's "monopoly on the most popular Web properties" is responsible. Duckduckgo is a tremendous success, Opera does way more than simply surviving, Brave has a tiny team and strives, etc. All of those share having a vision and executing with a laser focus on a single aspect of that vision.
Anyway, now Mozilla is so far down in market share that they are virtually undistinguishable from the rest of the pack.
Prediction time: with the recent developers layoffs and teams restructuring, the writing is on the wall: barring a positive external impetus, in a few years tops, they will fork Blink and continue their descent to irrelevancy. At first they will spin it as a necessary evil to pivot the dev effort back to the browser, but no one will be fooled.
Everything about this from being talked to like an idiot (“interwebs!”) to the fugly corporate art tells me this is about no different than any other corporation that’s hungry for your data. It also tells me who they think is foolish enough to use their product with all the left wing revolutionary imagery. I think “useful idiot” is the term? Services these days that throw around words like “privacy” and “control” seem like a way to profit off of people sick of being taken advantage of by taking advantage of them in a way that makes them feel good.
> In a world where data and AI are reshaping society, people currently have no tangible way to put their data to work for the causes they believe in. To address this, we built the Rally platform, a first-of-its-kind tool that enables you to contribute your data to specific studies and exercise consent at a granular level. Mozilla Rally puts you in control of your data while building a better Internet and a better society.
I've read all the text on this page and still have no idea what "Rally" actually is...
I guess the video may elaborate but my interest was already lost, sadly.
Lately it feels like Mozilla is just spitballing with their various products and initiatives. "Does anybody want this..? No? How about this one? It's for privacy. Oh, it's useless? Whoops, ok, what about this idea?"
You're completely right but I am "flipping the tortilla" on this one and thinking, it's great that they're just spitballing stuff, it's bound to eventually find something truly interesting and/or useful! (in n+1 time but I don't mind!)
21 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] threadI shan't bother, thanks. I'll pay money or someone else's data if they resurrect Servo, or even just stop reinstalling Pocket.
No one can be trusted with personal data, even do-gooder researchers.
And the data will be tainted by extreme self-selection bias so in the end, how useful are the studies you're contributing to?
Also, what about honeypot "studies?"
It's easier for me to just say no.
> Big Tech has built its success by exploiting your data. It’s time you put your data to work for you, not them.
No one is going to "stick it" to big tech by doing anything other than completely locking up their personal data.
As useful as the impact factor of the journal where they manage to publish.
For me, "control your data" means I own it, I own the only instance of it, I know everything about how it's being used and by whom because I've granted those specific uses (but not through policy notices and disclosures), and can revoke its use at any time. Kind of like how Amazon, Google, etc, treat your purchases.
That way you'd know what you're sharing when you "Login with Firefox".
> On specific news websites: the full URL of the website you are on, the full text of the article you are reading, the size of ads on the article’s webpage, and the amount of time you spend browsing and playing media
> On news aggregators, search engines, and social media websites: the domain (no webpage information) of the website, and the amount of time you spend browsing and playing media
> All other websites: the amount of time you spend browsing and playing media (no domain or webpage information)
I get what they're trying to do but it's a hard no for me.
[1] https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/
The problem is the first step is you need to have leverage. As long as advertising companies just have your data already without your consent, a tool that lets you thoughtfully give them data is... completely superfluous.
This reminds me of the Do No Track thing. Like, you have no leverage, they decide if they want to respect it, so ... they aren't going to respect it.
Once tracking companies are completely locked out and they can't get your personal data, then the tables are flipped and tools like this could be useful to let people decide if they want to share some data to get something in return.
They were perfectly positioned in the late 2000s, all they had to do was to keep laser focused on (1) offering a Web agent working for its user vs Google's Web client (privacy, extensibility, compatibility), (2) web standards, which would have limited the damage from Chrome and resulted in a healthy competitive landscape.
I for one refuse to believe that Google's "monopoly on the most popular Web properties" is responsible. Duckduckgo is a tremendous success, Opera does way more than simply surviving, Brave has a tiny team and strives, etc. All of those share having a vision and executing with a laser focus on a single aspect of that vision.
Anyway, now Mozilla is so far down in market share that they are virtually undistinguishable from the rest of the pack.
Prediction time: with the recent developers layoffs and teams restructuring, the writing is on the wall: barring a positive external impetus, in a few years tops, they will fork Blink and continue their descent to irrelevancy. At first they will spin it as a necessary evil to pivot the dev effort back to the browser, but no one will be fooled.
I've read all the text on this page and still have no idea what "Rally" actually is...
I guess the video may elaborate but my interest was already lost, sadly.
https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/
The list of sites that the Stanford study looks at is extensive; https://code.stanford.edu/gjmartin/beyond_the_paywall/-/blob...
Similarly extensive for the covid-19 disinfo study; https://github.com/citp/news-disinformation-study/blob/main/...
It feels... tonedeaf? Or maybe just desperate?