Hacker News Reader

Comment by geocrasher | Hacker News Reader

For those for whom an understanding could be reached, no explanation is needed. For those with whom an understanding would not be able to be reached, no explanation will suffice.

There seem to be some that feel that because they use software that is Open Source, it is "theirs". There's no way to help somebody get over the loss of ownership of something they didn't actually posses.

View on HN

I knew nothing about Waterfox or System1 before reading this submission. So I should not be too biased.

When I browse waterfox's website I see that it is built by an independent developer and that the two first selling points are "No Telemetry" and "Limited Data Collection".

System1 on the otherhand is an advertisement company whose name, I'm guessing, refers to Daniel Kahneman's two subsystems of the brain. The system 1 being the intuitive brain, which according to Kahneman is easy to fool.

Further reading about System1 confirms that they are not very much inclined to preserve people's privacy: E.g.: "Generally we do not rely on consent as a legal basis for processing your personal data although we will get your consent before sending you direct marketing communications."

So whatever the reason Waterfox was sold, I think it's understandable that users are disappointed. (Obviously harassing the author is not ok.) I think updating Waterfox's is the proper way to fix users' frustration.

Waterfox is not a mainstream browser, therefore its fair to assume its users come to it in search of something that don't get in the major players. I'm assuming again, but I don't think is much of a leap, that those needs are privacy related and having control over the software you use. Not having a faceless company behind the software, like Google for Chrome, Microsoft with Edge or even Mozilla with Firefox is a draw for users. Now having said that reading that its been bought by a company, and one that does business in advertising no less can be quite jarring. Its like you shopping only in a mom and pop grocery for years that's out of the way and more expensive, but you do it to help local economy. Then one day you get there and and while you load up your cart the owners tells you they work under Walmart now. The very thing you tried to avoid. Of course such decision is in the waterfox dev, and he has the right to do as he pleases but is understandable that some people might have problem with the sale.

> Those needs are privacy related and having control over the software you use.

That’s fair enough, but I’ve tried to stay away from branding Waterfox as such to try and avoid issues like this. Nothing has even happened to Waterfox, but I understand that people are to be critical, I think it’s fair enough.

> Then one day you get there and and while you load up your cart the owners tells you they work under Walmart now.

I don’t think it’s quite the same though. As much as I’ve done Waterfox for the users, I’ve also done it for myself and how I’d want and expect a web browser to be. That’s not going to change either, but like I said it’s fair for people to be critical of that

People aren't entitled to the continued work of waterfox devs but they are none the less entitled to honestly and respect and when they discover from third parties that a browser that was sold to them on the basis of privacy is now the property of an ad company it smacks of disrespect and dishonesty. They may not have PAID the developers any money by virtue of them not asking for any but they invested their trust by installing their software.

If you don't want people to rely on you, or get frustrated when they feel poorly done by it would be best not to put up ad copy on your own site suggesting that they do so.

Basically you have misidentified reasonable expectations as entitlement. I suggest you reassess.

> browser that was sold to them on the basis of privacy is now the property of an ad company it smacks of disrespect and dishonesty.

I’m sorry but Waterfox has never been touted by a privacy tool in the same vein as something like Tor, as I’ve mentioned in the blog. The expectations were too high for something like that.

Also, from what I know the largest rev streams are search syndication. I think if it was labelled <search syndicator> buys <one of its clients> it wouldn’t have been so negatively received.

> it would be best not to put up ad copy on your own site suggesting that they do so.

Sorry, I’m not sure I understand?

* On privacy

The first 2 of your 6 top points are no telemetry and limited data collection. How is that not soliciting users to install based on increased privacy?

* On moral obligations

If you solicit people to use your foo for no money and they come to rely on your foo and then withdraw or change the nature of your foo abruptly you may leave people worse off either perceptively or in actuality than if you never existed.

You are managing to create moral obligations for yourself without actually deriving any benefit. It's common to misjudge the nature of that obligation. Your users may imagine that they are "owed" a timely fix to their free software for example but its as false to imagine no obligation exists at all. You have an obligation not to leave people worse off than you found them or at least make a good faith effort in that regard.

People herein are imagining the extremely likely eventuality that their personal information will be sold and that since you didn't bother to inform them of a situation that would arouse this concern they imagine that you didn't tell them BECAUSE you had something to hide.

They have a piece of software on their machine which they believe could violate their privacy ergo they are worse off than they started. Furthermore they believe that the only reason they aren't MUCH worse off than when they started is because someone spilled the beans on reddit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com