A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com) [LWN.net]

Chris Soghoian worries about Google's funding of Mozilla on News.com. "This begs the question: why doesn't Firefox adopt the features of AdBlock Plus and CustomizeGoogle? While the terms of Google's contract with Mozilla are not public, even if Mozilla were contractually free to include anti-Google-tracking features, it would not be a wise move, business-wise. After all, it is not too smart to anger the company that provides more than 85 percent of your financing."

to post comments

A dangerously paranoid journalist

Posted Nov 2, 2007 15:46 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] (11 responses)

This guy needs to have his tinfoil hat adjusted - it appears to be too tight.  All of his
"worries" are refuted in the comments below the article.  Just another piece of FUD.

I think the article has a point

Posted Nov 2, 2007 16:29 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (4 responses)

I would have re-ordered the paragraphs, but I think this article has a solid point.

The safe exit for the Mozilla Corporation is to use the millions from Google to invest in
alternative revenue streams and break their dependence on this company that gives them a
conflict of interest.

In the mean time, I'm happier using IceWeazel anyway.

Two conflicting goals

Posted Nov 2, 2007 18:09 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (3 responses)

Mozilla used to be about making a cross-platform browser. That goal has split into two: first, an easy-to-install alternative browser for Microsoft Windows users, and second, an easy-to-integrate default browser for Linux. For the first, it makes sense to milk the Google connection. For the second, the relationship between Mozilla as upstream and the Linux distribution is still being worked out. You get Iceweasel on Debian and Firefox-branded Firefox on Ubuntu.

Two conflicting goals

Posted Nov 2, 2007 19:01 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (2 responses)


Iceweasel == firefox. 
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. (although I prefer epiphany realy).


With this the tinfoil hat is out pretty solid looking. If Firefox would default to using
Google pretty much anyways. Iceweasel defaults to using google and my epiphany defaulted to
using google, if I remember correctly. (and if it didn't it does now through my own actions)

Google is mearly the most popular search engine out there. Mozilla getting kick-backs from
Google is just pure gravy and I figure is less of a way to control Firefox then it is to try
to counter-act the control Microsoft has on the web through IE.

The money isn't coming in forever, of course. So what Mozilla needs to do is put the money
into a trust and use it to sponsor important open source projects. If properly invested the
interest from the money alone will be able to keep a fairly large team of programmers and
integrators under a full time wage and with proper management it can last indefinately.

Two conflicting goals

Posted Nov 2, 2007 20:02 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

Throwing money at a software project can kill it.  Better to use the money to hire as many as
possible of the toughest software patent lawyers in the world.

Missing the point

Posted Nov 4, 2007 15:46 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Which search engine is the default is not the important issue.

The important issue is the useful privacy features being left out because of a conflict of
interest.  Mozilla is siding with Google over the users of its software.

A dangerously paranoid journalist

Posted Nov 2, 2007 17:01 UTC (Fri) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] (5 responses)

Actually, I really think he has a point.  Not only does Google have enough employees working
on Firefox to ram through whatever change they desire, they also control enough members of the
self-appointed WHAT-WG "HTML 5" group to do whatever they want there as well.  So an idea can
be "standardized" instantly solely by Google employees, then implemented, reviewed,
super-reviewed, and committed entirely by Google employees.  

This is not theoretical, it already happened with the "ping" attribute in HTML 5, which
benefits nobody except advertising companies (read: Google).

A dangerously paranoid journalist

Posted Nov 2, 2007 17:51 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] (1 responses)

Actually, "ping" (which provides a standard way to notify a server when you click a link) arguably benefits users in general. Web sites already implement the equivalent of ping via redirect or JavaScript hacks, and the result is to make web pages slower and less usable. "ping" allows them to do the same thing without the drawbacks.

Also, a web browser could easily be modified to ignore the "ping" attribute, unlike previous hacks which vary too much to code around easily, so in this sense it is actually privacy-enabling (to the extent that it becomes widespread).

probable outcome, real solutions, etc.

Posted Nov 4, 2007 17:12 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Of course, the obvious outcome is that if users do get improved privacy by websites using
'ping' and users disabling it, then the websites will stop using it.

The only sturdy solution I can see is for the web browsers to keep on keeping up with
work-arounds for with websites which try to invade people's privacy.

This would be practical if Firefox was on the side of its users, but isn't when it's in the
pocket of a privacy invader like Google.

