Because the Argument of Excluded Middle (aka false dichotomy) logical fallacy is king now. With no middle ground for compromise, if you’re not 100% for a position then you have to be 100% against that position. It’s the rules.
So, with that batshittery in mind, anything that allows you to optionally use something that people (justifiably) detest is, of course, the literal devil.
I recently heard a great interview with the President of Mozilla where he basically says exactly this. It’s all about options. Yes, Firefox now incorporates AI, but it makes it super easy to turn it off if you want. Which is a major contrast from Microsoft and Google which shove it down your throat.
While user consent (default on vs default off, or any choice at all) is a different-but-related topic, Mozilla bake it all in, enable it all by default, and make it difficult to disable. (Settings would be “super easy” and would show it was intended as a permanent choice.)
These aren’t actions and design decisions indicative of having the best interests of users in mind. Especially given how closed the mobile client already is.
It seems to be designed in a way that leaves Mozilla the option of removing the ability to disable it, presumably if it becomes profitable enough and/or they think they can get away with it.
But for now on this point they get a pass from me on the desktop version in a personal environment where the user has the most control.
They never offer you the choice. The turn it on by default, and do not even inform you of how or where to turn it off.
Giving users a choice would mean an option during install or first run.
How should Firefox incorporate AI on this profile?
A) running when FF starts
B) turn on AI at user request at time of request
C) disable all AI on this profile
That to me looks like choice. I do use Firefox as my main.
Because the Argument of Excluded Middle (aka false dichotomy) logical fallacy is king now. With no middle ground for compromise, if you’re not 100% for a position then you have to be 100% against that position. It’s the rules.
So, with that batshittery in mind, anything that allows you to optionally use something that people (justifiably) detest is, of course, the literal devil.
I blame brain worms.
I recently heard a great interview with the President of Mozilla where he basically says exactly this. It’s all about options. Yes, Firefox now incorporates AI, but it makes it super easy to turn it off if you want. Which is a major contrast from Microsoft and Google which shove it down your throat.
Link to interview with timecode.
That’s the nuance you need. Give people the option to do what they want. Make it easy either way.
While user consent (default on vs default off, or any choice at all) is a different-but-related topic, Mozilla bake it all in, enable it all by default, and make it difficult to disable. (Settings would be “super easy” and would show it was intended as a permanent choice.)
These aren’t actions and design decisions indicative of having the best interests of users in mind. Especially given how closed the mobile client already is.
It seems to be designed in a way that leaves Mozilla the option of removing the ability to disable it, presumably if it becomes profitable enough and/or they think they can get away with it.
But for now on this point they get a pass from me on the desktop version in a personal environment where the user has the most control.
I disagree with you too.
They never offer you the choice. The turn it on by default, and do not even inform you of how or where to turn it off.
Giving users a choice would mean an option during install or first run.
That to me looks like choice. I do use Firefox as my main.