[HN Gopher] Mozilla introduces paid add-ons review, called "Prom...
___________________________________________________________________
Mozilla introduces paid add-ons review, called "Promoted add-ons"
Author : ameshkov
Score : 97 points
Date : 2020-09-09 18:23 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.mozilla.org)
| TimLeland wrote:
| This sounds like a good idea. I was lucky to get my Weather
| Extension listed as a recommended extension. There is extra work
| involved and the code reviews are strict. I plan on submitting my
| Link Shortener extension to see if I can get it promoted.
| shahsyed wrote:
| This is the exact same thing they said they wouldn't do, and now
| they're doing it.
|
| This is very unfortunate. I'm not liking how the future is
| looking here. Fired a bunch of people, then announce a
| partnership with Google, and now this.
| random_dork1 wrote:
| > This is the exact same thing they said they wouldn't do.
|
| Please explain. Your comment is very negative with 0 reasoning.
| lykr0n wrote:
| The company needs money. They're the only browser out there not
| directly controlled by Google & Apple.
| beervirus wrote:
| Step 1: fire everybody who isn't a programmer.
|
| Step 2: budget problem is solved.
| acdha wrote:
| Step 3: learn the hard way why companies founded by nerds
| who are dismissive of entire other professions tend to go
| out of business even faster
| aninteger wrote:
| Do they though?
|
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-
| go...
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Yes. It's unwise to depend on a sole source of income.
| ffpip wrote:
| I don't think browsers can make money so easily, except
| in the case of Opera which started collecting browsing
| history to show full page ads.
| addicted wrote:
| When did they say they wouldn't do that?
|
| I am not seeing the big concern around promoting paid ads on
| the add on site assuming they are clearly marked as such.
|
| That's how they've made money since the beginning except it was
| ads on all searches, and it was google doing the infrastructure
| work for them.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I don't understand what exactly it means to be reviewed. I have
| an addon and they review every time I update it. [1] I provide
| them with source code, and they often have issues with this or
| that, and we make changes to satisfy them.
|
| If this isn't reviewing, what is? It makes it seem like this new
| program is less about actually reviewing (which they already do)
| and more about pushing for advertising revenue. That's a fair
| thing to do, but it's weird to frame it as if reviewing isn't
| already happening.
|
| 1: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/beelinereader...
| edjrage wrote:
| The second paragraph of the article answers your question.
| Recommended extensions go through a stricter review and, if
| approved, are then "prominently recommended on AMO and other
| Mozilla channels". Mozilla has been doing this curation "for
| free" and at their own discretion; now they're adding a paid
| "shortcut" for anyone whose extensions are under their radar.
| loraa wrote:
| They are runs by SJWs now so what do you expect?
| ffpip wrote:
| More extensions need to be reviewed. This seems like a good way
| to do it. I only install recommended or community promoted
| addons, since I am not capable of reviewing the code.
| pkaye wrote:
| What is the difficulty in accepting payment from more countries.
| Don't most of the payment providers like Stripe support a broad
| range of countries.
| netsharc wrote:
| If you take money in exchange for services in a country, then
| you have to deal with taxes and regulations of that country...
| the_duke wrote:
| There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store.
|
| Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like
| the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty
| small (<= 1000).
|
| The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the
| add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are
| probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not
| promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers
| trying to always appear above Ublock Origin.
|
| It will be detrimental to open source/hobby add-ons in general,
| unless Mozilla includes those in the review program for free.
|
| Overall, I can't see how this will bring in any considerable
| amount of revenue, not even considering the labour cost of manual
| review. At least while keeping shady actors out.
|
| I can imagine this just to be an effort to balance out the costs
| of curating the store, while still bringing in a bit of
| additional money.
|
| I'm tentatively supportive, assuming they provide free reviews
| for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the
| promotions they allow.
| jngonsfip wrote:
| > the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement
| are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should
| not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad
| blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin.
|
| The whole point is for people to pay to have their add-on
| manually vetted by Firefox staff to verify that it meets the
| recommendation standards. As the article says, this process is
| repeated regularly to account for updates.
|
| > I'm tentatively supportive, IF they provide free reviews for
| non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the
| promotions they allow. No mention of this in the announcement
| though...
