LWD

joined 10 months ago
[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Lemmy client devs? I have used quite a few Lemmy clients, and none of the ones I have tried (at least, the ones that have the best UIs IMO) support it.

For what it's worth, Mastodon clients also seem to have either slick user interfaces or they are packed with features, but usually more of one equates with less of the other. It probably depends on which one the developers want to spend more time on. Since Mastodon (and the wider Fediverse) and Lemmy specifically are a bit different, it seems like Lemmy devs have opted to not handle the idiosyncrasies of something that is not Lemmy specific.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

The best parts of Multi Account Containers are truly streamlined with third party extensions.

Temporary Containers and Container Bookmarks elevate the experience to a new level.

I really wish that Firefox could embrace some of this functionality as native, or make it easier for these developers to integrate their extensions into the Firefox ecosystem.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

Etymologically, I think the word "tweet" was slowly being supplanted by "post" even before Twitter's name was officially changed to X. After all, "post" is universal, and there were many uses of thingposting that go back years, even on Twitter itself.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

Based on Mozilla's documentation, it looks like CHIPS only applies to "cross site" cookies that are just accessible on different subdomains of the same site. A third party cookie could share data between a.site.example and b.site.example if it asked nicely, but not on site2.example.

If this isn't about it subdomains exclusively, it's not apparent to me. But it's all pretty confusing, and CHIPS appears to be just one minor thing that Google introduced when they were creating Privacy Sandbox back in 2022. (You know, to facilitate the total removal of third-party cookies, something they eventually backtracked on anyway.)

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like a search engine with extra steps. Kudos to them for removing one of the extra steps, which would usually involve going to a search engine and then finding and vetting sources anyway... AI appears, to me, to be nothing but a rough draft generator that requires both input from a human and output with the draft it creates.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

If I've learned anything from this community, it's that having just one open source alternative to a closed source POS run by Google is not the ideal! Competition is always healthy.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Found online:

With introduction of even more AI services to Firefox I wanted to express that to me it does seem like Firefox is missing with development of features. This sentiment is echoed by a lot of people in my social bubble of technologists, ethicists and other people with same priorities as what one could think are values which Firefox was built on.

Those concerns are in my opinion very valid. The machine learning models have shown to be unreliable - just some of the recent examples from AI products made by large corporations: pointing users to eat pizza with glue, providing false information about just about anything. There are a number of ethical issues yet to be resolved with usage of AI, from its intense usage of computing resources that adds up to electric grid demands. Through privacy and possible copyright violations of datasets that power the models. To an entire bag of other issues monitored by excellent resources such as AIAAIC repository

AI/Machine learning is an amazing field with many likely applications, and yet, its recent rise to fame is characterized by failures and issues in many implementations. Personally I often don't even see whether the application of AI is truthfully necessary, in many cases a human would do a more trustworthy and fast task of information gathering than a large machine learning model.

When we compare current state of "AI", does it reflect what Firefox stands for? Does it reflect Mozilla's principals?

Let's compare.

  • Principle 2
    The internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.

LLMs are known for being a black box. Depending on our definition of "open and accessible", LLMs can be a very free resource or a completely inaccessible black box of math.

  • Principle 4
    Individuals’ security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional.

It's clear that LLMs pose a privacy risk to Internet users. LLMs pose risk in at least two ways - because the data they are trained on sometimes contains private information due to negligent training process. In this case users of a learned model can possibly access private information. The second risk is of course usage of 3rd party services that may use information to infringe on privacy of users. While Mozilla in blog assures that "we are committed to following the principles of user choice, agency, and privacy as we bring AI-powered enhancements to Firefox", it's unclear how supporting such services as "ChatGPT, Google Gemini, HuggingChat, and Le Chat Mistral" helps protect Firefox user privacy. Giving users choice should not compromise their safety and privacy.

  • Principle 10
    Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the internet is an important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.

In my opinion in the process of designing AI functionalities on top of Firefox there was no evaluation on how those functionalities can benefit the public. There are a number of issues as mentioned above with the LLMs, they can be dangerous and work in detriment to users. Investing and supporting in technology of this type may lead to terrible consequences with little actual benefit.

In addition Mozilla claims:

  • We are committed to an internet that elevates critical thinking, reasoned argument, shared knowledge, and verifiable facts.

I argue that AI models are the opposite to that. AI output is not verifiable. They are working against sharing knowledge by making seemingly accurate information that turn out to be false.

I ask Mozilla to reevaluate impact of AI considering all of those points. I ask on behalf of myself as well as many users that I see on Fediverse being greatly worried and frustrated with AI changes added on top of Firefox. There is certainly a lot of potential greatness that could be done with AI, but those steps must be taken responsibly.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There's probably lots of situations in anything but rural environments where open Wi-Fi networks are either already available, or highly likely to be. Dorms, apartments, anything like that becomes a mess.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm really sorry, but all I have is confidence and a little surface-level knowledge that self-hosting is possible.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago (6 children)

What happens when there's an open Wi-Fi connection close enough for the smart TV to connect to?

