this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026

29 points (87.2% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

21501 readers

50 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

Architecting Consent for AI: Deceptive Patterns in Firefox Link Previews (www.quippd.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by yoasif@fedia.io to c/foss@beehaw.org

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TL;DR: Mozilla has a new CEO and a new mission: transform Firefox into an AI browser. That has run into some snags, as Firefox users don’t seem that interested in AI. Mozilla is forging ahead, utilizing deceptive patterns (previously known as dark patterns) to nag and annoy people into enabling AI features. You can see this in the introduction of Link Previews, an extremely invasive anti-feature that exists solely to push AI into your experience.

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Is this guy for real?

Mozilla says that key points are processed locally to protect your privacy in the release notes, but says nothing about leaking your privacy in showing the link preview (and enabling it by default).

As opposed to the case where you don't have a link preview, and you click on a website to see what it contains, and they get your IP. The author seems to think Mozilla should have protected our privacy by having someone act as the proxy for the request. Because involving a thirds party that receives all these requests and does work for us for free is absolutely how we protect our privacy.

The user might also have mobility impairments that makes a fast click harder, resulting in a longer hold time.

Yes, a feature clearly designed for pushing onto that juicy "people with mobility impairments" userbase.

I don't like the direction Firefox seems to be headed in, but damn people really enjoy getting outraged over everything they do. Around here they get ten times more shit than any other comparable project.

[–] ken@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The author seems to think Mozilla should have protected our privacy by having someone act as the proxy for the request.

On the proxy part, they actually already have that and using it for some other parts:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ohttp-explained

TL;DR: Imagine an HTTPS-over-HTTPS proxy. Try to explain it like something groundbreaking without referencing existing tech. Now you have OHTTP.

https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/browser/components/mozcachedohttp/docs/index.html

https://www.fastly.com/blog/firefox-fastly-take-another-step-toward-security-upgrade

It makes me scratch my head a bit why I've never see it enabled for DNS-over-HTTP in default stock Firefox config despite it being supported for years - the endpoints are just not configured. You have to know about it and configure the barely documented URL in about:config for that. Unlike for newtabpage and the FF shopping feature where OHTTP is used by default. Infra costs?

[–] yoasif@fedia.io 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Interestingly, I just interviewed the Waterfox developer, who actually references Oblivious HTTP and his interest in developing this into a paid feature for Waterfox.

[–] ken@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

That is interesting!

BTW in case you're not aware, direct links to fedia.io like the one you posted just lead to a loginwall so you probably don't want to share those publicly. This one via beehaw.org works for everyone, though: https://beehaw.org/post/24563411

[–] yoasif@fedia.io 1 points 8 hours ago

Ooops, I posted a reply to someone earlier and got it right (and forgot this one). Thanks for the heads up (fixed now)!

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago

The author seems to be more interested in generating outrage than anything, but I think the point about AI still stands. From a UX standpoint, key points that may be incorrect are a terrible idea. That they originally intended to force AI on the user, at least from how it seems, is problematic.

The author's privacy and accessibility concerns seem artifical to me.

[–] yoasif@fedia.io 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As opposed to the case where you don't have a link preview, and you click on a website to see what it contains, and they get your IP. The author seems to think Mozilla should have protected our privacy by having someone act as the proxy for the request. Because involving a thirds party that receives all these requests and does work for us for free is absolutely how we protect our privacy.

But that is exactly what Mozilla is telling us -- trust us.

Why was the feature added if my browser is going to browse to the page anyway? What is the value add? I was looking for some way for it to make sense - ah right, it could be a privacy preserving feature - I can preview the link and verify whether I want to visit it before I actually visit it. But that isn't how it works.

Yes, a feature clearly designed for pushing onto that juicy "people with mobility impairments" userbase.

Love that you ignore all of the people who are currently seeing the popups and not understanding why.

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why was the feature added if my browser is going to browse to the page anyway? [...] it could be a privacy preserving feature.

It's just supposed to save you time and effort.

If anyone has real concerns about having their IP leaked they should be using a VPN (I think Proton has a fairly generous free tier) or TOR. Relying on a link preview feature like that would be like wearing a condom against the rain. It will technically increase your protection, but you will still be really quite exposed.

Love that you ignore all of the people who are currently seeing the popups and not understanding why.

No, I just took his objection at face value.

[–] yoasif@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago

I added a section to my post with some additional comment.

I began thinking of privacy because Mozilla was clearly thinking of it when designing this feature, but I don't think they really thought it through.

People's browsers are visiting pages that they never intended to. If a random extension did that, you would say that it was violating your privacy. The browser does it, and you get people defending it as "optional". Yes, but the user never installed the malware extension that is leaking your privacy. It is your browser doing it in an automated update.

If you don't think this is a privacy issue, why doesn't the next version of Firefox just visit every page on every page that I visit, so that when I hover over a link, I can get a link preview immediately, without needing to wait. That would save me some real time and effort!

[–] oeuf@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

Around here they get ten times more shit than any other comparable project.

Just wait until you see a post about GIMP...

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Zen figured out link previews without using AI and the solution is really as simple as it gets. Maybe stop trying to manufacture problems for AI to solve?

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

From the linked article I learned that Firefox's solution also doesn't use AI, not by default at least.

And the Zen way of doing it has the exact same (imaginary) privacy issue for which the article blames Firefox.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The feature was introduced as a way for users to get relevant information faster, by providing them with an image, the webpage title, and AI-generated key points.

The AI part was made optional. That doesn't mean they didn't try.

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 weeks ago

They create an AI feature, they realise people don't want it, and realise a minimal one they can turn on for everyone in a thin-end-of-the-wedge approach.

They create a feature with AI, realise it's controversial, so they figure out a minimal version, they split the parts with and without AI, and enable the non-controversial one by default.

The facts are the same, just a different narrative. Which is legitimate. Realizing that's what it is is non optional.