Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox's Pocket Tries to Build a Facebook-Style Newsfeed That Respects Your Privacy (theverge.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the Making-for-Mozilla dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica: Pocket, which lets you save articles and videos you find around the web to consume later, now has a home inside Firefox as the engine powering recommendations to 50 million people a month. By analyzing the articles and videos people save into Pocket, [Pocket founder and CEO Nate] Weiner believes the company can show people the best of the web -- in a personalized way -- without building an all-knowing, Facebook-style profile of the user.

"We're testing this really cool personalization system within Firefox where it uses your browser history to target personalized [recommendations], but none of that data actually comes back to Pocket or Mozilla," Weiner said. "It all happens on the client, inside the browser itself. There is this notion today... I feel like you saw it in the Zuckerberg hearings. It was like, 'Oh, users. They will give us their data in return for a better experience.' That's the premise, right? And yes, you could do that. But we don't feel like that is the required premise. There are ways to build these things where you don't have to trade your life profile in order to actually get a good experience."

Pocket can analyze which articles and videos from around the web are being shared as well as which ones are being read and watched. Over time, that gives the company a good understanding of which links lead to high-quality content that users of either Pocket or Firefox might enjoy.
I use Firefox, but I don't use Pocket. Are there any Slashdot readers who want to share their experiences with read-it-later services, or thoughts about what Firefox is attempting?

104 comments

  1. Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How fucking dense are you, mozilla?! WE DONT WANT POCKET, NEWSFEED, ADS OR ***ANYTHING*** OTHER THAN A FUCKING BROWSER!!!!

    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    1. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is not for you. Don't use it.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Winamp did the same fucking thing. I wanted a light weight music player that would work. Next it became a media player, then all sorts of other shit I didn't need or want in an MP3 player. Nero dvd burner also comes to mind (not that anyone uses it or needs it today) tried to take over your pc, associating itself with 90 million file types etc, and also switching it back once you had changed it. Uninstall.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    3. Re: Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, I don't think anyone will bother trying to pry WinPlay3 from your cold dead fingers.

    4. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So for now I don't have to use it. What happens when Mozilla decides to make it so pocket can no longer be disabled? I don't want a browser that recommends web sites that I may think interesting. I want a browser that does what I tell it to do. I don't want my browser to be anything but a web browser. It needs to display the web pages that I want to see without ads, and without collecting and/or sending any information anywhere, with the exception of the bare minimum required to find and display the pages that I want to see!!!

    5. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What really irks me is all these companies do this privacy invading crap fo ads that are WORSE THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE which makes no God damned sense!

      Lets compare the new targeted ads to what we had before, shall we? With the old non targeted ads I would be on a site like Slash looking at an article on hardware, therefor the ads would be something like this "Hey did ya know Newegg has a 50% off sale on power supplies? We are also having deals on HDDs and RAM if you are interested" and a lot of the time I would go "Really? Hmm that IS a damned good price" and I would end up going and grabbing me a spare PSU or adding some RAM to my PC. The ads made sense because if I'm reading articles on hardware hey, I might care about hardware and would like cheaper hardware...gee logic, what a concept!

      Now lets compare this to the new targeted ads...I browse for a replacement battery for a customer's laptop and then for WEEKS I get "ZOMFG you want a new laptop? WE GOT NEW LAPTOPS PLEAZ BUY A LAPTOP"..no you reatrds, if I wanted a new laptop i would NOT be looking for a BATTERY for one I already have, would I? And it doesn't matter if I am looking at hardware or software or an article on OSes where LOGICALLY one would give me ads for those products, nope all I will see is "PLEZ GOD BUY OUR LAPTOPS!" which I have absolu-fucking-lutey ZERO interest in buying so they naturally get? Survey says...ZERO SALES!

