Mozilla and Pocket

Starting in version 38.0.5, Firefox includes a built-in integration with the bookmarking service Pocket. Although the Pocket service has been available in Firefox through an extension for several years, the integrated feature sparked an outcry among some users. Critics raised a variety of perceived problems with the feature, but most of the backlash focused on the proprietary nature of the Pocket service or on the perception that the feature resulted from a secret deal between the company and Mozilla—a deal that, presumably, did not take the community's best interests into account.

Recent history teaches that Mozilla should probably expect blowback whenever it adds a Firefox feature that involves cooperation with a closed-source service or company—implementing the W3C Encrypted Media Extension (EME) API or H.264 support, for example. Though blowback should perhaps be expected for every new Firefox feature (see the controversy about signed extensions, for example). In any case, although the past week has seen a rise in public debate about the Pocket feature (with blog posts critical of Mozilla from Benjamin Kerensa and Julien Voisin, among others), the feature itself is more than a month old, which warrants examining it in its historical context.

The Firefox 38.0.5 release landed on June 2. Pocket integration adds a button to the toolbar; clicking on it essentially allows the user to store the URL in a per-user Pocket account, from which it can be looked up and read later. In that sense, Pocket is no different than a traditional bookmark, except that a user's Pocket list is accessible from non-Firefox browsers (unlike bookmarks synchronized with Firefox Sync).

The addition of the feature was mentioned in the release notes and accompanying blog post, but some users seemed to find that degree of communication insufficient. For one thing, the 38.0.5 release is a "point point" release, which is not the normal place one expects to find the introduction of a significant new feature. For another, the feature evidently landed for Firefox 38 without first spending the usual amount of time in the Nightly channel—which, again, is the expected behavior. Many users—including Nightly channel testers—were taken by surprise when the feature appeared.

Questions

The most detailed critique of the feature, though, took place on the Mozilla Governance mailing list. Tucker McKnight filed a bug report about the move, in which he listed several issues. Shortly thereafter, McKnight was told to take the topic to the mailing list instead—which he did, there reiterating his concerns. McKnight focused on implementation details, starting with the fact that the Pocket integration is not implemented as a Firefox extension, but as native code. This, he said, raises three concerns:

• Extensions can be removed entirely, but Pocket support can only be disabled.
• Pocket support can only be disabled through the about:config page, which is not user friendly, "and therefore not in line with Mozilla's mission. In the past, Mozilla has been very good about showing the user what new features have been added to the interface and explaining any privacy implications that may come with them."
• Pocket support uses the user's existing Firefox Account to sign in to the Pocket web site. "It may also not be clear to some users that, even when signing in with your Firefox account, you are still giving your email address to a third party whose privacy policy is different than Mozilla's."

Adam Porter replied, raising the lack-of-public-discussion issue, and also pointed out that the move gives favored status to a proprietary service at the expense of similar free-software projects (like wallabag). A more appropriate approach, he said, would have been to define a "save for later" API that Pocket and other projects could hook into.

The ensuing back-and-forth was, at times, overly heated—in ways that will sound familiar to those experienced in Internet discourse. A number of community members chimed in just to express outrage and announce that they were switching to Chrome, and some Mozilla employees lashed out at the critics to accuse them of being uninformed.

If one takes away the emotion, though, a few key points remain. Some critics objected to the Pocket feature because Mozilla has historically resisted adding functionality to the core Firefox code that could easily be implemented in extensions (ad blocking, for example). That philosophy was one of the original justifications for decoupling Firefox from the Netscape suite, so changing it now seems like a policy shift. Similarly, others pointed out that "back in the day, Mozilla implemented Mozilla Weave (now Firefox Sync) exactly because existing alternatives were proprietary." Thus, partnering with a proprietary vendor is an about-face, one that is particularly noticeable given that Mozilla dropped its Pocket-like "Reading List" feature at the same time.

Finally, a few critics raised specific objections to the privacy policy and terms of service (TOS) for Pocket. At the very least, the language of both documents is written to apply to an installable software project (as the Pocket extension was), while the new Pocket-integration feature is implemented as a set of web API calls. Those API calls use a pocket namespace, which adds some additional fuel to the argument that the feature favors one vendor to the exclusion of all others.

Most critics seemed to feel that Pocket, as a commercial entity, should not be implicitly trusted with user data, and many worried that the privacy policy allows Pocket to change its mind and begin commercializing the submitted data—leaving little recourse to users. Others raised concerns about the US-centric language in the policies and about prohibitions on using the service commercially or with objectionable (to some) links.

Answers

For its part, Mozilla representatives have provided responses to most of the core criticisms. Gijs Kruitbosch, a Mozilla engineer who worked on Pocket feature, answered both the lack-of-discussion and "playing favorites" criticisms. The feature landed late in the development cycle, he said, so the API and preference names were written specific to Pocket for the sake of speed—but the plan is to generalize them in future releases. Furthermore, Mozilla is using the Pocket implementation to gather usage data that will lead to a more open API once the use patterns and requirements are better understood. Mozilla's Mike Connor added that the same approach was taken for the first versions of search-engine integration and Firefox's Social API.

As to the concern that Pocket is a closed-source service, Mozilla's Gervase Markham replied Mozilla has partnered with closed-back-end services in the past without raising ire—most notably "the bundled search engines, safe browsing and (until recently) our location service". He did, however, agree that the UI's perceived ambiguity about the fact that user data is being sent to a third party is a valid complaint.

Ultimately, though, Mozilla could not provide easy answers to every question—in particular, to the privacy and TOS concerns. Dan Stillman called the comparison to search-engine integration invalid, given that Firefox already had a bookmark-sync feature that did offer privacy safeguards:

Connor noted that Mozilla's bookmark-saving web service, Firefox Sync, was designed with strong cryptography and strong privacy protections in mind, and that it failed to catch on. "The vast majority of users didn't understand or care about the added security. It was more of a liability than an asset. Firefox Accounts make a different tradeoff as a result, and it's unsurprisingly more popular (and _useful_) as a result." Meanwhile, he said, Pocket has already proven itself popular—both as a browser extension and on other platforms (such as e-readers and mobile OSes without Firefox).

On June 10, Markham volunteered to get clarification on the Pocket TOS and privacy policy as they apply to the Firefox-integration feature. On July 14, Urmika Devi from the Mozilla legal team joined the discussion and gave a blanket answer to the policy questions:

It remains to be seen how Devi's response (which also addressed some of the specific, recurring concerns) will be interpreted, but the legal team has agreed to follow up on any additional questions.

Nevertheless, there remain other unanswered questions, too. For example, Stillman, McKnight, and several others requested more information (and even a timeline) about when and how the "save for later" feature now used only by Pocket would be opened up to additional participants, as Kruitbosch suggested it would. Others have asked whether or not the Pocket deal provides revenue to Mozilla. There has not yet been a reply on either point. Whatever else Mozilla may have in mind for the feature, this debate indicates that one thing it certainly needs is improved clarity and communication with the community.