SUMO community discussions

Pocket discussion? - post here

  • 31 Replies
  • Last reply by cor-el
  1. Madasan
    Madasan 1255 posts
    more options

    Hi everybody,

    I noticed there are a few concerns around Pocket integration so let's use this thread to talk about them. We should avoid using the support forum as a place for debate as that channel should be used for answering support questions only.

    So, what are you concerns related to Pocket? I noticed a few in the forums:

    • Why is Mozilla doing this?
    • Is Mozilla making any money from Pocket?
    • How does this comply with our user privacy policies?

    Anything else?

    Hi everybody, I noticed there are a few concerns around Pocket integration so let's use this thread to talk about them. We should avoid using the support forum as a place for debate as that channel should be used for answering support questions only. So, what are you concerns related to Pocket? I noticed a few in the forums: * Why is Mozilla doing this? *Is Mozilla making any money from Pocket? *How does this comply with our user privacy policies? Anything else?
  2. Mark Schmidt
    Mark Schmidt 51 posts
    more options

    Thank you Madalina, for opening this thread.

    I'll start by addressing the concerns you brought up, and a few more I've seen. If anyone has additional concerns, please express them here. I will do my best to get a response back to you ASAP.

    Why is Mozilla doing this? / Is Mozilla making any money from Pocket? Contrary to what many may assume, this Pocket partnership is not about money. It is primarily about driving Firefox Accounts sign-ups. Firefox Accounts and Sync are a major part of Mozilla's efforts to drive user retention, which is a major part of the bigger effort to drive growth in Firefox users.

    Despite a vocal minority complaining about this feature, we do think that this move is ultimately going to be a positive thing in terms of driving Firefox growth.

    Is the integration proprietary/closed source? How does this comply with our user privacy policies? The integration is open source and non-proprietary. It is an integrated part of the Firefox code base. As such the Pocket integration falls under the same licensing and policies as the rest of Firefox.

    That said, while the integration itself is Mozilla licensed and built with respect to Mozilla's commitment to privacy, the Pocket service itself falls under Pocket's own privacy policy and end-user licensing. However, we have had and will continue to have dialogues with Pocket regarding their privacy practices and user data policies (as we do with nearly all of our product partners).

    In fact, we have already successfully seen Pocket change one of their privacy practices as a direct result of these discussions. That is to say, when signing up for Pocket with a Firefox Account users are not required to add a first/last name. When signing up for Pocket any other way this information is required by Pocket. This is one example of many where Mozilla has successfully petitioned a partner to change their practices with respect to user privacy.

    Why can't the Pocket integration be fully removed? I believe the intention for the "browser.pocket.enabled" config option is to allow complete removal of Pocket integration from all menus. It has become apparent that this is not the current behavior. This is definitely a bug, which I will be filing shortly.

    Thank you Madalina, for opening this thread. I'll start by addressing the concerns you brought up, and a few more I've seen. If anyone has additional concerns, please express them here. I will do my best to get a response back to you ASAP. '''Why is Mozilla doing this? / Is Mozilla making any money from Pocket?''' Contrary to what many may assume, this Pocket partnership is not about money. It is primarily about driving Firefox Accounts sign-ups. Firefox Accounts and Sync are a major part of Mozilla's efforts to drive user retention, which is a major part of the bigger effort to drive growth in Firefox users. Despite a vocal minority complaining about this feature, we do think that this move is ultimately going to be a positive thing in terms of driving Firefox growth. '''Is the integration proprietary/closed source? How does this comply with our user privacy policies?''' The integration is open source and non-proprietary. It is an integrated part of the Firefox code base. As such the Pocket integration falls under the same licensing and policies as the rest of Firefox. That said, while the integration itself is Mozilla licensed and built with respect to Mozilla's commitment to privacy, the Pocket service itself falls under Pocket's own privacy policy and end-user licensing. However, we have had and will continue to have dialogues with Pocket regarding their privacy practices and user data policies (as we do with nearly all of our product partners). In fact, we have already successfully seen Pocket change one of their privacy practices as a direct result of these discussions. That is to say, when signing up for Pocket with a Firefox Account users are not required to add a first/last name. When signing up for Pocket any other way this information is required by Pocket. This is one example of many where Mozilla has successfully petitioned a partner to change their practices with respect to user privacy. '''Why can't the Pocket integration be fully removed?''' I believe the intention for the "browser.pocket.enabled" config option is to allow ''complete'' removal of Pocket integration from all menus. It has become apparent that this is not the current behavior. This is definitely a bug, which I will be filing shortly.