|
| This is already how it works, every recommended add-on has been
| manually reviewed. The article says that they will use this to
| expand the reviewing process, not to replace it. They also say,
| "During the pilot program, these services will be provided to a
| small number of participants without cost." The extent of the
| two promotional "levels" are clearly outlined as well.
|
| This is just a way for companies to get their add-ons on the
| fast track to wide adoption by having them reviewed for policy
| compliance and, if they choose to pay more, added to a
| promotional section to increase visibility. The Twitter-style
| hot take to find a flaw right away is not warranted.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| It does create a conflict of interest, and a significant risk
| that at some point greed will win - compare e.g. AdBlock Plus
| that started with the "acceptable ads" program and then
| allowed the worst of clickbait (Taboola & Co.) despite heavy
| user complaints.
|
| On the other hand, it also provides an opportunity to have a
| _trusted_ addon ecosystem. If the price is reasonable,
| popular free addons can collect it through donations, and in
| exchange, users can be sure that the addons were actually
| reviewed.
|
| Could even be a great way to generate revenue. Have two
| versions of the addon. One is free. One costs $1/year but is
| reviewed. Same addon. I know which one I'd pick (for myself
| and all relatives). Mozilla and the addon dev can split the
| revenue 50:50.
| ghostpepper wrote:
| This was my first thought as well. Best case scenario this
| takes off and now Mozilla becomes dependent on the money. Now
| they can't afford to do do anything that will upset their
| customers, who are now the people who pay them to review their
| add-ons.
|
| I don't see how any amount of explanation and good intention
| can outweigh a fundamental conflict of interest.
| random_dork1 wrote:
| Fair point about comercial vs open and non-commercial, but
| until we see what Mozilla actually does, I wouldn't choose the
| pessimistic view. I can imagine why not all details are
| addressed here. Seems like big part of the community is very
| negative towards Mozilla and for sure they extremely careful
| with what they say and what they promise.
| bsaul wrote:
| There is definitely another way to look at it:
|
| Having mozilla people review your add on so that they
| officially say it is << safe >> from tracking, malware, privacy
| intrusion, etc.
| Gys wrote:
| Maybe a first step of turning the add-ons into a kind of paid app
| store? Worked well for some others ;-)
|
| If eventually some kind of payments would be possible, Forefox
| could transform into a kind of platform and bring completely new
| possibilities.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| It's the opposite of a paid app store. Instead of users paying
| to download apps, developers are paying to list them.
| Gys wrote:
| Apple and Google require a fee just to register. It is also
| possible to pay them for more exposure.
|
| Just saying this might only be a first step. Tipping their
| toes, see what is possible. Might work out differently. Or
| not at all, or the same ;-)
| hartator wrote:
| I don't fully understand the positivity here. Isn't Firefox sell
| itself as a non-profit?
| marsrover wrote:
| I think the positivity comes from the fact that Mozilla has
| struggled to survive since its inception and is generally a
| good company.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Except when they fired basically all their talent. I don't
| really have any love for them after this.
|
| Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.
| leeoniya wrote:
| if they asked their advanced users to pitch in $10/mo to
| keep at least some of that talent and to ween off google
| revenue, i doubt any of us would have had issues. but they
| did the most absurd thing possible :(
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Haven't they been asking for that for years?
| leeoniya wrote:
| it has always been impossible to donate directly for
| firefox or any specific mozilla initiative. any donations
| just got black-holed with questionable sideshow shit
| continuing to happen. i stopped donating at that point;
| that's not how i want to "vote with my wallet".
|
| really bummed about the whole thing.
| random_dork1 wrote:
| > Except when they fired basically all their talent. That
| is an extreme exaggeration. From firing about 25% of their
| workforce, to 'basically all their talent' is a looong way.
|
| > Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.
| Please fork their software and start one. If you are
| successful, I will say I always believed in you, if not, I
| will say that you should've always been structured as a
| social purpose corporation
| asddubs wrote:
| non-profit doesn't mean non-revenue
| coldtea wrote:
| Yeah, what will help live up a moribund (share wise) browser
| platform better than paid add-ons?