      So all I've seen so called "targeted advertising" do is drive sales right into the shitter, as with the old ads I would often see deals on exactly what I was looking for, and now? Now its back to the old days of email flyers from the likes of Newegg and Amazon where any ad driven sales come from because their targeted ads are for shit I looked for once WEEKS ago and have zero damned interest in buying, hell they often don't even have shit to do with what I was actually looking for, like when I searched for a new phone charger for my car and got a month of Samsung Galazy ads, did I fucking WANT a shitty Samsung phone? No I was looking for a charger, piss off Samsung if I wanted a new phone I wouldn't be looking for a CHARGER for the one I have now, would I? Logic advertisers, try using it for once!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by MrL0G1C · · Score: 0

      I've switched over to Waterfox, Chrome and SlimJet, it's a shame it still announces itself as Firefox.

      I'd used Firefox since it had a different name and was at version 0.5 approx'. But this business with gaping privacy flaws, several unwanted addons and the final straw - a completely mess with regards to supporting extensions - such a big fuck you to users. It's a shame Mozilla has lost it way, they forgot that people chose Firefox because of it's versatility and they tried to dumb it down and turn it into chrome, no surprises that that is a losing strategy, they were never going to make Firefox better at being Chrome than chrome is at being chrome.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    7. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Disabling Pocket completely is more complicated than just dragging the icon off the navigation bar. Some of the more advanced Firefox features actually require you to change 3-5 config settings -- simultaneously -- to actually disable them.

      People are getting pissy because it's getting harder NOT to use things. One of many reasons I use PaleMoon as my primary browser, and Firefox only as a backup.

    8. Re: Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could just uncheck stuff you don't want in the Winamp installer, or if it's too late, delete the plugins you don't want.

    9. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox looked like it was trying to be Chrome, which if I had wanted I would have switched to Chrome. I think pocket was what finally drove me to drop Firefox. Switched to Pale Moon. Not perfect but good enough for now.

    10. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WinAmp was nice when it just did what it was meant to do, and did it well. Then it got turned into a bloated piece of crap.

      ACDSee was like that too. Superfast lightweight image viewer. Loved it. Then they ruined it. I liked that you could scroll quickly through a folder, looking at all the images and skipping everything else. Then support for other file types was added. When scrolling through images and getting to a video it would freeze up trying to load a video that I didn't want to watch. Or an audio clip I didn't want to hear. Had to wait several seconds for it to load so that you could skip it. And hope that the next file wasn't video or audio.

      Why do people insist on taking efficient software and bolting on all kinds of crap "because features" ruining it in the process.

    11. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can relate. Did not know what the fuck a wood chipper was (they are not common in my country for some reason) and out of curiosity tried to find out what one costs. Ended up with wood chipper ads for days afterwards until I deleted all my cookies (which sucks, because I have to log in to everything again). I was on Nexus Mods looking for new Skyrim mods and all I saw was wood chipper ads.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    12. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      I've seen wood chippers in movies before, never really paid it much attention - then in this scene Tucker & Dale vs. Evil in the movie they mentioned it by name. So I went looking, clearly the movie was not good enough to hold my full attention, but few rarely are (still enjoyed it though).

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    13. Re:Jesus Fucking Lord Christ! by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i second, third and fourth that , i don't need "suggestions" ... i need to find stuff ... like "myself" (that's an archaic word i suppose" as in "by" ... not as suggested by what comes from datasets generated from the middle of the bell curve because i'm fairly sure the algorithm wasn't trained on my browsing history alone ...

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So who exactly are they spying on if they're respecting your privacy? I ask, because:

    Pocket can analyze which articles and videos from around the web are being shared as well as which ones are being read and watched.

    That sure sounds a heck of a lot like spying. How exactly is this supposed to work? Where is this data coming from?

    Also, I call BS on no data making it back to Mozilla/Pocket. There's no way that can possibly work, unless it's pulling the entire recommendations database straight from Pocket. Otherwise, you can probably figure out what a person is doing based on which type of recommendations it asks for. It may be "anonymized" but don't pretend you can't figure out who it is.

    Basically, I call BS on the entire premise. You can't "recommend" "popular links" without spying on people, because you have to spy on people to know what's popular. You can't "recommend" links a person "would be interested in" without spying on them, because otherwise you have to have the entire database stored in the client. If you try and only store parts of the database in the client, then you're leaking data, and privacy is compromised.

    1. Re:So who are they spying on then? by El+Jynx · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. If it gathers trending data, sends it to Pocket and Pocket compares it to local content to generate recommendations, nothing goes to Mozilla. The real question is: who decides what is trending?

