Normally I'd say... "They'd better write it in the bylaws that Mozilla isn't allowed to buy any more companies" but a system for identifying fake content on the web might (unlike all the other Mozilla acquisitions such as the thoroughly pizzled Pocket) improve the web browsing experience.
> If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir.
I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was that they should position the feature so that people who already use Pocket will realize that Firefox isn't adding a separate reading list (like the Safari one nobody uses), but rather that you can just sign into your existing Pocket account in Firefox, and see your existing Pocket reading-list.
But yeah, in the end that probably wasn't nearly as important as getting people who didn't already use Pocket to see the reading list as "Firefox's reading list" rather than some channel-partner bloatware encroachment.
A happy medium would probably have been if the Firefox reading list was its own skin of Pocket, and synced using your Firefox Sync account, without needing to create a separate Pocket account; but when you first went to use it, it would ask if you want to sign into your Pocket account; and if you do, then your Pocket account would be merged with your Firefox Sync account, because "Pocket Sync is now part of Firefox Sync."
> I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was that they should position the feature so that people who already use Pocket will realize that Firefox isn't adding a separate reading list (like the Safari one nobody uses), but rather that you can just sign into your existing Pocket account in Firefox, and see your existing Pocket reading-list.
That was pretty much how it was viewed at the time (I worked at Mozilla during the Pocket acquisition). It was seen as, "we were going to build our own reading list, but let's just buy this instead and integrate it as /the/ reading list for Firefox."
I agree that the external perception was different, and remains so to this day.
Tbh, all I recall about pocket is it showed me a load of random content which I had no interest in, which felt spammy. And I think it needs a login for some reason? It certainly looked and felt like an external addon rather than a built-in thing.
If it had just been a reading list I'd have been much more interested.
Exactly, it's basically offensive to put any product in a customer's face.
I remember how Microsoft killed OneNote (a rather good note taking application) by (1) trying to shove it up your fingernails, into your armpits, etc. (I remember there being three onenote icons pinned to the task bar) and (2) going 100% cloud as opposed to the XML files OneNote used to leave on your computer that were very easy to parse and build tools to process.
People are automatically going to assume a bundled product is crap because we're so used to drive-by downloads and other dark patterns.
Did you mean making Pocket end to end encrypted like Firefox Sync? Pocket's business model was data mining. Or did you mean making a part of Firefox Sync send your data to a 3rd party data miner? I don't think it would have helped.
Pocket caused a stir because it broke Mozilla's commitments to privacy, interoperability, and FOSS. They removed an open source end to end encrypted reading list feature in development and replaced it with a proprietary 3rd party data miner. They promote it with the lie "privacy is paramount" still.[1] And they responded to correct guesses Pocket paid Mozilla by denying Pocket paid them for the integration until it came out Pocket paid them for referrals. Trying harder to hide Pocket's nature would have amplified the loss of trust.
I think Chrome added the reading list feature recently - I've been using Vivaldi for close to a year now. And while I know Vivaldi uses the chromium engine below, it's nice to have a non-google browser anyway.
On a separate note, there is a chance this could be futile.
The objective of AI like LLMs is to create output indistinguishable from human output, should it reach that stage - generated text have no telltale signs of being AI output - then it would be impossible to tell from human output.
A group of people who are receiving manufactured products of an automatic factory that they don't want get a chance to fill out a feedback form and write "the product was thoroughly pizzled" as a deliberate neologism to confuse the computer. The factory sent a representative who asked what this meant and they defined it as "unwanted".
Thanks for the reference, had missed that story. PKD notches up another one ...
A phrase in the story caught my attention: "all hell is bursting [instead of breaking] loose" - it's nearly a googlewhack, only two other unrelated hits.
[1] Pizzle is a Middle English word for penis, derived from Low German pesel or Flemish Dutch pezel, diminutive of pees, meaning 'sinew'. The word is used today to signify the penis of an animal, chiefly in Australia and New Zealand.
[2] Interestingly, it is used in medical slang (Dictionary of medical slang -Jacob Edward) and it is defined as exhausted, or to its point:
~ Pizzle chewer ... A female who relieves a male of his phallic tension by fondling the instrument in her mouth.
~ Pizzle-grinder ... 1. A butcher. 2. A prostitute.
~ Pizzle honker ... A prostitute who satisfies her patrons by manual friction.
~ Pizzle warmer . . . The pudendum muliebre, esp. the vagina.
~ Pizzled . . . Exhausted physically or mentally.
So I guess you could say that Pocket is a Fizzled[3] Pizzle.
In the 19th C it was a word in the West Country dialect Thomas Hardy knew well, and appears in Jude the Obscure to describe the pig's member that is thrown at Jude. Apart from this description, it gets called "that part of the pig which is thrown away" and other euphemisms, so I suppose Hardy must have thought pizzle was already obscure enough not to get him into trouble.