    Modified by Mark Schmidt on

  3. AliceWyman
    AliceWyman 6436 posts
    more options

    Mark Schmidt said

    Why can't the Pocket integration be fully removed? I believe the intention for the "browser.pocket.enabled" config option is to allow complete removal of Pocket integration from all menus. It has become apparent that this is not the current behavior. This is definitely a bug, which I will be filing shortly.

    Looks like this has already been reported and fixed.[*] See: Bug 1170990 - Pocket cannot be disabled (in existing profiles)

    Edit: Here's a quote from the bug report:

    Justin Dolske [:Dolske] 2015-06-03 12:16:02 PDT

    I believe bug 1163917 fixed this, although the latter comments there indicate users with existing beta profiles wouldn't automatically pick up the fix.

    In any case, the recommended way to disable Pocket is to simply remove the button, which should correctly remove the other integration points. It's simplest to re-enable the pref, and then remove it per https://support.mozilla.org/kb/disable-pocket-firefox

    So, any user who has disabled Pocket by setting browser.pocket.enabled to "false" in about:config (as originally recommended in the ghacks article, http://www.ghacks.net/2015/05/14/how-to-disable-pocket-in-firefox/ and on other websites) will now have to reset that pref to "true" and then follow the instructions in the Disable or re-enable Pocket for Firefox article.

    [*] Related bug: Bug 1171569 - browser.pocket.enabled should fully disable the Pocket integration

    ''Mark Schmidt [[#post-65395|said]]'' <blockquote> '''Why can't the Pocket integration be fully removed?''' I believe the intention for the "browser.pocket.enabled" config option is to allow ''complete'' removal of Pocket integration from all menus. It has become apparent that this is not the current behavior. This is definitely a bug, which I will be filing shortly. </blockquote> <s>Looks like this has already been reported and fixed.</s>[*] See: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1170990 Bug 1170990] - Pocket cannot be disabled (in existing profiles) '''Edit: ''' Here's a quote from the bug report: ----- Justin Dolske [:Dolske] 2015-06-03 12:16:02 PDT I believe [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1163917 bug 1163917] fixed this, although the latter comments there indicate users with existing beta profiles wouldn't automatically pick up the fix. In any case, the recommended way to disable Pocket is to simply remove the button, which should correctly remove the other integration points. It's simplest to re-enable the pref, and then remove it per https://support.mozilla.org/kb/disable-pocket-firefox ----- So, any user who has disabled Pocket by setting browser.pocket.enabled to "false" in about:config (as originally recommended in the ghacks article, http://www.ghacks.net/2015/05/14/how-to-disable-pocket-in-firefox/ and on other websites) will now have to reset that pref to "true" and then follow the instructions in the [[Disable Pocket for Firefox]] article. [*] Related bug: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1171569 Bug 1171569 - browser.pocket.enabled should fully disable the Pocket integration]

    Modified by AliceWyman on

  4. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    After reading Alice's post above I guess from

    • Bug 1163917 - The built-in Pocket is NOT completely disabled if Pocket is already installed and used as an add-on (the original anticipated fix of 1170990 )

    That those in France installing or using en-US Firefox will have Pocket enabled by default and not be able to completely disable it until Fx41

    So it would seem Rasmus' concerns and problem may be valid.

    Edit I struck out my original comment as that is not what the bugs suggest, and modified the comment about the bugs.

    • However I still wonder what happens if and when en-US builds are use in other countries.
    • Also until proved otherwise I pressume Rasmus had detected Network activity relating to pocket, as was stated in the original thread.
    • Why on earth did this jump in to a point release instead of riding the train like most other features.
    After reading Alice's post above I guess from * [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1163917 Bug 1163917] - The built-in Pocket is NOT completely disabled if Pocket is already installed and used as an add-on (the <s>original</s> ''anticipated fix'' of [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1170990 1170990] ) <s>That those in France installing or using en-US Firefox will have Pocket enabled by default and not be able to completely disable it until Fx41 </s> So it would seem Rasmus' concerns and problem may be valid. ------ '''Edit''' I struck out my original comment as that is not what the bugs suggest, and modified the comment about the bugs. * However I still wonder what happens if and when en-US builds are use in other countries. * Also until proved otherwise I pressume Rasmus had detected Network activity relating to pocket, as was stated in the original thread. * Why on earth did this jump in to a point release instead of riding the train like most other features.

    Modified by John99 on

  5. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    The KB items discussions threads are all X Linked here.

    Rather Naive questions but

    • What does it do ? Do we describe it accurately ?
    • Why should the user want it ? Other than to help Mozilla !
    • Do we lose Reader Lists ? &|or alternative open source options ?

    This is from someone has never used pocket - me !! And who has not recently been following developments closely, with no Aurora or Nightly install at present.

