PSA (?): just got this popup in Firefox when i was on an amazon product page. looked into it a bit because it seemed weird and it turns out if you click the big "yes, try it" button, you agree to mandatory binding arbitration with Fakespot and you waive your right to bring a class action lawsuit against them. this is awesome thank you so much mozilla very cool
So, Mozilla adds an AI review features for products you view using Firefox. Other than being very useless, it's T&C are as anti-consumer as it possibly can be. It's like mozilla saying directly "we don't care about your privacy".
Though I don't mind the "accept, deny, ask me again later" for when something seems interesting but I don't want to put the effort into looking into it right at the moment but don't want to click yes without looking into it.
We had a whole generation of people that were taught that 'no' means 'maybe later' (the whole point of the 'no means no' ads about daterapes), and that same generation is now running these companies. What did we expect to happen?
Hot take and I can guarantee this will be downvoted but I think people are putting way too much blind trust into Mozilla for this. (edit: Apparently not here, pleasantly surprised at that)
They just purchased an advertising company, they made the T&C waive your right to a class action lawsuit. They keep giving their CEO raises and laying off their workers. Mozilla is actively enshittifying but people don't react until it's too late because it's a boiling frog situation.
Whether you think the feature is useful or not, Firefox is unfortunately shifting away from being a privacy-focused user-focused browser. The saving grace is that it is open source and forks can be made of it, "Firefox" itself can survive anything as long as there's enough interest to keep it alive.
I think that Mozilla does great work, but they've lost sight of their goals, and are changing focus. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but this needs to be looked at objectively instead of with brand-loyalty. At the end of the day, they're just another company with financial interests prioritized over user interests.
What irks me is that they proudly announce that these features are baked in directly in the browser. Why the FUCK would they do that? I want my browser to be a browser only. Everything else must be relegated to an optional add-on.
Depending where you are it is. On some Mozilla communities you're downvoted into oblivion or dogpiled on for saying this. I was pleasantly surprised here that it wasn't
until it’s too late because it’s a boiling frog situation.
That's a common misconception. If frogs are thrown into boiling water they almost die instantly, if they are placed in a pot that's slowly beginning to boil, they desperately try to escape after a while
Ohh, Good point, so the entire trust model is we are trusting Mozilla not to share data with Mozilla, because if Mozilla colludes with Mozilla then there is no privacy here at all.
Why not just be a web browser and leave stuff like this to browser extensions?
Oh right, you enshittified yourself.
Edit to add: Why give them money when they apparently already have too much of it from corporate inputs (most of it from Google)? I think they ask us for donations in order to retain their non-profit image, for PR purposes.
At this point, I'm glad I switched to Mull on my phone. It took a bit of overcoming the resistance of using Firefox for decades (Stockholm syndrome), but I don't miss Firefox one bit.
Now I need to do that on my desktop, but I'm still shopping. Librewolf? Palemoon? Ice Weasel? What are folks here trying out these days?
Yeah but to be fair they bought this years ago. Just took them forever to integrated. I suspect any changes in direction will truly show in 3-4 years, once the current backlog (no don't look at my company's Jira, TYVM! 😑 ) is cleared.
People shouldn't trust Mozilla either. It's a company that does company things. Just because it's not as far-gone as Google doesn't mean it's incapable.
I never said they should trust. But if they trust Mozilla with the telemetry/pockets/whatever they put on the browser this one is just like the others.
The fact that the Mozilla Foundation is non-profit, despite wherever controversy there may be around their decisions of late, is a pretty significant factor.
Using AI to detect AI is completely useless. It's been a big issue in academics, where a professor will plug your essay into an AI detector and then you get dinged for plagiarism because your entirely handwritten essay gets marked as AI. It's just glorified pattern matching, it has no concept of real or fake.
Nothing new in the helm of browsers. Pockets is a extension baked into the browser.
Many browsers have VPN/Ad Block native to the browser. Opera GX have all that bullshit that surprising can deceive a lot of normies to use it.
