It _really_ bugs me that pocket isn't packaged as a pre-installed extension, that you can uninstall normally.

I'd up vote you more than once if I could.

Originally when Firefox was released it was the antidote to browser forced add ons that were common at the time. I have vague recollections of Netscape Navigator having whole sections of what was essentially ads forced in the browser menu.

I don't like Pocket being built in, as it should be a browser add on. It also sets precedence. It starts the chain of thought - "Well Firefox has Pocket, so lets add backed in thing X too". I wish it wasn't baked it as it goes against the whole of Firefox's original philosophy of being light weight and everything else an add on.

I'm in the same boat - I like Pocket, but I don't think it should be built-in to Firefox. I don't see the issue with making it an extension/plugin.

I have pocket disabled and I don't see any pocket stuff in Firefox.

But you can disable it quite easily:

about:config -> extensions.pocket.enabled: false

i would find it very surprising if more than 2 or 3% of firefox users have ever used about:config at all

that's not 'easy' for most people.

I don't see anyone complaining that Safari has a built-in Reader feature. Safari even has "Siri Suggestions" almost identical to this Firefox experiment. Pocket has been acquired by Mozilla, so it's not a 3rd party feature any more. It's really no different.

It seems that some people are just used to hating Pocket as if it was some kind of tradition.

People are mostly hating the advertising on the New Page from Pocket, not Pocket itself these days.

EDIT: Here's a screenshot of the feature specifically that people dislike these days: https://imgur.com/a/p2rD4AY

While it can be disabled, it can be said that people are a bit annoyed that the browser that is "Privacy Focused" is shoving ads down your throat. While we as technical users can figure out how to disable it easily (in the preferences), the less technically inclined might not know that they can be disabled.

Advertising, tracking, and privacy are three separate concerns. We conflate them due to the way current advertising networks work: they track you, storing + analyzing the data in centralized servers (which violates your privacy), to deliver ads.

You can deliver ads without tracking (for example, contextually based upon the page you are looking at, without any storage of that information or historical state.) And you can track users without violating their privacy (by not sending the data to a remote server and only analyzing it locally.) So in general, it's certainly possible to be able to preserve a user's privacy while also be monetizing your product through advertising.

Now of course, most people dislike ads, which is a separate issue. But advertising is not inherently a violation of privacy, at least if you see privacy through the lens of surveillance by a third party. (You could stretch the definition of privacy to a point where seeing ads I suppose could be privacy violating, but I don't feel my privacy is being violated when I see a billboard on the highway, for example.)

Advertising is an issue of user autonomy and a user's security in their autonomy. Users don't want to see ads. A browser that is supposed to be "for the users" shouldn't have its main screen be something that their users specifically do not want.

For most of us, adware is a type of malware. For Mozilla, they have a tradeoff between user autonomy and cash flow. They can at least say that the bad things they do are because of the sacks of cash and not for any positive user "experience." Lying about it makes it worse, not better.

Aside from ads, there is the issue that Firefox comes with backdoors (see Mr. Robot ad) and spyware (see telemetry that can't be opted out of.)

Which bits of telemetry can't be opted out of? I've set at least a hundred things in my about:config to tamp down on it but I'm never quite sure I've got all of them.

I'm one of those "don't mind ads, do mind privacy intrusions" crowd. I'd be perfectly willing to turn off my adblocker for good if only advertisers would be willing to turn off their tracking and scripts and stick to only serving up JPEG banners.

Alas, that's not likely. So I do what I can to use web services ethically - pay for services where possible (like Fastmail), whitelist when a site owner seems to be using ethical non-tracking ads, donate where appropriate (like open source developers looking for help with hosting fees).

the data can be processed locally, but when my browser says, “get me the ad about debt relief”, it's leaking private info. that's why contextual ads are always better.

If you follow the "How it works" link, they state that everyone is sent the same set of ads. Your local browser chooses what to recommend from that set. I was happy to see they designed it in a privacy-conscious manner.

It's a 1 click option to disable sponsored stories In the Settings>Home page, and on the desktop, the setting falls right in the middle of the screen, so it's not hidden away.

And you can also use a single click to disable Pocket suggestions entirely.

I honestly don't see any reason to complain there.

Mozilla killed a private Reading List feature and replaced it with Pocket. They carefully denied getting paid for the integration before eventually revealing that they got paid for new subscriptions. They promised to open source Pocket when they acquired it and still haven't.

What Mozilla calls "the best of Pocket's content" is ads and articles that border on clickbait. Some people don't like marketing doublespeak.

Genuine question,so which option do you recommend for linux/windows

You can turn off the ads and clickbait. I still like Firefox more than other browsers. I still trust Mozilla more than other companies. I just think people have legitimate complaints.

I'm even OK with this feature, just not with the we're shipping a new “New Tab” page experience that connects you to the best of... drone-speak T_T

Yeah, the best New Tab experience is about:blank.

I'm usually in agreement with that, but I admit I've found the occasional article that drew my attention from Firefox's new tab page. Maybe once every week or two over that last couple months. That may or may not be enough to justify its existence (for me, at least), but it's not nothing. I obviously got some value out of it.

I am 100% team blank tab.

When I open a new tab, I am "on task" - I have a problem that needs answering and the last thing I want is any distraction. Everything from news articles, todo lists or witty quotes is counter-productive to staying on task. It's almost the worst possible time to be shoving some unrequested content into my face to break concentration and pull me in the wrong direction.

Yeah, I get so much value from Pocket that I even switched from Instapaper.

It's not Pocket that's the problem, it's the gross attempted force-feeding (that just makes me want to try some other browser like Brave (not an endorsement, just what I personally would investigate next)).

