How fucking clueless is @Mozilla?

Let’s give Zoom 5 out of 5 stars for security* clueless.

* In a so-called “privacy” rating.

@aral Discord also has 5/5. The rating system is inadequate.

@Gargron @aral Signal has 5/5. Mozilla is basically saying "Zoom is as good as Signal". 🤦‍♀️

@aral @tomasino @Gargron I appreciate, though, how "doxy[.]me" (whatever it is) got a 2.5 / 5 -- appropriately for a service whose very name suggests it's going to doxx its users

@tomasino @rysiek @Gargron @aral The criteria on the page seems to be *designed* to give stuff like Zoom 5/5.

@cadadr @tomasino @Gargron @aral a friend pointed out that Privacy not Included is a scorecard for IoT stuff, and in IoT many of the points on the scorecard are far from obvious... It kind of makes more sense when dealing with IoT devices, as intended.

How video chat apps got in there is hard to explain.

@rysiek @tomasino @Gargron @aral Proooobably the same way Hello, Pocket, and other privacy scandal thingies got into Firefox: thanks to Mozilla's clueless leadership and marketing.

I mean this is the company who killed it's entire extension ecosystem when that was the very edge that they had over the competition, apart from preaching open culture.

I still miss pentadactyl. Couldn't even _try_ Conkeror. Gotta give a second try to Qutebrowser...

@cadadr @rysiek @tomasino @Gargron @aral what are we going to browse with, if Mozilla is "clueless" and Firefox apparently "flawed" in turn?

Qutebrowser? Falkon? Midori?

...I mean apart from LYNX, of course 😇

@hrodnand @rysiek @tomasino @Gargron @aral used qutebrowser for a few months a couple years or so ago. It was decent but had a few problems with stuff happening concurrently. But it's 1.x now so I want to give it another try.

Next Browser is intriguing but it has a bad security story.

@Gargron Mozilla is inadequate. They’re not what we think they are (i.e., they’re not what they say they are. As their head of EU policy once told me: “we’re just another Silicon Valley tech company… why are you holding us to a higher standard?” Then why don’t you tell people that? I mean, heck, come on, look at their funding. They’re ~100% funded by surveillance capitalists.

@aral @Gargron Yes that is unfortunately very true. They must play by the rules of the surveillance capitalist or else they will lose their funding.

There is an old saying:” if you want to know the truth, follow the money”

When one looks who is funding who, one can determine what is going on.

As much as I am a fan of Mozilla, it never sat right with me how they could preach privacy while making Google the default search. I get the idea of needs must when they need funding to continue to make great products. But... Google. Ugh. They're a leech.

@aral If there isn't such a thing as "privacy theatre" there ought to be.

@aral This is about as useless as a rating for a restaurant that says "5/5 Great".

@aral For the past half dozen or so years it seems like if mozilla can find a new way to shoot itself (and freedom as in libre) in the foot it chooses it.
Even after the open faucet from goog was turned off the madness has continued.

Privacy policy present => Privacy.
Encryption somewhere present => Confidentiality.

Deeply disappointing.

Maybe it's a delayed April's fool day... as long as you pass the minimum standard for encryption without e2e encryption, aka "officially spying on your users".

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!