Sadly this type of bloat sells as "features" to some people and Mozilla gains users with it. Btw I'm not defending this practice I just seeing for what it is, marketing.
If Mozilla chasing the AI trend isn't bad enough, and their privacy policy doesn't hurt your soul, FakeSpot also only works on the biggest and most predatory platforms (Walmart and Amazon).
AI shit alone, I never understood the urge to build a whole OS in the browser. I want my browser to view websites. If I want more, then I can install extensions. I'd rather them release this as some sort of "official" extension. Might switch to LibreWolf (do you have any other suggestions?)
Firefox is committed to empowering you with information about review reliability while respecting your privacy. We use Oblivious HTTP (OHTTP) for Review Checker.
When Review Checker is turned on, we use information about the products you visit on Amazon, Best Buy and Walmart to analyze the reviews, but by using OHTTP we ensure Mozilla cannot link you or your device to the products you have viewed. OHTTP uses encryption and a third party intermediary server to offer a technical guarantee that this is the case: all Mozilla learns from this network request is that someone, somewhere, looked at a given product.
Basically, if you trust the OHTTP Proxy (mozilla) and the OHTTP service provider (fakespot) to not collude, then OHTTP protects your data.
If you think Mozilla and fakespot might collude, then this doesn't give you any privacy. (Update - Someone pointed out Mozilla has purchased fakespot, so this comes down to Trusting mozilla with 100% of your data for their privacy promise and OHTTP is totally pointless here)
Depends on your threat model.
If they actually cared about privacy they would have the OHTTP model, sure, but also a TOR hidden service endpoint that anyone could use as well ; Removing all the links between the user and the service shouldn't be a problem, since they are not monitizing user behavior, right? RIGHT?!?!?
Mozilla says they use a third-party OHTTP intermediary. In the blog post linked above, they name Fastly as their partner. So it's not as bad as Mozilla + Mozilla-wearing-funny-glasses.
Personally, I still think this is the wrong approach to privacy, even though I've used Fakespot on my own many times over the years. Largely because I don't think any of this needs to be built into a web browser.
I would prefer my web browser to minimize information leakage by default, to the greatest degree that it can while still remaining useful as a web browser. Mozilla keeps adding bloat to Firefox, and bloat always comes at a cost. I'd much prefer these to be browser extensions that people can download if they want them, rather than built in by default. The baseline Firefox should be lean. Less "stuff" = smaller attack surface. Simplicity is best.
I mean, the Fakespot browser extension has existed for a long time, and I've never seriously considered installing it. I'd much rather just take an extra three seconds to load their web site and paste in a URL than have it constantly monitoring my activity and doing god-knows-what with it. That way I have better knowledge and control of what is happening with my data. Even if I trust their intentions, I don't implicitly trust their competence (all software has bugs) and I don't trust that they will never go rogue in the future.
And also, I just don't find this claim all that compelling in principle:
By processing the data jointly across two independent parties, they ensure neither party holds the information required to reveal sensitive information about someone.
I mean...sure. That's fair. Buuuuuut handing half the data to your "partner" doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence. Especially since literally nobody reads all of the privacy policies they are subject to. See:
I don't trust Mozilla one single bit with my data as long as they have an advertising network enabled by default and use pingback telemetry for ALL actions you do in the browser by default that can only be turned off by changing multiple "hidden" about:config settings.
I actually use fakespot a lot, but will never install an add-on for this.
I got that notice a few months ago, but I didn't use either button on the bottom. I used the X on the top, and haven't seen it since.
<rant>I thought we were done with the age of Toolbars, but here we are, back there. An app or add-on for every damn thing. No, I don't want this integrated into my browser. No, I don't need your HTML5 app on my phone to do less than the webpage does. No, I don't want your spyware app to view the one-off Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram link a friend sends me. No, I don't mean 'maybe later', I mean 'no forever'.</rant>
The upside is that if you're ever prompted to install a thing to your browser to use a site's features, it's because the built-in sandbox is too restrictive for what they want. It's an immediate red flag.