How about, instead of "we plastered all this shit from the crap we bought onto every single browser window you henceforth open, you mindless peon!": how about they did some promo graphic and well-done animated enticement, along the lines of, "Hey! Pocket has tons of subscribers who upvote the most meaningful and relevant stories to them — how about we replace your blank homepage with the best of the best?"

But instead they're just like EAT THIS SHIT PLEEB and you know what fuck it I did just switch my default browser while typing this. :middle-finger-emoji-that-HNs-1970s-site-generator-isnt-compatible-with:

Reminds me of when a musician onstage yells for you to MAKE SOME NOOOIISE!! Um no, the deal is, you be up there and be really good, and fill me with such delight that I can't keep quiet and make a bunch of nooooiise.

Last time I installed Brave, the new tab page had a link to a cryptocurrency news site (probably a paid placement).

If you want the least-gross behavior, it's not going to come from a for-profit startup.

Maybe not, but it seems to be the least annoying right now.

I've never seen it show me an ad (including paid placement type ads) so far. I guess if they junked up their new tab page with intrusive encouragement to start using Brave Rewards and Basic Attention Token (BAT) then that would sort of be the equivalent of what Firefox is doing...

It doesn't block ads very well for me on iOS, and it's really buggy and unstable. My Firefox experience is excellent on every device that supports it. It's unfortunate and frustrating that all iOS browsers are just Safari.

"you know what fuck it I did just switch my default browser while typing this. :middle-finger-emoji"

Hell yeah! Stick it to the man! Totally consume that content with a different browser!

Could you share why you prefer Pocket to Instapaper?

maximalism: maximizing the amount of stuff you have with hopes of getting SOME value out of them.

minimalism: minimalizing the amount of stuff you have with hopes of getting LOTS of value out of them.

If that's what best for you, its trivial to change it in about:preferences (in the "Home" section). What's "best" for everybody is hard to define, I would bet that Mozilla has studied this significantly more than Grue3 has.

I love how you're unquestionably endorsing studies whos motivations are unclear. Best for who? Users? Mozilla? And to what end? Usability? Profit?

i dunno, i liked the old one that had the frequently visited sites list in it. the new one that insists on showing me some article i read and then finished confuses me tho.

Also they promised to open source Pocket in 2017, but seem to have zero intention of doing it.

Instead, they prioritize controversial integration into the browser itself.

>Also they promised to open source Pocket in 2017, but seem to have zero intention of doing it.

Zero intention of doing so or just have yet to do so? Did they say they were no longer considering the option?

It's been 2 years. They have no specific plans to release the server code.[1] They won't say what's been done or has to be done.

[1] https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75

On a software product note, "Pocket", the client-side product that does local-only interest analysis so it can get a full list of interesting articles from the server, and then locally filter out all the stuff you probably don't care about, is not "the server application that accepts volutary user submission analysis to determine what goes on the API response list with which categories".

No one ever talked about open sourcing the service that the pocket client relies on, as far as I can remember.

The main function of Pocket is saving pages to read later. Did Pocket even have client side recommendations when Mozilla acquired it?

Mozilla's claimed principles include privacy, interoperability, and free and open source software.[1]

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

1. Is it possible to use the open source Pocket client built into Firefox with any other server, e.g. by specifying another domain name in about:config?

2. Is there an open source implementation of compatible server software, that you could use to run your own server?

The answers to these questions will tell you whether Pocket is open source.

I had enough to wait for Pocket to be released in open source.

What the hell is "the best of Pocket's content"? I switched to FireFox to avoid stuff like this.

It's a bit annoying if you don't need it, but can be hidden/disabled.

It's a low impact way to support Firefox.

Mozilla / Firefox owns Pocket.

You are literally correct, but that doesn't answer the question at all.

Yeah, doing that last mile in your head is left as an excersise to the reader.

Question is: why is it still 'marketed' seperately?

It still has extensions and apps for every major browser and platform. They want more people to use it and buy premium subscriptions to support Mozilla and make them less dependent on search engine revenue.

Say what you will about Firefox, but they do make it super easy to disable this nonsense.

- Options -> Home -> Firefox Home Content -> Uncheck everything

I personally leave "Web Search" enabled, which gives a Chrome-like/minimalist experience.

Good advice. I just figured this out on my own, and thought it was reasonably easy enough. (You can also fiddle in about:config or click on the hamburger menu in about:home)

Switch to a privacy-friendly search engine like DuckDuckGo while you're at it.

Even on Android, I was confused by a list of spam "news" on the home page in Firefox 68.0.2.

To disable it: Settings, General, Home, Top Sites, disable "Recommended by Pocket".

Oh my god they are still going with this Pocket thing. Firefox is a perfect example of the paradox of plenty.

about:config; search pocket; delete api keys, disable stuff, be happy

Thanks for the tip!

Curious over what it does. This seems to be the meta bug tracking this : https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1535711 . There are lot of linked issues and there is no clear description over this behavior. Can someone add in a link?

Someone teach Mozilla how to file a proper bug report.

It's completely optional.

I've had this for a long time, so I don't know why it's being presented as a new option.

I do think Mozilla managed the Pocket acquisition poorly (relative to the standards I would expect Mozilla to hold itself to...other companies do far worse without being criticized, but that's irrelevant...I used Firefox when it sucked because of the greater trust I placed in Mozilla) but since then they've done a decent job, considering it's their version of the read it later features every other browser has.

the new tab page is the first thing i replace after installing ublock origin:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/yet-another-s...

You can achieve the same effect without installing any addon. Visit about:preferences#home

Uncheck everything except Top sites.

the speed dial extension can do screenshots for thumbnails. and if you care about aesthetics at all it looks much nicer :)

disable in about:config:

  extensions.pocket.enabled -> false