    'What does it do ? Do we describe it accurately ? I glanced quickly at Pockets own FAQs

    Part of our description in Save web pages for later with Pocket for Firefox 

    ... Save articles, videos and web pages on your computer, ...

    My understanding is Saving things on the computer is what RL does. Pocket keeps them on a server. And probably doesn't actually do that as expected, as it requires the paid for premium service to archive web site content. So presumably if the website disappears or changes so does your saved content.

    Some may consider saving useful to prevent use of costly bandwidth that clearly does not happen. Or maybe to save a video clip using a slow connection, again out of the question.

    Apparently if a separate OS App (not Firefox) is used some content is available offline, but still not video.

    update https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/ Makes a better promotion. Very carefully crafted wording

    • Save it for later
      Short on time? Save articles, videos and more right from Firefox to view them later. It’s as simple as clicking the Pocket button in your toolbar.

    It does not say where it is saved. It heads it with a leading question, Short on time clearly they may argue all they offer is temporary time shifting

    • View it anywhere
      On the go? Get the Pocket app to read your saved articles anywhere, anytime, on any device – even when you’re not connected to the Internet.

    It omits to mention Firefox will not do this. It says read your articles it omits view or look at to avoid suggesting video is saved for offline viewing.

    Why should the user want it  ? Other than to help Mozilla ! I suspect I may not be too interested in pocket. But if we are putting it on Fx by default shouldn't we make a better attempt at promoting it by at least giving a better description and a list of some of the features and benefits.

    Do we lose Reader Lists ? &|or alternative open source options ? If we can implement RL on Fx Android I guess it is not resource hungry or likely to be denigrated as bloatware. Hey we could even get round that by developing RL as an addon or an app in line with Australis principles. But I guess RL gets low priority and loses out to Pocket.

    I note there is also a bug proposing integration of alternative and open source features. Bug 1163434 - Provide other read it later services than Pocket

    The KB items discussions threads are all X Linked here. Rather Naive questions but *What does it do ? Do we describe it accurately ? * Why should the user want it ? Other than to help Mozilla ! * Do we lose Reader Lists ? &|or alternative open source options ? This is from someone has never used pocket - me !! And who has not recently been following developments closely, with no Aurora or Nightly install at present. ''''What does it do ? Do we describe it accurately ?''' I glanced quickly at Pockets own [http://help.getpocket.com/customer/portal/articles/1999130-using-pocket-offline-with-firefox FAQ]s Part of our description in [[Save web pages for later with Pocket for Firefox]] ... Save articles, videos and web pages on your computer, ... My understanding is Saving things on the computer is what RL does. Pocket keeps them on a server. And probably doesn't actually do that as expected, as it requires the paid for premium service to archive web site content. So presumably if the website disappears or changes so does your ''saved'' content. Some may consider saving useful to prevent use of costly bandwidth that clearly does not happen. Or maybe to save a video clip using a slow connection, again out of the question. Apparently if a separate OS App (not Firefox) is used some content is available offline, but still not video. ------ '''update''' https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/ Makes a better promotion. '''Very''' carefully crafted wording * ''Save it for later <br />Short on time? Save articles, videos and more right from Firefox to view them later. It’s as simple as clicking the Pocket button in your toolbar.'' It does not say where it is saved. It heads it with a leading question, ''Short on time'' clearly they may argue all they offer is temporary time shifting * ''View it anywhere <br /> On the go? Get the Pocket app to read your saved articles anywhere, anytime, on any device – even when you’re not connected to the Internet.'' It omits to mention Firefox will not do this. It says read your articles it omits view or look at to avoid suggesting video is saved for offline viewing. ------ '''Why should the user want it ? Other than to help Mozilla !''' I suspect I may not be too interested in pocket. But if we are putting it on Fx by default shouldn't we make a better attempt at promoting it by at least giving a better description and a list of some of the features and benefits. '''Do we lose Reader Lists ? &|or alternative open source options ?''' If we can implement RL on Fx Android I guess it is not resource hungry or likely to be denigrated as bloatware. Hey we could even get round that by developing RL as an addon or an app in line with Australis principles. But I guess RL gets low priority and loses out to Pocket. I note there is also a bug proposing integration of alternative and open source features. [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1163434 Bug 1163434] - Provide other read it later services than Pocket
  6. Joni
    Joni 361 posts
    more options

    John99, thanks for bringing these up. I can't answer your last question, but I'll try to address the others:

    What does it do? It's meant for people who want to queue up content to read/watch during their downtime (i.e. while commuting, waiting in line, etc.) while switching between different devices. It's not meant for keeping content indefinitely.