I also view prompts to "use our (phone) app" the same way. I'm already seeing your site, in my browser, with ten different kinds of adblock and tampermonkey scripts running. I already have what I want, and I'm not letting you anywhere near my data plan.
But the thing is, most people don't think twice about it, and just go, "meh, why not, what's the harm?" and install it, which tells those scummy summersons that "we" want this, and they keep pushing it, and making their site more and more useless without it, to the point, where 'desktop view' no longer works (I'm looking at you, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, to name a few).
Nice. Thank you. For those who don't click the link, it appears you can disable by setting these flags:
browser.shopping.experience2023.active
and:
browser.shopping.experience2023.survey.enabled
To false.
EDIT: On finally getting back to my desktop and disabling these, it looks like there's a bunch of these browser.shopping.experience2023 flags. Some of them set to true, others false, I just set them all to false.
If someone wanted it, they could've installed the Firefox extension, but now for users who doesn't want this, they have an intrusive feature that is just a bloat. Also, even if I wanted it, it's fairly useless unless you live in western countries.
Different priorities for different people. The AI is what I really have an issue with right now. I'm sick of it being shoved down everyone's throats, and I have big ethical concerns about it in general.
Firefox was supposed to be a less bloated than chrome, but all they've done now is continued to add more and more to the browser that nobody actually asked for.
Give me bug fixes, UX and performance improvements, not entire sidebar popups for review checking that only works on 3 stores on the entire internet.
While true, it requires time and money to get a case before the court. Which most people don't have. If your rights require you to invest your time and money against a much larger adversarial party in court, then it's not your rights that are being protected in the first place. Right now Big Tech is more worried about us exercising our rights instead of being afraid of trampling on them in the first place.
Must be an easy world where anyone disagreeing with you has to always be a shill. Gets you around annoying concepts such as arguments, discussions or opinions.
I'm starting to worry about Mozilla. Firefox is still the best browser, and I've used it for many years... but there are more and more anti-features popping up that require a few settings to be changed. No one thing is a big deal, but I'm starting to feel the same way about Firefox as I did about Windows before I stopped using it: like it's just trying to trick me into doing something I don't want to do rather than aiming to be a good product.
I'm thinking specifically about the address bar getting 'search suggestions' from Google by default; and the special 'ad effectiveness tracking' that is turned on by default to help Facebook. Privacy should always be the default setting. We shouldn't have to keep up-to-date with the latest features and settings just so that we know what to disable!
Internet or other electronic network activity
(e.g., browsing history, search history, information regarding an individual's interaction with an internet website, application, or advertisement, and online viewing activities)
Category of Third Parties to Whom Personal Information is Sold and/or Shared: Advertising partners, Service providers
Just a snippet of the privacy policy. There's other bad stuff too like location tracking. It's also all ran through Google analytics.
I'm not opposed to the tool itself but they can fuck off with pushing it onto us. If I want to see the newest Firefox features I'll go the main site and find them.
You're saying that no remotely normal person would ever bother to download Fakespot free of charge if it wasn't pushed at them through obnoxious in-browser advertising? And how much did Mozilla pay for this thing?
I hope that Ladybirdy gets something good happening. I simply having a another browser in this space would give Mozilla a good sanity check for their direction and values. Otherwise they're just kind of fumbling around.
There are literal bots on Reddit with less complexity able to measure the likelihood of a story being reliable and truthful, with facts and fact checkers. They're not always right, they ARE useful though. Or were. Not sure about now, been over a year since I left.
If by reliably you mean 99% certainty of one particular review, yeah I wouldn't believe it either. 95% confidence interval of what proportion of a given page's reviews are bots, now that's plausible. If a human can tell if a review was botted you can certainly train a model to do so as well.
What do you mean by "this stuff?" Machine learning models are a fundamental part of spam prevention, have been for years. The concept is just flipping it around for use by the individual, not the platform.