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
    2. Re: So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UnPrivacy Hierarchy Score:

      1- You don't save your thing
      2- You save your thing locally and encrypt it
      3- You save your thing locally
      4- You save your thing remotely, but you keep the key to it and it is encrypted
      5- You save the thing remotely and it is "end to end" encrypted or is in plaintext

      If a service saves your stuff locally and then makes suggestions via local processing, then we are talking like a 3 here, which is basically everything you do on your box. Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, are in the 5 range always.

    3. Re:So who are they spying on then? by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you missed the part about "none of the data goes back to Firefox or Mozilla".

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:So who are they spying on then? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1
      Exactly, and how much integrity Pocket has. Will I suddenly get a barrage of articles etc. about "product a" because the manufacturers of "product a" have paid them money to shove it down my throat.

      There are ways to build these things where you don't have to trade your life profile

      No, but you are probably trading on becoming another channel paid to feed people crap they would not really be interested in, all in the guise of giving them stuff "they really want".

      To be honest I just use any browser I can get my hands on, even used Edge now and then, it's come a long way. The browser that used to be at the bottom of my list was IE, seems Firefox is racing it for last place.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    5. Re: So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes somewhere. And what about later on if they decide to change that tidbit.

    6. Re:So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why i disable Pocket, and any visible URLs in the about:config ... I mangle, by adding the subdomain .fuck. to the urls, and i also remove everything after the domain so they can't get any data from their logs.

    7. Re:So who are they spying on then? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      IIUC, they're talking about two groups of people who are disconnected.

      Group 1 is people who save browsing history or links into a pocket. That gets shared.

      Group 2 is people who are typing links into the browser, that gets suggested to from the database created by group 1.

      OTOH, this seems to mean that you need to store locally all the most prominent links used by anyone. But it would fit my understanding of what they are proposing.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re: So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The feature is supposed to work by simply grabbing the same list of trending articles for everyone, then locally selecting which you would find interesting. In order for that to work, they would of course have to know what's "trending", by sending general click counts on articles, but that's about it. Given that, worrying about what they might start collecting later is pointless, because they aren't collecting anything personally identifiable to begin with. If they turn evil, we just stop using it. Big whoop. (And that isn't even considering that it's likely less of an evil income source than their current reliance on Google).

    9. Re:So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who exactly are they spying on if they're respecting your privacy? .

      Single white American males. Who else?

    10. Re: So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually says:
      "none of that data actually comes back to Pocket or Mozilla"

      Can't all happen in the client. It's bullshit.

    11. Re:So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Pocket is owned by Mozilla.

    12. Re:So who are they spying on then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the part about "none of the data goes back to Firefox or Mozilla".

      That's irrelevant to me (I am not the OP). The data goes somewhere, when it should go nowhere. Pocket should never have been baked in. Should be a plug-in or something of the sort, that I choose to not download.

  3. Pocket free version of Firefox by xack · · Score: 2, Informative

    Avaliable here

    1. Re:Pocket free version of Firefox by infolation · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. about:config
      2. extensions.pocket.enabled = false (toggle)
      3. restart

    2. Re: Pocket free version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      That's nice and all, but aside from the fact nobody wanted this in the first place, why does it have to be on by default? This is the same opt-out bullshit being shoved down peoples throats.

      Seems like Mozilla has some Potterings in their development team.

    3. Re:Pocket free version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there are a few other "opt-out" things in Firefox. They've gone the Facebook and Google route of privacy second, revenue first. It would be different if this was off by default, but I'm not going to go check through all the settings every-time Firefox updates...eff that BS.

    4. Re:Pocket free version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Waterfox developers!

      Your excellent browser has restored sanity while using the 'Net.

      Please don't jump the shark like Firefox.

    5. Re:Pocket free version of Firefox by antdude · · Score: 1

      Here too: https://www.seamonkey-project.... :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re: Pocket free version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish the people making these non-arguments would just make their own damn browser already. Nobody asked for browsers to begin with either, and now we have them. Nobody wanted RSS or Facebook feeds until they existed. Now it's Pocket's turn to be something "nobody wanted".