    As far as our own KB documentation goes, I think we should focus on Firefox Accounts and other elements that are built into Firefox (buttons and bookmarks lists). A lot of the features (editing, tagging, sharing, syncing, and viewing) are handled directly by Pocket and they already do a good job of documenting those here. Our articles are already linking to Pocket support.

    Why should a user want it? I'd leave it to the marketing folks to promote Pocket. The product page you mentioned should already do that.

    We've distilled the benefits into a short intro in Save web pages for later with Pocket for Firefox, but I don't think we should be pushing them to users. It just adds noise. I'd keep the articles support-focused instead.

    Am I missing anything? I'm sure I am. Suggestions are always welcome (the more specific, the better), so let's share them here.

    (Edit: Oops, run-on sentence!)

    John99, thanks for bringing these up. I can't answer your last question, but I'll try to address the others: '''What does it do?''' It's meant for people who want to queue up content to read/watch during their downtime (i.e. while commuting, waiting in line, etc.) while switching between different devices. It's not meant for keeping content indefinitely. As far as our own KB documentation goes, I think we should focus on Firefox Accounts and other elements that are built into Firefox (buttons and bookmarks lists). A lot of the features (editing, tagging, sharing, syncing, and viewing) are handled directly by Pocket and they already do a good job of documenting those [http://help.getpocket.com/customer/portal/topics/804333-pocket-for-firefox/articles here]. Our articles are already linking to Pocket support. '''Why should a user want it?''' I'd leave it to the marketing folks to promote Pocket. The [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/ product page] you mentioned should already do that. We've distilled the benefits into a short intro in [[Save web pages for later with Pocket for Firefox]], but I don't think we should be pushing them to users. It just adds noise. I'd keep the articles support-focused instead. Am I missing anything? I'm sure I am. Suggestions are always welcome (the more specific, the better), so let's share them [[Save web pages for later with Pocket for Firefox | here]]. (Edit: Oops, run-on sentence!)

    Modified by Joni on

  7. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    The wording I quoted from our KB article is plain wrong to me. Pocket does not 

    Save articles, videos and web pages on your computer

    As for the remaining wording or replacement wording of the above I would have been inclined to just crib the the wording off the product page, and repeat it verbtim in the KB It is only three short paragraphs of two sentences each.

    If you don't want to add more detail of Pocket's own feature fine I understand that decision and as you say maybe you do not want to push them to users, but I would have included at least one of these pocket pages

    The wording I quoted from our KB article is plain wrong to me. Pocket does not ''Save articles, videos and web pages on your computer'' As for the remaining wording or replacement wording of the above I would have been inclined to just crib the the wording off the product page, and repeat it verbtim in the KB It is only three short paragraphs of two sentences each. If you don't want to add more detail of Pocket's own feature fine I understand that decision and as you say maybe you do not want to push them to users, but I would have included at least one of these pocket pages * '' [http://help.getpocket.com/customer/portal/topics/804333-pocket-for-firefox/articles Pocket for Firefox]'' <br /> http://help.getpocket.com/customer/portal/topics/804333-pocket-for-firefox/articles * [http://help.getpocket.com/customer/portal/articles/1999125-pocket-for-firefox-faq Pocket for Firefox FAQ ] <br /> http://help.getpocket.com/customer/portal/articles/1999125-pocket-for-firefox-faq
  8. Underpass
    Underpass 773 posts
    more options

    Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to raise this question.

    In the article I read:

    Pocket for Firefox is currently available in English, German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish versions of Firefox 38.0.5 and up, with more languages on the way.

    Currently the article Where is the "Pocket for Firefox" button? has 20.000+ hit, and it is the most read untranslated article. So, probably, if an Italian user would like to localize something, he or she will focus on that very article.

    I think that, until the Pocket feature is not available (for example) for Italian, the related articles should not appear in the Italian localization dashboard.

    Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to raise this question. In the article I read: <blockquote>Pocket for Firefox is currently available in English, German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish versions of Firefox 38.0.5 and up, with more languages on the way. </blockquote> Currently the article [[Where is the "Pocket for Firefox" button?]] has 20.000+ hit, and it is the most read untranslated article. So, probably, if an Italian user would like to localize something, he or she will focus on that very article. I think that, until the Pocket feature is not available (for example) for Italian, the related articles should not appear in the Italian localization dashboard.

    Modified by Underpass on

  9. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    Good question. & note now open for translation


    It is unusual having a feature for only limited locales.

    The only locale specific thing I can think of is the default search engine, other than of course the support fora themselves (and maybe a few prefs).

    I doubt we have the ability to list only for specific locales. Or to produce {for} KB versions for firefox builds. That may need to change. No doubt Joni will comment. I suppose it is something where as a workaround we could use collapsible sections as a means of producing a single document containing information on different locales or builds. (if and when we get the feature up and running again).

