>> improving Mozilla’s existing products and services

>> creating and developing new products

I agree that these are concerning. They seem out of place. If you want to start a petition asking Mozilla to clarify and/or remove these clauses, I would sign it.

I almost opened an issue on their GitHub[1] (one of their privacy-related documents invites people to "call them on it" if you have privacy concerns) but I decided against it because I worried about harassment from sleuthing HN readers finding me on other platforms. Such are the compromises you make as a lady on the internet sometimes.

[1]https://github.com/mozilla-rally

>but I decided against it because I worried about harassment from sleuthing HN readers finding me on other platforms. Such are the compromises you make as a lady on the internet sometimes.

You make it easy for the internet assholes to do this to you. If your HN username is your real name that is a really big problem for your privacy. Your occupation is stated in your profile. Likewise, stating your sex might as well be your privacy's death knell.

Become more anonymous to provide less ammunition to those with nothing more to do than torment others, then continue doing the things you feel are the right things to do without excuse.

I've been interneting-while-woman for three decades now so of course my username isn't my real name. But (like most developers) my GitHub includes my real name, my photo, and my company, hence my hesitation. I have to wonder, though... are you as quick to chastise the "internet assholes" you see harassing women online as you were to chastise me for having the audacity to admit my gender online?

That wasn't chastising you. I don't know you so there was no way I could have known how long you've been on the internet nor your depth in experience in identity within it. I was attempting to point out some of the bigger factors feeding into your complaint, regarding the potential of people harassing you, with the intent of no more than to bring attention to something you may have overlooked, as humans tend to do sometimes.

You're being combative for no reason so I'll leave it here but, in the future, don't always assume malice.

I see both sides here. On the whole, I think both people are trying to contribute and help in their own ways.

Some more specific comments:

> You're being combative for no reason so I'll leave it here but, in the future, don't always assume malice.

Saying "no reason" doesn't ring true to me. What one person considers to be (valid) reasons is subjective. In my view, 'reasons' includes a person's identity and experiences.

With that in mind, how do you think this alternative message would have been received... ?

"It was not my intention to chastise you. I meant well in offering some ways to reduce the chances that trolls come after you. Please don't assume malice. I'm happy to listen if you have suggestions on how I could communicate the message more effectively."

I don’t think it’s in any way “combative” to point out that I am indeed competent and capable of interacting with the online world safely without the assistance patronizing of strangers on the internet. And, whether your intention or not, that’s exactly what your comment was: patronizing. With undertones of “well what did you think would happen when you present yourself in such a way”. Whether you’re willing to admit it or not, comments like yours aren’t helpful — they’re part of the problem.

I'd suggest looking up the "principle of charity".

Additionally, claiming the self-perceived "undertones" as "the real truth" vs clearly (and reasonably) stated (subsequent) stance/explanation indeed is confrontative, at best. In my opinion and experience.

When X claims they know better what was the intent or tone of Y's message when Y is already there precisely elaborating... X has to be realistic, admit no prior knowledge of Y (nor their idiosyncrasies, nor their style of communication), be aware of the limitations of the medium (no voice tone, no body language), and take things at face value as written (and/or ask for explanation/further details in neutral and a non-confrontational way). Y has to do the same. It really is the only way that maintains functionality of the conversation.

(Also, forseeing a potential conflict: X and Y has nothing to do with bio-sex, it just signifies two unknowns.)

At least, that's the self-defined framework I use, as a probably somewhat autistic/ADHD person (people confuse and frustrate me to no end).

Well said.

This is quite similar to a concept in psychology called Theory of Mind (ToM):

> Theory of mind as a personal capability is the understanding that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.

I have a theory: It is relatively more difficult for people who have faced adversity (whether it be from systemic bias and/or personal situations) to make unemotional assessments when conditions relate to those adverse situations.

@I have a theory:

I would agree, in principle and mostly in practice. However, if one knows better, then they must also know that the same "better" can be done. It is hard, yes, and it takes practice, but is achievable. Exposure therapy of sorts helps immensely. And, if/when feeling overwhelmed, simply ask for a recess and postponement of the discussion. I call it "processing time", and it usually takes a few days, or even longer. I call upon it, when I sense it is required (on my and other side, too).

I also try to familiarize the other side with my own (aforementioned) communication style and idiosyncrasies. I'd say we all seek to at least not be misunderstood, if understanding (in sense of the agreement) is not possible... and being frank and upfront about it - helps.

> And, whether your intention or not, that’s exactly what your comment was: patronizing.

E: Not quite. You perceived the comment as patronizing. This is not a universal assessment. From my point of view, I didn't find it patronizing. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong; I'm simply saying it is far from clear cut.

Here is one definition of patronizing that I find useful:

> apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending

You may think that someone else feels superior to you. That is your assessment, I respect that, and I'll listen. At the same time, it is subjective and is uncertain, because your knowledge is incomplete.

The principle of charity is useful here. I hope you can see alternative interpretations that show N does not perceive himself as superior. In particular, their commentary, in my view, is by and large very thoughtful, with the exception of a few sharp edges (which everyone has). From what I can tell, N's edgier comments came out because they felt attacked.