      The "shoving it down our throats" notion is equally stupid, given that nobody is shoving it down your throat. Following this same logic they have shoved tabs, their address bar, and a ton of other things down our throats, with the bulk of those features being opt-out and only initially used by a small number of people before they were "shoved" down our throats.

      Every time I read these kinds of rants it only reinforces the studies that claim that our collective intelligence has been on the decline since the 1970s. We just want to complain, no matter how irrationally, that other people aren't doing exactly what we want right now. It doesn't matter how illogical, flawed, and self-serving our reasoning is.

    7. Re:Pocket free version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. about:config
      2. extensions.pocket.enabled = false (toggle)
      3. restart

      Tor Browser has extensions.pocket.enabled set to 'true' by default. Fuck you, Mozilla.

    8. Re: Pocket free version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that. Never let logic, reason or common sense get in the way of a good rant.

    9. Re: Pocket free version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have tried building Firefox in order to dissect out the bits I didn't like. There were all sorts of libraries that weren't available or had to be built separately, or were so complex they required to be configured manually and require other libraries to be installed (eg. llvm)

    10. Re: Pocket free version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I might be able to monetize shoving a stick in your ass. Can't be sure if you'll like it or not. I know you didn't ask for it, but you should give it a try for awhile. It might be a feature that you didn't know you wanted.

  4. Facebook sucks by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    therefore Facebook wannabes will suck too.

    It has nothing to do with privacy: Facebook's interpretation of what social media should be makes it totally unappealing to me.

    As for the privacy thing: Mozilla never gave me any reason to trust them anymore than Facebook.

    So... no.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  5. And people wonder why by quonset · · Score: 1

    Firefox is being abandoned and folks like me do not upgrade to the latest and greatest.

    As I have said many, many times before, never let programmers program your applications. This is what you get. Something which is practically unusable by the end user but which has plenty of eye candy because it could be done.

    1. Re:And people wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep and the alternatives respect your privacy right? /sarc

      If they made it as an add on people would not be as upset...

    2. Re:And people wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [by whom?][citation needed]

    3. Re: And people wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who should program your applications? Appers?

    4. Re:And people wonder why by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      ... never let programmers program your applications

      Never let bad programmers program anything. Personally, I am a programmer from the old-school Unix philosophy of: do one thing and do it well.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  6. rss/atom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that would be needed is a decent built-in rss/atom feed reader.

    Currently more feeds exist than there are people reading them.

  7. No need for newsfeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook google pocket no need.

  8. How about "NO"? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about "NO"?

    If I wanted to use Facefuck, I'd use it.

    Don't ruin Firefox any further by loading it up with more bullshit and shiny social media crap that no one wants.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:How about "NO"? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't ruin Firefox any further by loading it up with more bullshit and shiny social media crap that no one wants.

      Sorry, but the infiltration of mozilla by "trendy hipsters" who don't have a fucking clue what the majority of people want continues apace. I'd say put a fork in it and be done, but the people who are forking it don't seem to have a fucking clue either.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:How about "NO"? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Have you tried Pale Moon? I use it and find it quite nice. The devs are quick to respond to user questions and bug reports, the forums are quite helpful, and they get more and more extension devs on board every day and already have most of the popular stuff like Adblock,Greasemonkey, and NoScript up and running. They also have a portable and a Linux build so you can run it anywhere.

      I'd say if you want Firefox the classic way, before it became a Chrome wannabe? PM is the way to go.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:How about "NO"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hairyfeet, have you also tried Waterfox?

      Palemoon was nice but it couldn't handle some of my favored extensions. Waterfox, on the other hand, worked with all of them immediately.

    4. Re:How about "NO"? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I did until the dev of palemoon decided to start blocking extensions(noscript for example) because of ideological reasons. There's a good need for a browser that's just a browser, no ideological bullshit, no fucking pandering to the cause of the day. Just be a fucking web browser. Brave is getting there slowly.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  9. Facebook style ... that respects your privacy?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Unobtanium to me.