A dangerously paranoid journalist

Posted Nov 3, 2007 18:40 UTC (Sat) by Segora (subscriber, #8209) [Link] (1 responses)

> [...] they also control enough members [...]

Yeah, it's scary if you notice the remote control antennae the first time. There's even rumour
of a mind control chip. But that's nothing when it comes to the death
r&*^*&^argh%(%%Connection terminated.

A dangerously paranoid journalist

Posted Nov 4, 2007 12:17 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

What a pity we don't have a "LWN quote of the week", this post would make excellent material :D

A dangerously paranoid journalist

Posted Nov 8, 2007 13:07 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

Firefox's prime imperative should be to maintain compliance with the ABM Treaty (Anything But
Microsoft).

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 15:47 UTC (Fri) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link] (5 responses)

Wow, Firefox knows how to stay bought.  Why else wouldn't they integrate features that a)
damage a business model that legitimately supports the overwhelming majority of websites
(advertisement), and b) integrate features that are site-specific to one vendor's properties
(Google)?  Those sound like wins for everybody.

Ad blocking is something that "everybody does, but nobody talks about".  Show of 'hands' - how
many of you run a website that uses money from advertisements of some sort to stay afloat?
How many of you want a major internet browser to officially integrate features that -- while
helpful against bad apples -- will damage your revenues?  Want to place bets on how fast a
default ad blocking feature would result in anti-Firefox work?

And yes, Firefox implements features from Google for general browsing use.  But why should
they implement a default feature that is designed to mess with Google-only tracking and
website features?  Consider popup-blocking and cookie-blocking as generic features already
implemented.  They work pretty much everywhere.  Come up with a generic tracking-prevention
feature that works as universally, and everybody wins.  Abstraction is the key to good
features.  Solve classes of problems in code, and have good code.  Fix single problems one at
a time, and have bad code.

Wow, Google sure sounds like the only reason Mozilla might not implement these wonderful
features, don't they?

as a commenter pointed out ...

Posted Nov 2, 2007 18:00 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (3 responses)

MozillaCorp hosts the AdBlock Plus extension on its own site. I think that having it as an extension is best, especially since I prefer and use the older AdBlock extension (AdBlock Plus has a really weird and baroque UI).

as a commenter pointed out ...

Posted Nov 2, 2007 19:00 UTC (Fri) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (1 responses)

(AdBlock Plus has a really weird and baroque UI)

OTOH you almost never have to use it. That is, if you agree with the standard filtersets you can download. Now, I'm from Denmark, but even here, the AB+ filtersets available works almost perfectly.
I'd rather use a horrible UI once, than a better one often (For varying degrees of "often")

That said, it IS a really REALLY ugly plugin...

as a commenter pointed out ...

Posted Nov 3, 2007 3:14 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Right, but I want to choose what I block, I don't want to delegate that choice to others (example: I might want to allow some ads through to support the sites they run on if the ads aren't obnoxious). AdBlock Plus has a horrible interface if you want to customize the rules, while AdBlock is much easier.

as a commenter pointed out ...

Posted Nov 3, 2007 18:49 UTC (Sat) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link]

<i>MozillaCorp hosts the AdBlock Plus extension on its own site.</i>

Hosting on addons.mozilla.org does not imply endorsement of an extension. See the page footer:

"Mozilla is providing links to these applications as a courtesy, and makes no representations
regarding the applications or any information related there to. Any questions, complaints or
claims regarding the applications must be directed to the appropriate software vendor."

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 20:03 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

ABP and AB should NEVER be integrated directly into the browser. As a plugin it can update
itself much more frequently than it could in the browser itself. This gives the developers the
ability to immediately push an update out when scam artists find ways around the blocking.

IMO the optional security stuff like ABP, NoScript and dozens of others should always be a
plugin for the update reasons alone. You need the flexibility to update frequently as the
"enemy" adjusts to your blocks. This is why scammers and spamers and others hate ABP and
NoScript, because if they find a workaround it will be closed very quickly, often before they
can profit from it. 

So in summary, although the google influence is part of the reason, I think the real reason
it's not integrated is to give the developers flexibility.

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 16:49 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] (4 responses)

All it takes it a smart guy who
- creates a modified Firefox package (named "[1]" here, because you need to rename it per
mozilla policy) adblock etc.
- is authoritative enough that people will favor [1] over the vanilla Firefox

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 19:26 UTC (Fri) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, exactly!  If *only* there were some way for a third party to ship its own customized
version of the browser, with access to the source and everything.  Wouldn't that be cool? :)

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 20:08 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] (2 responses)

There is a way. Debian does it, under the name Iceweasel.
All it takes for a FF fork to become successful is a propaganda minister, like Ubuntu has for
its distribution...