    No one has yet answered the question about the implications of using en-Us Firefox in locales that do not support Pocket. I understand the Pocket integration is on a build basis.

    Open for translation from 2nd June And I note the latest revision includes clarification on Countries See https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/where-pocket-button-firefox/compare?locale=en-US&to=95791&from=95738

    I guess part of the problem here is the very odd and unexplained release of a brand new feature as a point release.

    That must be impacting adversly on our ability to document the feature and with the rush to document and amend the documents it is bound to create a bigger workload on localisers than would have happened had the feature ridden the train.

    On the support fora (none-English) resource topic.

    I've even tried to get the localisation Admins and contributors to help providing info so we may list resources. That would make it easier when we need to tell someone this is not the correct forum, but not many seem to want to help such lost posters and gather and tabulate the available links.

    P.S. Joni or Michal will comment I am sure, but if it is the most popular untranslated Article I suspect it should be translated. I would think it will be even more popular once translated. Taking this particular article translating the one article that has already 20,000 plus hits sounds like it will save a lot of unnecessary support questions in the future.

    '''Good question.''' & note now open for translation It is unusual having a feature for only limited locales. The only locale specific thing I can think of is the default search engine, other than of course the support fora themselves (and maybe a few prefs). I doubt we have the ability to list only for specific locales. Or to produce {for} KB versions for firefox builds. That may need to change. No doubt Joni will comment. I suppose it is something where as a workaround we could use collapsible sections as a means of producing a single document containing information on different locales or builds. (if and when we get the feature up and running again). '''No one has yet answered the question about the implications of using en-Us Firefox in locales that do not support Pocket.''' I understand the Pocket integration is on a build basis. ---------- '''Open for translation from 2nd June''' And I note the latest revision includes clarification on Countries See https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/where-pocket-button-firefox/compare?locale=en-US&to=95791&from=95738 I guess part of the problem here is the very odd and unexplained release of a brand new feature as a point release. That must be impacting adversly on our ability to document the feature and with the rush to document and amend the documents it is bound to create a bigger workload on localisers than would have happened had the feature ridden the train. ---- On the support fora (none-English) resource topic. I've even tried to get the localisation Admins and contributors to help providing info so we may list resources. That would make it easier when we need to tell someone this is not the correct forum, but not many seem to want to help such lost posters and gather and tabulate the available links. ----- P.S. Joni or Michal will comment I am sure, but if it is the most popular untranslated Article I suspect it should be translated. I would think it will be even more popular once translated. Taking this particular article translating the one article that has already 20,000 plus hits sounds like it will save a lot of unnecessary support questions in the future.

    Modified by John99 on

  10. Mark Schmidt
    Mark Schmidt 51 posts
    more options

    John99 said

    Do we lose Reader Lists ? &|or alternative open source options ? If we can implement RL on Fx Android I guess it is not resource hungry or likely to be denigrated as bloatware. Hey we could even get round that by developing RL as an addon or an app in line with Australis principles. But I guess RL gets low priority and loses out to Pocket.

    As far as I know, we are not losing reader list. However, reading list sync functionality is being postponed.

    There are already alternatives. We can expect even more in the future. This partnership is very similar to our existing search partnerships in this way. Like search, there is actually an underlying API ("Social API") here which has been used by other bookmarking services, such as Delicious, for a long time. (See "Activate Delicious for Firefox" on https://delicious.com/tools ).

    John99 said

    No one has yet answered the question about the implications of using en-Us Firefox in locales that do not support Pocket. I understand the Pocket integration is on a build basis.

    I don't think there are any implications. The en-us build of Firefox will work the same no matter where in the world you are. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here.

    ''John99 [[#post-65412|said]]'' <blockquote> '''Do we lose Reader Lists ? &|or alternative open source options ?''' If we can implement RL on Fx Android I guess it is not resource hungry or likely to be denigrated as bloatware. Hey we could even get round that by developing RL as an addon or an app in line with Australis principles. But I guess RL gets low priority and loses out to Pocket. </blockquote> As far as I know, we are not losing reader list. However, reading list sync functionality is being postponed. There are already alternatives. We can expect even more in the future. This partnership is very similar to our existing search partnerships in this way. Like search, there is actually an underlying API ("Social API") here which has been used by other bookmarking services, such as Delicious, for a long time. (See "Activate Delicious for Firefox" on https://delicious.com/tools ). ''John99 [[#post-65412|said]]'' <blockquote> No one has yet answered the question about the implications of using en-Us Firefox in locales that do not support Pocket. I understand the Pocket integration is on a build basis. </blockquote> I don't think there are any implications. The en-us build of Firefox will work the same no matter where in the world you are. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here.
  11. Joni
    Joni 361 posts
    more options

    John99 said

    As for the remaining wording or replacement wording of the above I would have been inclined to just crib the the wording off the product page, and repeat it verbtim in the KB It is only three short paragraphs of two sentences each.