  10. Mozilla Wants To Be Everything .. why? by mischmerz · · Score: 1

    Mozilla is (was) a grand idea. I was among those who initially donated to Mozilla because we needed an alternative browser. But they are now invested (and investing) in many things - including IoT and Speech recognition and I fear they have lost their focus. True - the browser is still mostly ok - but they are running so many unrelated projects that most if not all move very slowly (if at all) due to the fact that they are underfunded. In addition - they too try to pull users into their environment instead of empowering them to run their own environments. Take "sync" as an example - versions below 1.5 were running perfectly within owncloud environments. Not anymore. The new style is complicated with three different communications environments and clearly geared towards Mozilla's own services. This is quite the opposite of "user" empowerment.

    1. Re:Mozilla Wants To Be Everything .. why? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      And they failed miserably at being everything, I tried to use Firefox mobile and gave up, Opera is ok on mobile other than the fact that it's utterly senile with regards to remembering whether you want the mobile site or the desktop site.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  11. Nice name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nate] Weiner

  12. How to disable: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go to about:config, and search for "extensions.pocket.enabled". Change to "false".

    If you want to be double plus sure, you can also change the URLs for the pocket sites to empty strings.

  13. "use your browser history to divide the web" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    into alternative Copenhagen/quantum-theory-like parallel universes? Will searching evangelical sites change results for your query "the age of the universe," or will reading Trump sites impact your search for Kim or Vladimir, returning stories about how they are "wonderful, strong leaders?" This is not just a browser problem - Google returns different results depending on your search history; are we to be divided into different universes of "alternative facts?"

  14. Sometimes the Pocket stories are interesting... by Slugster · · Score: 1

    ...but (maybe just for me?) at least 1/3 of the time, they are a link to a story on the NYT website. And I rarely visit the NYT site on my own, otherwise.

  15. I have not updated firefox in a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last quantum update bullshit was just too much for me. I was already worn down from having to completely disable all the 'features' they include with each new version. But this quantum shit? Post-Quantum addons use a different system now, so to use current addons you have to update. Pocket, what is this shit and why do I need it? I remember disabling it as soon as I saw something new, because with firefox something new equals shit. Push, webnotifications, social toast, social share, vr support, ui changes every year... it's a turd sandwich, they gradually replaced the food with turds over the years and now I'm eating this crap.

    1. Re:I have not updated firefox in a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox 60 ESR is out, maybe you can use that as a "gramps" version of firefox. Get only security updates and update it to next ESR in roughly a year (won't work if a new add-on requires a new API, but the existing add-on APIs as of FF 57-60 won't break)

  16. Sigh ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    "We're testing this really cool personalization system within Firefox ...

    And I'll be able to disable this next, new, unwanted thing, how?

    [ Or will that be covered with my current config setting: extensions.pocket.enabled = false ]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  17. Pocket subscription by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pay the $5 a month for a Pocket subscription. I think it's great - articles I save are synced across devices and available offline.
    I think we need to be wary of any concentration of personal data because it becomes a target for hackers, etc.
    On the article recommendations - I don't like the idea of using my browser history. Not everything I browse is something I'd want to have recommended to me. What I like about Pocket is it is just stuff that I've explicitly said "yes, save this article, I am telling you that I am interested in this" so recommendations based on that data is a lot more valuable than just browser history.

  18. "personalized news feed" = tracked advertisements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was bad enough they started advertisements on the new tab page by default, and also started using 3rd party apps with not so privacy friendly TOS built in by default. But now they want to track our data and use targeted ads? uhm, no.

    They can claim it's not sending your data back, but it doesn't matter if it's easy to figure out your interests just by what advertisements it recommends to you.

  19. Re: "use your browser history to divide the web" . by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been saying this for years. The whole premise behind social media and recommendation engines is broken by design. If it is working as designed then you would only ever see stuff that you "like". This puts everyone in their own private echo chamber. For entertainment this might be ok as you want to relax to something you enjoy but for news, it is a disaster and will only get worse as the algorithms improve.

  20. Reason for leaving FF by rojash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I got disgusted with Chrome for its evil-ness, I went back to FF for the nth time, and this time I saw Pocket was being forced down our throats...jumped the fuck back out and found Vivaldi which seems much less evil.