| bartvk wrote:
| I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a
| shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States,
| Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or
| Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept
| payment from these countries"
|
| I've got two extensions which I'm really fond of: "I don't care
| about cookies" (1), and its paid version "No thanks" (2). The
| creator, Daniel, lives in Croatia and thus they won't be able to
| join this program. I hope the country limitation is lifted soon.
|
| 1) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-
| care-a...
|
| 2) https://www.no-thanks-extension.com/
| Cyphase wrote:
| That whole bullet point reads as follows:
|
| > You (or your company) must be based in the United States,
| Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia,
| or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept
| payment from these countries. (If you're interested in
| participating but live outside these regions, please sign up to
| join the waitlist. We're currently looking into how we can
| expand to more countries.)
|
| Specifically note the last sentence.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Well, the pilot program will only include 12 addons, so it's
| highly unlikely that any individual creator will actually get
| into the pilot.
| leecb wrote:
| Perhaps users in one of the accepted countries might be willing
| to pay for the review as a way of supporting the plugin? I
| definitely would be willing to contribute (directly /
| indirectly) to support review of plugins that I use.
| feanaro wrote:
| A bit of a tangent, but I noticed the developer says this on
| the website:
|
| > By using it, you explicitly allow websites to do whatever
| they want with cookies they set on your computer (which they
| mostly do anyway, whether you allow them or not).
|
| Taking GDPR into account, this seems wrong, since GDPR enforces
| opt-in, not opt-out. Therefore, a notification only gives you
| an opportunity to opt in and blocking the notification should
| leave the website with no permissions.
| ffpip wrote:
| GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide
| it.
|
| Sites like Facebook and Ghacks automatically opt you in if
| you start scrolling down, because they said they would do
| this in the banner they show. You didn't read it, because you
| were blocking it with the extension.
|
| The dev is just trying to save himself from silly lawsuits.
| feanaro wrote:
| > GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you
| hide it.
|
| Do you have a source on this? I'm pretty certain this right
| is not dependent on reading the banner nor even the
| existence of a banner.
| PeterisP wrote:
| The only thing that a banner "by scrolling down you opt in
| to something" means according to GDPR is that the people
| who wrote that banner are liars.
|
| Quoting GDPR definitions (Art 4.12), ''consent' of the data
| subject means any freely given, specific, informed and
| unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes [..]'.
|
| If the site owner wants to assert that the user provided
| consent, it's up to them to demonstrate that they fulfilled
| _all_ these criteria. If they assert that a particular
| action (e.g. scrolling in this case) indicates consent,
| then they have the burden of proof to convince the
| regulator or the court that the action was _unambiguous_ ,
| that it's clear that reasonable people would only take that
| action with the intent to opt-in, and not because of some
| unrelated reason such as wanting to read the content below.
| The legality of various opt-in 'dark patterns' has been
| tested in EU courts already before GDPR, and it's not
| considered legally valid if it systematically misrepresents
| the actual user intent and wishes.
|
| The appropriateness of any technical measure can be
| trivially tested with a user survey - get 100 random people
| to use the site for 5 minutes, and after the "opt in"
| action is completed, ask them whether they know that they
| "opted in", whether they know to _what_ they opted in, and
| whether they really intended to opt in or not - and if not,
| then your method for "collecting consent" does not work
| and the things you recorded - actions, clicks, even
| physical signatures in a 'meatspace' setting - do not give
| you any legal permission whatsoever, they're meaningless.
|
| The one thing they can do with that banner and scrolling is
| to cover their _information_ requirements, where they have
| the right to do some thing even if the user disagrees (much
| less opts in), but they are required to notify the users
| that they are doing that thing. But there it makes all
| sense that the user can choose to delete that banner if
| they want to, it 's like the notifications in supermarkets
| that they have cameras - they're required to display them,
| but the users don't need to read them if they don't care.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I really hope that courts start striking down the various
| non-compliant banners _and_ DPAs are secretly making a
| list and will start fining the shit out of them.
|
| The law is pretty clear, nobody should be surprised that
| their banners are non-compliant.