    John99, we can do that. We wrote the SUMO articles before the product pages were up, but now's a good time to change them.

    ''John99 [[#post-65420|said]]'' <blockquote> As for the remaining wording or replacement wording of the above I would have been inclined to just crib the the wording off the product page, and repeat it verbtim in the KB It is only three short paragraphs of two sentences each. </blockquote> John99, we can do that. We wrote the SUMO articles before the product pages were up, but now's a good time to change them.
  12. Joni
    Joni 361 posts
    more options

    John99 said

    I doubt we have the ability to list only for specific locales. Or to produce {for} KB versions for firefox builds. That may need to change.

    We don't have the ability to mark RFL for specific locales or display locale-specific content yet. We had looked into this for Japan's Firefox OS release, but we didn't have the resources to make it happen on time.

    Might be worth revisiting. Let's see what Michal says.

    ''John99 [[#post-65424|said]]'' <blockquote> I doubt we have the ability to list only for specific locales. Or to produce {for} KB versions for firefox builds. That may need to change. </blockquote> We don't have the ability to mark RFL for specific locales or display locale-specific content yet. We had looked into this for Japan's Firefox OS release, but we didn't have the resources to make it happen on time. Might be worth revisiting. Let's see what Michal says.
  13. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    Mark, Thanks for the answer about RL, but I am still uncertain about en-US Firefox use outside the USA

    Mark Schmidt said

    John99 said
    No one has yet answered the question about the implications of using en-Us Firefox in locales that do not support Pocket.
    I understand the Pocket integration is on a build basis.

    I don't think there are any implications. The en-us build of Firefox will work the same no matter where in the world you are. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here.

    I can not easilly test at present. Severe resource limitations. (I usually have many Firefox versions & clones installed & available, but just the one on this machine) Talking about Pocket & Firefox & en-US Maybe I am doing a bad job of asking and need to expand the question.

    • If Firefox en-US works the same everywhere then do we have issues with for instance Pocket being offered in France, when it probably should not be ?
    • Does that
      • Break the Pocket feature ?
        • If so, maybe one reason for popularity of KB article on the missing button.
      • Break the Pocket T&C ?
      • Provide a working Pocket !
        and mean our statements about Pocket not being available are wrong ?
      • Do something I have not listed - What ?
      • Really
        ... work the same no matter where in the world you are. ... ?
    Mark, Thanks for the answer about RL, but I am still uncertain about en-US Firefox use outside the USA ''Mark Schmidt [[#post-65435|said]]'' <blockquote> ''John99 [[#post-65412|said]]'' <blockquote> No one has yet answered the question about the implications of using en-Us Firefox in locales that do not support Pocket. <br />I understand the Pocket integration is on a build basis. </blockquote> I don't think there are any implications. The en-us build of Firefox will work the same no matter where in the world you are. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. </blockquote> I can not easilly test at present. Severe resource limitations. (I usually have many Firefox versions & clones installed & available, but just the one on this machine) '''Talking about Pocket & Firefox & en-US ''' Maybe I am doing a bad job of asking and need to expand the question. * If Firefox en-US works the same everywhere then do we have issues with for instance Pocket being offered in France, when it probably should not be ? *Does that ** Break the Pocket feature ? *** If so, maybe one reason for popularity of KB article on the missing button. ** Break the Pocket T&C ? ** Provide a working Pocket ! <br /> and mean our statements about Pocket not being available are wrong ? ** Do something I have not listed - What ? ** Really <br />'' ... work the same no matter where in the world you are. ...'' ?
  14. ideato
    ideato 567 posts
    more options

    Hello to all

    please see the next reply : https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1065769#answer-737579

    @I really do want to revert my browser, because I view "pocket" as a bigger security/ privacy threat than any recent security fixes.

    opinions ? thoughts about that ?

    thank you

    Hello to all '''please''' see the next reply : https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1065769#answer-737579 ''@I really do want to revert my browser, '''because I view "pocket" as a bigger security/ privacy threat''' than any recent security fixes.'' opinions ? thoughts about that ? thank you
  15. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    I think we need clarification from an Amin or Engineer to confirm Pocket is truly disabled, along with confirmation that it then can not be reactivated without the users permission.

    I also note The question that kicked of all this discussion suggested network communication with Pocket was logged how about clarifying or debunking that. We will have; or will soon have; telemetry relating to Pocket but I doubt anyone will confuse that with communications to Pocket.