  21. NO Pocket, thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said.

    Jeez. I always want to believe that FF are the Good Folks. But they're making my life difficult.

  22. Re:"personalized news feed" = tracked advertisemen by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re "ads?" AC
    Users enjoy controlling scripts and ads for years on the browser only to have the browser push a SJW news feed.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  23. get out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not want Pocket or or anything else where Facebook-like privact must be considered. Stay out of my browser.

  24. We don't need a Facebook feature in Mozilla by WindowsStar · · Score: 1

    I use Firefox, but I don't use Pocket. Are there any Slashdot readers who want to share their experiences with read-it-later services, or thoughts about what Firefox is attempting?

    I don't use Pocket and there is no need for it. Facebook is loosing a high percentage of users daily which should give Mozilla a clue. Come on Mozilla we just want a solid, clean, fast browser that blows the door off Chrome, IE and Edge!!!

    1. Re:We don't need a Facebook feature in Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is loosing a high percentage of users daily

      No, it isn't.

  25. RSS Feed? by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So they're reinventing an RSS feed?

    WTF? Have we forgotten everything that's ever been done before, and just decided to recreate it with a new name, make a social tie-in, add some spying and data analytics to make money, and then run a marketing campaign for it?

    Seriously. WTF?

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    1. Re:RSS Feed? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      So they're reinventing an RSS feed?

      And bookmarks.

      "Gee, how will I ever remember a URL that I wanted to read later???"

    2. Re:RSS Feed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bookmarks? Oh you must mean Other bookmarks or Bookmarks Toolbar or Bookmark Menu. That's the Firefox clusterfuck.

      I recently found this addon: Default Bookmark Folder, which lets you have just bookmarks. Bookmarks in a list, so you can find them. It's a huge innovation.

    3. Re:RSS Feed? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Do bookmarks let you store a cached copy of a website for later reading while you are offline, such as while you are riding transit to and from work without a subscription to tetherable cellular data? That's why I installed Pocket in the first place before Mozilla included it in the Firefox distribution.

    4. Re:RSS Feed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, since it's completely configurable, you could just learn to make your own bookmarks folder in Firefox.

      Firefox HAS jumped the shark, and most of the criticism of them is valid, but being too stupidly PEBKAC to figure out basic functionality in this instance is your problem, not theirs.

  26. THAT'S EVEN WORSE YOU ASSHOLES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't want my browser DOING stuff other than being a fucking browser!

  27. Pocket and Developer Edition are Great by lorien420 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I got pulled back into Firefox by the Developer Edition. I wasn't sold on Pocket at first, but so far it's turn out to be great for me. Easy to ignore when I don't care, but every time I've looked at it there have been good suggestions that I actually wanted to read.

    I think the people screaming about how Mozilla needs to get back to just making a browser completely misunderstand Mozilla. The Firefox era was probably the only one where they did anything close to just making a browser. In the early days Seamonkey *was* Mozilla. It was a full suite of things. They were build XUL and XpCom and all of this as a platform with a strong html rendering engine as the backing for it all. I'm sorry that so many of you were confused by the breakout success of Firefox, but the organization has never been so narrowly defined.

    --
    "[We'll be] really getting inside your head and making it an unpleasant place to be" -- Trent Reznor
    1. Re:Pocket and Developer Edition are Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, we're confused, and they are deaf. I assume your just paid.

    2. Re:Pocket and Developer Edition are Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, the suggestions are usually pretty good, and you can turn it off if you don't like it.

  28. Funny title by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Using "Facebook" and "Privacy" in the same sentence.

  29. Do you hear yourselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox and Pocket are proposing a private solution to do content recommendation so that users donâ(TM)t need to sell their souls to Facebook and so that we are not just visiting the sites that Google thinks we should via their search results.

    And yâ(TM)all think thatâ(TM)s a bad thing. Think big picture here. It sounds like a great idea.

    I for one have found at least one recommendation a week to be useful.

    Your reactions around not believing that it is going to be private are absurd. Privacy is all Firefox ever tries to do which results in their lives being more difficult. Having more data makes things easy but they normally make things harder than they need to in the name of privacy.