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Ente and Immich are both projects like that, they're both trying to be drop-in replacements for Google Photos. Immich requires you to self-host, and Ente makes it an option that doesn't make it look too daunting.

The pricing is weird: Immich (like other FUTO sponsored projects) has a WinRAR-style license that requires you to pay them for hosting an instance, but only once, and you can technically ignore it. Ente, meanwhile, allows you to use their apps with third-party instances without charging for the privilege.

I would definitely recommend checking out either. I held out for a long time, because I thought image hosting might not be useful (and because deleting local photos is still a bit of a crapshoot, both backup-wise and functionality-wise) but it turns out to be pretty nifty.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 34 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

If Mozilla must throw money at AI, this is the way to go... I guess. Ente is trying to build a Google Photos replacement that translates image contents into searchable text while being fully end to end encrypted (read: as private as it gets), after all. Ente also allows you to fully self-host, so you can get these benefits without even trusting their servers.

Out of the $65 million Mozilla has committed to throwing at for-profit and AI companies (that's roughly 9.4 Mitchell Baker Salaries), $100,000 is a drop in the bucket, only 1.44% of the size of a Mitchell Baker Salary.

I remain skeptical about Mozilla's commitment to "open source AI models" when I haven't seen a single blob of AI data released that is reproducible or open source. They are black boxes, and black boxes so closed that not even the people that created them could tell you what's inside of them (unless we count the blood, sweat, and tears of the underpaid workers behind it).

Full disclosure: I am a paying Ente subscriber

 

sigh

 

Gary Vee is a notorious ~~grifter~~ NFT salesman with a checkered past.

Webacy is a cryptocurrency wallet "technology layer" that "provides security features" like password backup, "digital wills", etc.

 

On Valentine's Day 2024, Mozilla came out with a piece critical of AI chatbots titled "Creepy.exe: Mozilla Urges Public to Swipe Left on Romantic AI Chatbots Due to Major Privacy Red Flags."

But before they found red flags, back in 2019, Mozilla promoted a workshop on a creepy, rainbow-washed, chatbot ecosystem where people identified as "queer" were required to bare their most intimate sexual thoughts.

From the post:

your... interactions will be recorded... you will occasionally be prompted with random survey questions

What kinds of questions did they randomly ask the people who would "queer the AI"? Creepy stuff like

Have you ever sexted with a stranger?
Have you ever sexted with a machine?
Do you remember the first time you were aroused by language?
Do you think an artificial intelligence could help fulfill some of these... needs?

The workshop providers guided people into establishing an intimate, sexual connection with the chatbot they could create.

How might we build trust with an AI?
How might we give it its own sense of desire?

Even the consenting participants in the workshop complained about the AI's creep factor:

it feels like the A.I. is gas-lighting you. Seems like a noncommittal sexting bot. It should at least be clear about what it’s trying to do.

The startup that Mozilla fostered for this panel ended up crashing and burning, but its creepier, worse brethren live on inside of Firefox 130, displayed as first-class options within Mozilla's chatbot options. I just thought it would be fun to take a trip down memory lane to see how many creepy red flags AI companies could get within Mozilla's view without ever concerning them.

 

Now that Google and Microsoft each consume more power than some fairly big countries, maybe it's time for 2024 Mozilla to take heed of 2021 Mozilla's warnings.

 

There seems to be minimal information about this online, so I'm leaving this here so cooler heads can prevail in discussion.

Link to filing: https://archive.org/details/jyjfub

Notable portions:

Teixeira was hired as Chief Product Officer and was in line to become CEO.

Mr. Teixeira became Chief Product Officer (“CPO”) of Mozilla in August, 2022. During the hiring process, Mr. Teixeira had conversations with executive recruiting firm, Russell Reynolds Associates, that one of Mozilla Corporation’s hiring criteria for the CPO role was an executive that could succeed Mitchell Baker as CEO.

Also, shortly after being hired, Mr. Teixeira had conversations with Ms. Baker about being positioned as her successor.

After taking medical leave to deal with cancer, Mozilla swiftly moved to replace CEO Mitchell Baker with someone else.

Shortly before Mr. Teixeira returned from leave, Mozilla board member Laura Chambers was appointed Interim CEO of Mozilla and Ms. Baker was removed as CEO and became Executive Chair of the Board of Directors.

After returning, Teixeira was ordered to lay off 50 preselected employees, and he objected due to Mozilla not needing to cut them and their disproportionate minority status.

In a meeting with Human Resources Business Partner Joni Cassidy, Mr. Teixeira discussed his concern that people from groups underrepresented in technology, like female leaders and persons of color, were disproportionately impacted by the layoff.

... Ms. Chehak verbally reprimanded Mr. Teixeira, accusing him of violating [a] non-existent “onboarding plan” and threatening to place Mr. Teixeira back on medical leave if he did not execute the layoffs as instructed.

