You know Pocket is owned by Mozilla right? They were planning to include a similar feature and decided it was easier to use an exciting product. And they only included EME after losing a years-long fight against it.

> You know Pocket is owned by Mozilla right?

That does not make it any better. So what if they did finally release the sources for the plugin (only took them a year or two to do). They have not released the server component. They are also using it to push ADs that I don't want. I should not have to toggle 50 different things and remove a bunch of stuff before I can use Firefox and then the next update undoes all of that.

That is annoying but not what I would call toxic. And yes I trust Mozilla not to hand my data over because they've worked to earn that trust. Anyway who would they hand it to?

Pocket is a great product. It's not perfect, but I enjoy using it.

How is it great if I don't have the freedom to run my own server. Do you really trust that Mozilla won't hand over your browsing history and saved pages?

Whats your specific concern? Handing over data to a government, or handing it over for commercial purposes?

*existing

There's value in your comment, but please try to tone it down and not take it too far.

So, criticizing Mozilla is not allowed or using strong language to drive a point? If anything, my original comment did not go far enough. All of the people here helped to kill Internet freedom and the Web. Civil discussion is only allowed if certain organizations/topics are not on the table and their malicious actions just get brushed off like it is no big deal. I was a huge supporter of Mozilla (Project/Foundation) and gave lots of money to support them. As each issue came up, I was brushed off as a crazy loon whose opinion has no merit or weight. Flagging and censorship seems to be the tool of the day to ease the pain of having to deal with an unpopular opinion. As my final and last post to this Brogrammer circle jerk, I leave with this:

First they came for the CEO because he used personal funds to support things that we did not agree with and I spoke out in support of him as a gay man because Free Speech is important. Then they came for the browser, because they believe in a "Free and Open Web"..."Privacy".."Truth":

* EME (can't have a Free and Open web without DRM) * Pocket (just save pages with this non-free service in the cloud, trust us...we care about privacy) * Studies (pushed a malicious plugin that you were not suppose to know about) * Cloudflare DNS (TRR) (we must ignore all system DNS settings at all cost because we trust CloudFlare) * telemetry (we can't trust the user really wants to disable it) * Ministry of Truth [1] (everyone trusts Mozilla to be the gatekeeper)

The laundry list of things keeps growing and these issues fall on deaf ears. "Well, you can fork...change things" I should not have to maintain my own fork of a now shitty browser just so that malicious features are removed or stay turned off.

Hacker News was the last and final place on the Web that I go and participate. I dumped Facebook 8 years ago and I have been kicked off of Reddit (remember when Snowden news articles from mainstream sources were banned from r/technology?). I guess my best bet is to move to an island so I don't trigger or bother the fine folks of Hacker News / YCombinator...

[1] The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative : http://archive.is/jcJWg

Not only Mozilla, but also most other web browser software is terrible. I currently use an old version of Firefox (with many hacks, including configuration changes in about:config, CSS and JavaScript codes, hex editing binaries, changing SQL schemas, changes to file permissions, and more), but wrote about many idea how to make better software than all of the existing ones. I design by the principles such as:

* Assume the user knows what they are doing, and really mean to override anything. Do not try to outguess the user.

* By default, assume that the remote server (and the data received from the remote server) is hostile (even if it is HTTPS).

* You have enough ropes to hang yourself, and also a few more just in case.

* Make every program a filter.

As I wrote, I see interesting and valuable points in your comments above. But I think the apparent commonality and prevalence of outrage in recent times starts to grow boring on me, and it's hard for me to keep reasonable respect to users of it, I'm afraid. I'm finding armchair critique cheap and easy. While trying to do something constructive is so much harder, as one opens oneself to inconsiderate, authoritative condemnation on any slightest imperfection.

I think your language is overly combative, but I appreciate you bringing to my attention this Mozilla initiative. It's clear from that article and this report [1] that Mozilla is supporting the building of web tools to suppress speech. They may repeatedly stress the value of free speech, but tackling "hate speech", "fake news", and promoting "inclusivity" will take precedent. Of course, once the tools are created, these definitions will expand and become political weapons to silence speech.

The author of your linked article, Katharina Borchert, is clearly a far-left progressive activist based on her twitter feed [2]. She is also the "Chief Open Innovation Officer" at Mozilla and formerly the CEO of Spiegel Online. She retweets Sleeping Giants [3], a progressive activist organization which orchestrates campaigns to bully corporate entities into silencing right-wing outlets. It's not surprising that a former journalist will look at the internet climate and come to the conclusion that people need to be sheltered from alternative media and inaccurate reporting, while ignoring the fact that the trust in mainstream media is at an all-time low.

Knowing that this person and her values are at the helm of Mozilla is disappointing. The fact that they're trying to integrate technology into the browser which may ultimately be seized by organizations like Sleeping Giants to control online speech is terrifying.

I think Net Neutrality has been a colossal ruse in a power struggle between Silicon Valley and the ISPs. The tech giants warn of a hypothetical threat posed by ISPs, all while showing signs of how dangerously unchecked their own power is. They act like they're sticking up for the small businesses, when in all actuality, repealing Net Neutrality probably makes small businesses more competitive. They warn about how power would keep getting consolidated, when their modus operandi is to snatch up every startup the second it shows promise.

[1] https://internethealthreport.org/2018/

[2] https://twitter.com/lyssaslounge

[3] https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1046944600152129536