    If you still donâ(TM)t believe them, the code is open source in the browser so inspect the Pocket recommendations for yourselves.

    I for one could easily see how a regular visit to TechCrunch might mean that Iâ(TM)d be interested in an article from Wired. They donâ(TM)t need to upload my history for that. That can totally be analyzed locally.

    In any case, if youâ(TM)re not happy, you can already turn Pocket off in the new tab layout without going into about:config. Thereâ(TM)s a settings menu right there.

    As per all the people who havenâ(TM)t upgraded their browsers since before 57 because of addons, for God sake, at least install a fork and make sure your browser is secure.

    1. Re: Do you hear yourselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're holding it wrong.

  30. APK Hosts File Engine does more... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between characters & download).

    Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any SINGLE solution (99% of threats = hostnames vs. IP address (that most firewalls use)) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

    (... Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" competitors slowing you, hosts speed you up 2 ways (adblocks + hardcodes u spend most time @) vs. competition loaded w/ bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + their overheads (messagepass ('souled-out' to advertiser addons) + filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation).

    * Created in FreePascal/Lazarus 1.8.2 using GTK3 on OpenGL 3.1 via KDE Plasma desktop on Kubuntu 18.04 plus patches.

    APK

    P.S.=> Enjoy - it's much better vs. the Windows model on many fronts (speed & efficiency, mostly (plus new "merge" feature))... apk

  31. Registered /.ers opinions of the Win64 model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

    (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon February 11 2016

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

    I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

    I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home by OrangeTide December 01 2017

    I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

    * See subject: Best part is this Linux 64-bit model is faster & more efficient (does 2x the work in 1/2 the time, literally)

    APK

    P.S.=> Enjoy a faster/safer/more reliable internet... apk

    1. Re:Registered /.ers opinions of the Win64 model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spamming retard APK strikes again. He is just mad that he keeps losing arguments but will try to convince himself that he won them all. Maybe he will just disown the above statements like he has been doing lately when he makes a total ass out of himself.

  32. My gosh - it's my UNIDENTIFIABLE ac stalker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My gosh - it's my UNIDENTIFIABLE ac stalker - Clue: NOBODY makes a BIGGER ASS of themselves than you do stalking me.

    * ... & you KNOW it JEALOUS Jowie do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" zero that YOU are & keep proving (thanks) about yourself...

    APK

    P.S.=> QUESTION: What's it LIKE showing everyone YOUR 'true colors' (yellow belly LAZY)? apk

    1. Re:My gosh - it's my UNIDENTIFIABLE ac stalker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surprisingly that is probably the most rational thing you have ever said. We get it that you don't like being called out for your piss poor behavior. Maybe if you stopped spamming any lying about your abilities and what your little toy program is capable of you wouldn't be called a lying spammer.

  33. Re: Respect my preferences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should move to China.

  34. Question Poster by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Pockets were released in 2015 what your real motive?

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  35. Can't justify" UR piss poor behavior stalker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & on my abilities? I let registered /.ers do the talking for me (YOU can't stand noone does for you) https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12238656&cid=56795308/ but they do for ME, lol (not you, "ne'er-do-well" JEALOUS little JOWIE do-nothing LAZY yellow belly that you are & keep proving for me, thanks, lol!).

    * Amazing how you FAIL @ cutting down my work (that does MORE for FAR LESS vs. ANY other single "so-called 'solution'" w/ far less SLOWDOWN, COMPLEXITY (leading to their numerous exploitations), RESOURCE USE & OVERHEADS) WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OF YOUR OWN TO SHOW for your WASTED LIFE self, lol...

    APK

    P.S.=> What's it LIKE knowing everyone sees you are nothing but the "ne'er-do-well" DO-NOTHING lazy JEALOUS little "jowie" I call you which you KNOW you are (so does everyone else, you psycho loser freak, lmao)... apk

  36. Weiner connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chad Weiner is (was?) Senior Director of Marketing and Marketing Operations at Mozilla:
    https://www.beckon.com/blog/chad-weiner-mozillas-journey-test-learn-marketing/
    https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/author/cweinermozilla-com/

    Is Chad related to Nate?