Mozilla's lack of inclusivity was a known problem

In February 2022, Mozilla commissioned the firm of Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. to assess its performance in providing a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace culture.

The report delivered in 2023 from Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. states in part: “MoCo falls into the Cultural Incapacity category based on leadership’s inadequate response to the needs of a diverse culture or else the need to create a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture, which is reflected in current systems, processes and procedures, policies and practices, or the lack thereof, and are incongruent with MoCo’s stated values and goals.”

Steve Teixeira has been put on leave.

On May 23, 2024, Mozilla placed Mr. Teixeira on administrative leave.

Mr. Teixeira requested a reason for being placed on administrative leave.

Mozilla did not provide Mr. Teixeira with a reason why he was placed on administrative leave.

Mozilla cut off Mr. Teixeira’s access to email, Slack messaging, and other Mozilla systems.

Mozilla instructed employees not to communicate with Mr. Teixeira about work-related matters.

Upon information and belief, an investigation into Mr. Teixeira’s allegations was finally conducted in late May 2024, but Mozilla did not do so under its internal policies and procedures regarding managing complaints of discrimination. Mr. Teixeira was not contacted to participate in the investigation into his complaint of unlawful treatment.

Coverage online so far

~~I say "alleged" because there appears to be no consensus on the veracity of this document.~~

Update: this appears to be confirmed.

This has received no "news" coverage besides one angry loudmouth (Bryan Lunduke) whose entire commentary career has been shaped by his political beliefs, regardless of truth.

 

I recently downloaded Firefox Nightly and noticed some new settings that were enabled by default:

  • Suggestions from Firefox Nightly
    Get suggestions from the web related to your search
  • Suggestions from sponsors
    Support Firefox Nightly with occasional sponsored suggestions

Learn more about Firefox Suggest

The link in the UI doesn't mention sponsorships anywhere. But this page does:

Who are Mozilla’s partners for sponsored suggestions?

We partner with organizations to serve up some of these suggestion types... For sponsored results, we primarily work with adMarketplace, while also providing non-sponsored results from Wikipedia.

This page links to the adMarketplace Privacy Policy which makes it pretty clear this company is okay with collecting your IP address and passing it to further unnamed entities.

Elsewhere, they say Firefox sends them "the number of times Firefox suggests or displays specific content and your clicks on that content, as well as basic data about your interactions with Firefox Suggest", and then will share interaction information "in an aggregate manner with our partners".


Update: Switched the link from the Desktop to the Mobile version. Added more quotes from FF, and bolded info about their one named AdTech partner.

-1
deleted (www.google.com)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by LWD@lemm.ee to c/breadtube@lemmy.world
7
deleted (i.imgur.com)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by LWD@lemm.ee to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 

Done in Boost.

90
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by LWD@lemm.ee to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
 

Today, when I navigated to amazon.com on Firefox for Android, I received a jarring message that I could "try" a new service, Fakespot, on the app.

Fakespot is littered with privacy issues.

Among other things, FakeSpot/Mozilla was forced to admit:
"We sell and share your personal information"

Fakespot's privacy policy allows them to store and/or sell:

  • Your email address
  • Your IP address
  • "Protected chacteristics"
    ie gender, sexuality, race...
  • Data scraped from across the web
  • Account IDs
  • Things you bought
    (This is sold to advertisers)
  • Things you considered buying
    (This is sold to advertisers)
  • Your precise location
    (This is sold to advertisers)
  • Inferences about you
    (This is sold to advertisers)

Right before Mozilla acquired them, Fakespot updated their privacy policy to allow transfer of private data to any company that acquired them. (Previous Privacy Policy here. Search "merge" in both.)

People donate to Mozilla because they believe in the company's stated goals. Why were the donations put into an acquisition of a company with this kind of privacy policy? And why has Mozilla focused on bundling it as bloat into their browser? Now that Brave is in hot water for becoming bloated, Mozilla should buck the trend, not follow it.

0
deleted (lemm.ee)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by LWD@lemm.ee to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
 

Today, when I navigated to amazon.com on Firefox for Android, I received a jarring message that I could "try" a new service, Fakespot, on the app.

What's Fakespot? A "review-checking, scammer-spotting service for Firefox."

Among other things, FakeSpot/Mozilla was forced to admit:
"We sell and share your personal information"

Fakespot's privacy policy allows them to collect and sell:

  • Your email address
  • Your IP address
  • Account IDs
  • A list of things you purchased and considered purchasing
  • Your precise location (which will be sent to advertising partners)
  • Data about you publicly available on the web
  • Your curated profile (which will also be sent to advertising providers)

Right before Mozilla acquired them, Fakespot updated their privacy policy to allow transfer of private data to any company that acquired them. (Previous Privacy Policy here. Search "merge" in both.)

Who asked for this? Who demanded integration into Firefox, since it was already a (relatively unpopular) browser extension people could have used instead?

view more: next ›