    So that we all sing from the same song sheet. How about some standard answers in this thread to

    1. Q Pocket is a security threat.
    2. Q Pocket is spyware
    3. Q Including Pocket is bloatware
    4. Q Is any Pocket Code left in Firefox after I disable Pocket ?
    5. Q Can Pocket be reactivated without my consent.
    6. Q Why can I not disable Pocket fully
    7. Q Why can I not remove Pocket fully
    8. Q How do I remove all traces of Pocket
      • No other product or addon leaves buttons behind when removed
      • Why does Pocket not just remain as an addon
    9. Q Why was the inclusion of Pocket done mid Release

    It is probably useful provide two separate answers to these questions

    1. A full answer with cross references to mxr, wiki, mdn, bugs, blogs, announcements etc for interested contributors, and for answering more specific questions or countering assertions made about Pocket.
    2. A simple reply suitable to cut, paste & edit for forum responses

    As an aside I note there is now a governance thread

    I think we need clarification from an Amin or Engineer to confirm Pocket is truly disabled, along with confirmation that it then can not be reactivated without the users permission. I also note The question that kicked of all this discussion suggested network communication with Pocket was logged how about clarifying or debunking that. We will have; or will soon have; telemetry relating to Pocket but I doubt anyone will confuse that with communications to Pocket. So that we all sing from the same song sheet. How about some standard answers in this thread to #Q Pocket is a security threat. #Q Pocket is spyware #Q Including Pocket is bloatware #Q Is any '''''Pocket Code''''' left in Firefox after I disable Pocket ? #Q Can Pocket be reactivated without my consent. #Q Why can I not disable Pocket fully #Q Why can I not remove Pocket fully #Q How do I remove all traces of Pocket #* No other product or addon leaves buttons behind when removed #* Why does Pocket not just remain as an addon #Q Why was the inclusion of Pocket done mid Release It is probably useful provide two separate answers to these questions # A full answer with cross references to mxr, wiki, mdn, bugs, blogs, announcements etc for interested contributors, and for answering more specific questions or countering assertions made about Pocket. # A simple reply suitable to cut, paste & edit for forum responses ----- As an aside I note there is now a governance thread * (Yesterday 5th June) ''Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox''<br /> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/i_IindFDxxgJ
  16. philipp
    philipp 1313 posts
    more options

    i think this is slightly overblown - pocket is neither a security thread, spyware or illegal to operate in france - firefox users are not subjected to pocket's terms and conditions unless they sign up for that service...

    the only feature in en-us depending on geolocation is the default search engine, as there will be a ping to determine if you are really located in the us before yahoo is set as default.

    i think this is slightly overblown - pocket is neither a security thread, spyware or illegal to operate in france - firefox users are not subjected to pocket's terms and conditions unless they sign up for that service... the only feature in en-us depending on geolocation is the default search engine, as there will be a ping to determine if you are really located in the us before yahoo is set as default.
  17. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    I see what you are saying Philipp. However I think these are the sort of questions that are being asked.

    We may be able to refer posters to the Governance listing about policy decisions and planning, but we will get that sort of question in the forum and personally I would like to be able to confidentially answer those questions or refute the statements and assertions based on well grounded facts as confirmed by Sumo/Mozilla staff.

    I imagine users will post, in good faith, based on beliefs formed by reading something elsewhere. To change those beliefs we need something better than just blindly reiterating Mozilla's principles and policies. We are the support site, and Firefox has changed. We need to provide solid facts. We need to be able to reassure that even with the changes Firefox is safe, secure, not spyware and that pocket is properly and fully disabled and not somehow hiding in the background doing something perceived to be evil.

    Look at the post ideato mentioned above it includes the following

    In order to remove "stealth installed" "pocket" completely from browser?
    ... "disabling" is NOT enough.
    I DO NOT WANT ANY RECORDING CODING "BUILT INTO" THE BROWSER. ...
    ... I view "pocket" as a bigger security/ privacy threat than any recent security fixes. ...
    you have not answered my question.
    I do not even want the coding in the browser period.
    I explicitly said "disabling it is NOT enough" I did not ask for advice on disabling pocket. ...