  37. Is Firefox chasing privacy when users don't care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given Firefox's dismal showing in market share stats since Quantum was released. A browser I certainly feel is top notch and competes well with any other browser out there. I think Firefox is preaching to a very small minority who actually think privacy is a huge concern for them. While users claim privacy is such a big deal. Their actions using Chrome and Google products, and being on many social sites seem to argue that may only be true in spirit. If I want news I think most users will seek it out on their own. Best of luck to Mozilla and Firefox, I think they are no showing signs of desperation with a ever depleting user base.

  38. Quote the Flash to SuperLOSER (you) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & "Tell ya what: IF you can catch me? Then MAYBE I'll *think* about it..." from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLYEExrAEJI/ - you never will!

    (As you don't do a DAMN THING anyone says anything GOOD about - but they do for me & MY work, not yours, lol https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12238906&cid=56795354/ - want more? Ask & "ye shall receive" to your UTTER dismay (I can see you "RaGiNg" in your impotent loser anger, lol STEAMING - be angry @ yourself - I don't even HAVE to TRY win vs. "your kind" (a "not-man") - you do yourself in FOR me, everytime - hahahaha!)).

    * ... lol, why?

    You're SUPERLoser the psychotic online stalker of myself... & like the FLASH? I could be running BACKWARDS & run CIRCLES around you, SUPERLOSER!

    APK

    P.S.=> What's the matter JEALOUS Jowie? Can't stand I do well while you LANGUISH in your "ne'er-do-well" DO-NOTHING 'douchedom' (lmao)? Yes - I see RIGHT thru you & so does everyone else (which is WHY you post UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous vs. using 1 of your doubtless MANY sockpuppet registered ids on /. - I've dusted you SO MANY TIMES, especially on the above? You stalk me out of "butthurt" - it's YOUR FAULT you're a LAZY no good dildo you know, lol - not mine OR anyone else's - yours)... apk

  39. Re:Is Firefox chasing privacy when users don't car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem here is that users who want security already have browsers with a focus on it.
    Firefox used to be for power users who usually sandbox a browser like Firefox with 3rd party methods so they don't have to think about security,
    and instead focus on the browser's many functionalities and customization. That's been going away and as it went away so did the users.
    Those users who want newsfeeds meanwhile will use crawlers or certain RSS/Atom/etc. programs that have existed since ~1995 and have far more secure options as well as better performance than what a browser could give due to it being a browser.

  40. progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used pocket until they changed it to a piece of shit.

  41. Re: "use your browser history to divide the web" . by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    And how do you "like" stuff, that you don't see?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  42. bye bye pocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After being my favourite app for years, i guess it is time to move on. Thanks but no thanks.

  43. Re: "use your browser history to divide the web" . by mikael · · Score: 1

    But what if I want to see something new. I watch music videos on Youtube. There are tracks that have been around for decades but I have never heard (Obsolete Orkestra, Dischingas Khan, "Born to be Alive", "siberian shaman lady" but the way Youtube is set up, it's impossible to find videos that are unrelated because everything is ring linked and since the videos are random hashes in a huge data space, there's no way to genuinely choose a random valid video. Random video selecters can only pick out videos that you know about.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  44. a few notes about FF 60.0esr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just checked about the ESR version too, it has a couple differences. Services Workers (== crap in the background, run by websites?) are disable, push shit disabled.
    https://www.ghacks.net/2018/05/08/firefox-60-and-firefox-60-esr-differences/

    Then this is mildly interesting but seems just for Windows (group policies work on standalone machines by running gpedit.msc)
    https://www.ghacks.net/2018/03/10/firefox-60-ships-with-windows-group-policy-support/

  45. LOL! by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    Facebook. LOL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Facebook! ROTFLMFAO!

  46. Pretty good, actually. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If one can just disengage the tinfoil hats and stop chasing kids off the lawn for a moment... I noticed this in Firefox for Android and, apart from the fact that it has recommended some really interesting articles on physics and other topics I'm interested in (and no adverts - these are real articles), it's ridiculously easy to turn off. Just configure your home screen in Firefox settings. I haven't disabled because there have been interesting things popping up there. But to each, their own.