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 3, 2007 4:04 UTC (Sat) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link] (1 responses)

I was being sarcastic. :)

Disagreements with the "owners" of software are inevitable, and free software is the solution.
This problem was solved long before it occurred.

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 9, 2007 0:23 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

I was being sarcastic. :)

Lesson: don't be sarcastic in written comments. Without the facial expression, tone of voice, and audience who knows you, it isn't nearly as evident as it seems that you're being sarcastic. Even with emphasis markup and smilies.

There's an earlier comment on this article that I honestly can't make heads or tails of because there appears to be sarcasm in some parts, but I can't tell where.

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 17:55 UTC (Fri) by danielhedblom (guest, #47307) [Link] (4 responses)

I had the impression that Firefox was all about sane defaults and not cramming features people
dont want down their throat. The only ads i block are the ones that blinks or suck processing
power. I understand that without ads the sites i visit has to get the money they need
somewhere else, like subscriptions. 

Blocking too much in firefox would also make it an unwanted browser as stated in a comment
above. If you do want to block something there are extensions for that but it isnt something i
feel should be default. Bloat starts with features like this and ends with a very disperse
product that fills everybodys need but very very poorly,

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 19:42 UTC (Fri) by dlpierson (guest, #5124) [Link]

> The only ads i block are the ones that blinks or suck processing
> power. I understand that without ads the sites i visit has to get the money 
> they need somewhere else, like subscriptions. 

Sort of the same here (except expand "blinks" to "moves, flashes, blinks, or does other
distracting and obnoxious things").  The problem is that so many ads do it that after a while
I get annoyed and use regexps to block all ads from the offending provider.  By now I don't
see a very many ads at all even though my goals allow non-obnoxious ads.  I agree that this
isn't good for the sites, but it's all I can live with.

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 21:15 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (2 responses)

I had the impression that Firefox was all about sane defaults and not cramming features people dont want down their throat.

Unfortunately, the features I want most can't be added as plugins.

- Does the UI really have to block when a page download blocks? Why isn't the UI running in a separate thread?

- Why does it reformat the page source when I save a file?

- Why does it insert extra newlines when I copy and paste from source?

- Why does the search bar have so much trouble retaining focus, and why does it grab focus for no apparent reason?

- Why does the browser cache fail to detect small code changes in static pages?

- And why does it have to front it's main window over the top of whatever I happen to be working on just because a page loaded?

All of this together makes for a fairly frustrating experience, and none of seems likely to be fixed any time soon. I least I don't have to remove lock files as often as I did with Netscape.

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 2, 2007 22:44 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

People solved it already. They made a different browser.

Or something like that. I never noticed the problems your describing with Firefox so I don't
know if other browsers fix it. But I figure it's worth a try.

Personally I think the UI is jarring when compared to the rest of my gnome desktop, plus when
I want a browser I just want to use a browser. I like having a seperate rss reader and that
sort of thing. Epiphany is pretty good and it uses less ram. 

The smart bookmark feature is pretty clever, I think. 

Probably the major strike against it is the lack of extensions for it compared to firefox. But
I think it has the major ones (greasemonkey, addblock, etc). Then for making extensions I
suppose it depends on whether or not you prefer XUL and javascript type stuff or python and
pygtk.

Probably the coolest thing it has going for it is the port of Webkit so that it can be more
useful for lighter hardware.

A dangerous conflict of interest between Firefox and Google (News.com)

Posted Nov 3, 2007 15:23 UTC (Sat) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

I've seen all of these issues, quite often.

Some of them have gotten better over the years, some have gotten worse.  Some have sesawed up
and and down.  I have to assume that either the project assigns low or no importance to
resolving interface problems, or that the codebase is too complicated for the developer set to
manage.  I'd bet on the second.

Conflict of interest is not so apparent

Posted Nov 4, 2007 12:32 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

As long as Google does not effectively veto Mozilla (such as removing extensions from its repo) I don't care much about the "conflict of interest". In general I think that as long as Mozilla Corp plays fair GNU/Linux people will use it. If Firefox loses the ability to block images and install NoScript and similar plugins, then IceWeasel will probably attract more users.

A united browser benefits us all, but a fork is unavoidable sometimes; a fork which remains in sync is better than an IE monoculture where we play no part.