That's the pattern I see here. A person feels attacked and their communication becomes less charitable and even abrasive. At least two people fell into this trap in this thread. As a community, we don't benefit when this happens, but this is human nature.

The solutions are not easy. In my view, we should try to observe, be thoughtful, and attempt to deescalate tensions. I believe a vast majority of people are here for positive reasons and have plenty to learn from each other.

Now that's just nuts.

I can understand that some people may disagree with and/or not understand what she said, it is both unkind and not helpful to say "Now that's just nuts." The comment does not move the conversation forward in terms of clarification or understanding. The comment does not demonstrate patience nor does it show curiosity of other perspectives.

> If Rally is transparent about how your data is used

If Rally was not transparent about this, then you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered by it.

But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.

I'm one of the very few people who actually read all of the disclosure documents. I wouldn't be surprised if I were the only person who read these documents in their entirety aside from the document drafter(s) themselves. And this wasn't in the privacy notice for a study but for the Rally browser extension. Rather confusingly, Rally has one privacy policy and each individual study will have their own, separate, privacy policy in addition to the Rally privacy policy.

Admirable digging, for sure.

> you would not have seen that and would not have gotten emotionally triggered

Don’t do that here. The comment is about Rally pretending to be about altruistic academic research while actually being a platform for Mozilla product development.

My reply predates this edit from the parent:

> Sorry, I definitely did not put as much thought into my comment as I should have and I left out the critical piece of information that really ticked me off.

Such are the perils of edit logs not being available and/or not quoting what you are responding to.

TBF, if the stuff that would have needed to be quoted was added after he replied...

> But given that you’ve identified a visceral opposition to that, you should consider not opting-in to that particular study.

The commenter referenced Rally's privacy policy. It is not specific to a particular study.

I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination.

Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.

> Or, just don’t opt-in to any of the Rally studies. Your call, it’s your data.

First, a caveat. I don't know the people behind the comments in this sub-thread. I have read almost all of them and find them to be informative and thoughtful. So thanks for that.

That said, when I read a comment like the above, what I hear is a mentality of "you are an individual, with power, if you don't like it, act individually". That mentality is not wrong, but is quite limited and incomplete. It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".

As always, with your replies to me, your spirit/style is much appreciated.

> It overlooks the power and importance of individuals discussing and organizing together, which is often much more powerful than simply "voting with your feet".

I did indeed purposefully overlook that, but only out of a working assumption that the consent of the governed is there, overall.

If there truly is no consent of the governed for informed consent being a sufficient tool for empowerment in these cases, then there are deeper topics that need to be discussed. Some of those topics could lead to conclusions that may have catastrophic implications for modern society, if not discussed in a reasonable and considerate manner. Cancelling entire industries, in one fell swoop, are some of the conclusions being drawn in the current climate, for example.

If there is consent of the governed that opt-in is a sufficient tool for empowerment in these cases, then these cases may ultimately be logically reducible to failures to uphold the laws, as they currently exist.

To further expound on the latter line of reasoning, these cases seem to anecdotally belong to a few categories: 1) I don’t like advertising, 2) I didn’t know that they could do that, 3) I don’t want anyone watching what I do.

Category 1) is a completely understandable sentiment with implications that I currently lack the energy to comment upon.

Category 2) should be taken as that individual’s human rights having been violated. Specifically, that situation could arguably be pursued in the United States under the ADA. Enforced broadly, this could have catastrophic consequences to modern society. Enforced judiciously, this could provide much needed social progress.

Category 3) is a completely understandable sentiment with implications that I currently lack the energy to comment upon.

The category 2) implications do seem to be most relevant to society, at this juncture.

edit: I can imagine that a class-action ADA lawsuit against a carefully selected set of defendants (if legally possible) could lead to resolution of this matter in the courts, without calling on the legislature to comment on topics for which they are under-qualified to comment upon.

> I’m being charitable and leaving room for the possibility that they provide a tighter set of policies for some studies or revise their general policy to make commercial use be a study-by-study determination.

I just reviewed these pages:

[1]: Mozilla Rally Privacy Policy https://rally.mozilla.org/privacy-policy/index.html

[2]: Political and COVID-19 News https://rally.mozilla.org/current-studies/political-and-covi...

Read together, the problematic parts of the general privacy policy are not addressed nor remedied by the specific study's details, because a specific study addresses how that study uses the data.

Perhaps a future study would be different? I doubt it. My take is that the concerning parts of general privacy policy's language will stand (quoted a few messages above). Here's why I say this... Based on my experience with organizations and lawyers, Mozilla is unlikely to want to modify its general privacy policy based on particular discussions with each organization involved in a study; it would be too time-consuming and expensive, and it would create a path-dependence such that every previous study details would need to be reevaluated in the light of a modification to the general policy. Instead, Mozilla probably crafted their privacy policy in a general way, hoping that it will be acceptable to participants and partners. I expect they will modify it as little as possible.

> Mozilla is unlikely to want to modify its general privacy policy based on particular discussions with each organization involved in a study

They may ultimately have a legal responsibility to do so, depending on the nature of their contracts with their research partners. I’m not a lawyer, but if I were, I’d be digging into the case law to see if Mozilla + (”public university” or “federal funds”) = “a combination that must meet all severally applicable laws”.