| ffpip wrote:
| FYI, you don't need another extension for the 'Don't care about
| cookies'
|
| Go to the home page and click the 'AdBlock Plus' link to add to
| uBlock Origin - https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/
|
| 1 less addon with access to all sites you visit.
|
| To remove cookie banners permanently on lesser known sites,
| follow this 30 second guide by the dev -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o
| Forbo wrote:
| I had no idea about the blocklist approach, thanks for
| bringing this up!
| lukaa wrote:
| Yes, this addon looks like repackaging and selling someone
| others open source work. I'm really not sorry for that
| author.
| ffpip wrote:
| It has some extra features. i don't think it is a
| repackage.
|
| You can do those with uBlock Origin, but users don't want
| to mess with extensions and want extensions to work out of
| the box, so they install many extensions leading to malware
| and privacy issues.
| bartvk wrote:
| That's a pretty hefty statement that really needs more than
| just you thinking so, in my opinion.
| lukaa wrote:
| That's why I said ''It looks like'' not ''It is''. When
| you have Ublock this really looks unnecessary.
| ufedvjot13467 wrote:
| Ublock is the one that was swiped from the original
| creator's hands under the guise of maintenance support
| while the original creator's time was scarce.
|
| Ublock origin is the one to use, and is maintained by the
| original creator.
|
| I'd link to sources, but it's too easy for me to cherry
| pick... I'd recommend looking around to see if what you
| find corroborates with what I've stated.
| anoncake wrote:
| I bet they're going to make bribing Mozilla a condition to get on
| the whitelist for mobile Firefox. Which explains why it exists.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Seems like a reasonable choice to bring in some revenue and also
| scale up their extension review team. I personally prefer to
| trust an app almost solely based on the permissions it asks for,
| but many of the "Recommend Extensions" have wider permissions,
| and I suppose the fact that Mozilla has reviewed them comforts me
| a bit.
|
| The fact that Mozilla will only promote/market extensions which
| have been reviewed by humans for security and privacy issues is a
| big step up over pretty much everyone else.
| 1024core wrote:
| Mozilla makes a gazillion dollars from Google for being the
| default search engine. They get free labor from volunteers all
| over the world, being OSS and all that. So what do they need
| extra money for??
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Because a single source of income (Google) isn't smart for
| anyone. And the more money is involved (in this case, a
| gazillion), the worse it is to do so. What if Google just one
| day decides to not renew their contract? Mozilla'll be out a
| gazillion dollars a year.
| ChrisSD wrote:
| Mozilla gets a few hundred million from Google. This may sound
| like a lot to you but it's pocket change to Google. They spend
| way more on their own browser as well as getting "free labor
| from volunteers".
|
| There's a reason there's now so few independent browser
| engines.
| throwaway2048 wrote:
| A lot of it has to do with how much parties like Google have
| driven up the complexity of web standards.
| dageshi wrote:
| In the old days we used to complain about Microsoft for not
| keeping up with standards and holding the web back.
|
| We can't have it both ways.
| bartvk wrote:
| Aren't you painting it a bit as an either-or situation?
| It's clear to me that Google is moving towards a web
| where the browser basically discloses all OS-level APIS
| on the Javascript level.
|
| But browser makers can pick and choose what they want to
| implement. And we end users can pick the browers we like.
| franga2000 wrote:
| > But browser makers can pick and choose what they want
| to implement. And we end users can pick the browers we
| like.
|
| Unfortunately that doesn't actually work like that in
| practice. We don't get to pick all of the websites we use
| and we certainly don't get to pick which APIs their
| developers use to make them. This in turn limits both
| your freedom to choose the browser you want and the
| browser vendor's freedom to choose what to implement.
|
| As fun as it is to blame Google for the fall of the open
| Web, a big part of the blame lies with the developers
| that use those APIs without regard for their status.
| PCChris wrote:
| Mozilla files IRS form 990 ("Return of Organization Exempt From
| Income Tax") annually due to their nonprofit status. This can
| be found at the bottom of their "State of Mozilla 2018" annual
| report [1] and contains some details about their financials (as
| of November, 2019 at least). The linked page itself also
| contains some information about how Mozilla Corporation and
| Mozilla Foundation are structured and operate.
|
| [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-09 23:00 UTC)