    To me that person sounds to be scared of the changes made, and will almost definitely migrate to another browser unless we are able to provide: Convincingly better, more accurate & verifiable information; than whatever the user has seen so far. (Or as the stated intention will downgrade to an insecure Firefox to which our recommended response is, better to switch and use an alternative browser )

    I see what you are saying Philipp. However I think these are the sort of questions that are being asked. We may be able to refer posters to the Governance listing about policy decisions and planning, but we will get that sort of question in the forum and personally I would like to be able to confidentially answer those questions or refute the statements and assertions based on well grounded facts as confirmed by Sumo/Mozilla staff. I imagine users will post, in good faith, based on beliefs formed by reading something elsewhere. To change those beliefs we need something better than just blindly reiterating Mozilla's principles and policies. We are the support site, and Firefox has changed. We need to provide solid facts. We need to be able to reassure that even with the changes Firefox is safe, secure, not spyware and that pocket is properly and fully disabled and not somehow hiding in the background doing something perceived to be evil. Look at the post ''ideato'' mentioned above it includes the following <blockquote> In order to remove "stealth installed" "pocket" completely from browser? <br /> ... "disabling" is NOT enough. <br /> I DO NOT WANT ANY RECORDING CODING "BUILT INTO" THE BROWSER. ...<br /> ... I view "pocket" as a bigger security/ privacy threat than any recent security fixes. ... <br /> you have not answered my question. <br /> I do not even want the coding in the browser period. <br /> I explicitly said "disabling it is NOT enough" I did not ask for advice on disabling pocket. ... </blockquote> To me that person sounds to be scared of the changes made, and will almost definitely migrate to another browser unless we are able to provide: Convincingly better, more accurate & verifiable information; than whatever the user has seen so far. (Or as the stated intention will downgrade to an insecure Firefox to which our recommended response is, '''better to switch and use an alternative browser''' )
  18. philipp
    philipp 1313 posts
    more options

    it's always difficult to prove that something isn't there. when i open the network tab of the browser console i notice no traffic related to pocket whatsoever - even when clicking the pocket toolbar button, when you're not signed-up/in to the service.

    it's always difficult to prove that something isn't there. when i open the network tab of the browser console i notice no traffic related to pocket whatsoever - even when clicking the pocket toolbar button, when you're not signed-up/in to the service.
  19. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    Philipp

    I am in the uk and not using en-US so unable to check myself.

    Am I correct in saying Pocket is now enabled by default ? That is the impression I get. Do Firefox & pocket communicate by default ?

    Leaving aside the policy|governance issue. This issue of Firefox allegedly leaking information to pocket clearly concerns people. See

    1. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/_vDC5dVnr3sJ
      . In the default setup (when this is enabled) I would like to know exactly what details of one's browsing activity this makes available to Pocket.
    2. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozil.../iwdIZqy8mTEJ
    ... I assume some of the German people at Mozilla have already seen this, but I'd just like to leave these comments from a German IT-news article here: http://www.heise.de/forum/iX/News-Kommentare/Mozilla-nimmt-Reader-Software-Pocket-in-Webbrowser-Firefox-auf/forum-198500/page-2/
    Translating a few subject lines, for those who are interested: - "Sowas von überflüssig.." - "Totally unnecessary.." (the comment is about how Pocket should be extension) - "Proprietärer Cloud-Dreck!" - "Proprietary cloud-crap!" (the comment is about how Pocket is just another spy-/bloatware component that got added to Firefox, and how you need to disable it in about:config to make it stop 'phoning home') ...
    Philipp I am in the uk and not using en-US so unable to check myself. Am I correct in saying Pocket is now enabled by default ? That is the impression I get. Do Firefox & pocket communicate by default ? Leaving aside the policy|governance issue. This issue of Firefox allegedly leaking information to pocket clearly concerns people. See # https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/_vDC5dVnr3sJ<blockquote>. In the default setup (when this is enabled) I would like to know exactly what details of one's browsing activity this makes available to Pocket. </blockquote> # [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/iwdIZqy8mTEJ] <blockquote> ... I assume some of the German people at Mozilla have already seen this, but I'd just like to leave these comments from a German IT-news article here: http://www.heise.de/forum/iX/News-Kommentare/Mozilla-nimmt-Reader-Software-Pocket-in-Webbrowser-Firefox-auf/forum-198500/page-2/ <br />Translating a few subject lines, for those who are interested: - "Sowas von überflüssig.." - "Totally unnecessary.." (the comment is about how Pocket should be extension) - "Proprietärer Cloud-Dreck!" - "Proprietary cloud-crap!" (the comment is about how Pocket is just another spy-/bloatware component that got added to Firefox, and how you need to disable it in about:config to make it stop 'phoning home') ... </blockquote>
  20. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    I note some have even resorted to chrome hacks or a stylish UserStyle to get rid of pocket items

    I note some have even resorted to chrome hacks or a stylish UserStyle to get rid of pocket items * ''Who put "view pocket list" on my bookmarks and how do I dump it??'' [/questions/1065081] ** https://userstyles.org/styles/114712/pocket-feature-hide-menu-items-fx38-0-5-up
  1. 1
  2. 2