Comment on Firefox 148 introduces the promised AI kill switch for people who aren't into LLMs

• dsilverz@calckey.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  @Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world
  
  I'm not referring only to the feature per se, I'm also referring to any pop-up designed to appear throughout the navigation to "remind the user about the superb features".
  
  Said pop-up is explicitly mentioned on their "confirmation dialog" upon turning off (screenshot attached below):

  You won't see new or current AI enhancements in Firefox, or pop-ups about them.

  It speaks volumes about how much a dark pattern this is, the fact that the opt-off has a confirmation dialog, while the further proceeding with logging in with Anthropic/OpenAI/Google/Meta account doesn't seem to have a confirmation dialog.
  
  And the fact that the confirmation feels "menacing" and defaulted to cancelling the opting-off (i.e. pressing "esc" or clicking outside the window; one must click the primary-colored "block" button which, contrasted to a grayish "Cancel" button, may psychologically induce the user into thinking "block" is a dangerous action), quite similar to the about:config warning screen.
  
  Ah, and the clanker options: notice the lack of alternative options for those who want a custom clanker, such as DeepSeek, Qwen, Z AI, Brazilian Maritaca IA and Amazônia IA (to mention some non-Chinese LLMs), or even something running locally through ollama. Seemingly no option for using a custom, possibly self-hosted LLM endpoint. The fact that all the options offered are all heavily corporate options (with Mistral being the "least corporate" of them all, but still Global Northern nonetheless) might tell us something...
  
  All of these dark patterns, among others not mentioned, are the object of my critique, not just the fact that Mozilla is shoving clankers unto Firefox.
  
  Whenever a feature needs an invasive pop-up and the opt-out brings up a second pop-up that requires further confirmation (but none seems to be offered upon actually using said feature), it is called a dark pattern, no matter if said feature requires further configuration.

  Attachment: s3.eu-central-2.wasabisys.com ↗

  source

  • Feyd@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    And the fact that the confirmation feels “menacing” and defaulted to cancelling the opting-off (i.e. pressing “esc” or clicking outside the window; one must click the primary-colored “block” button which, contrasted to a grayish “Cancel” button, may psychologically induce the user into thinking “block” is a dangerous action), quite similar to the about:config warning screen.

    I don’t think it’s menacing at all. It gives an informative list of features, which is nice to know. I could see a lot of people wanting to turn off all AI then realizing they actually want local translate instead of sending everything to google.

    And you’ve got the button intents mixed up. Primary color is always the encouraged action in that kind of design. Dark pattern would be if the colors were flipped.

    source

    • dsilverz@calckey.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      @Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world
      
      When we develop a system (I used to work as a DevOps for almost 10 years), the technical aspects aren't the only aspects being accounted for: especially when it comes to the front-end (i.e. the UI the user sees, the UX how user interaction will happen and how it may be perceived by them), psychology (especially behaviorism) is sine qua non.
      
      Shapes and colors often carry archetypal meanings: a red element feels "dangerous", a window with a yellow triangle icon feels to be "warning" about something, a green button feels "okayish". I mean, those are the exact same principles behind traffic lights.
      
      And signs and symbols, ruling the world, don't exist in a vacuum: a colored button besides a monochromatic button may, psychologically, lead to a feeling that the colored button is the proper way to proceed.
      
      But... there's a twist: imagine you have a light-gray "Cancel" and a colored (regardless of the color) "Block". "Block" is a strong word. The length of the label text also does impart psychological effects. The human brain may see: "huh, I have this button which reads 'block' and it's quite strong, and this other button which reads 'cancel' and it's more easy to the eyes, maybe 'block' is dangerous". Contrast matters: the comparison between a substrate and the substances is pretty much how we're wired to navigate this world as living beings.
      
      Now, corporations such as Apple (Safari), Google (Chromium), and very likely Mozilla (Firefox) as well, they have entire hordes of psychologists directly working for them, likely the same psychologists who'll work together with their HR departments for evaluating the candidates who applied for a job position there. These psychologists, and/or psychoanalysts, they know about Jungian archetypes, they know about fight-or-flight response and other facets of our deeply-ingrained instincts, they know about how colors are generally perceived by the human brain. Those psychologists likely played a role when a brand was chosen, or when an advertisement pitch was made. They know what they're doing.
      
      UX/UI decisions are far from random choices from the leading team of project management engineers, it involved designers with psychologists. Again: they know what they're doing, they know it pretty well. They know how the users are likely to keep the functionality. They know how the users, as Ulrich said, are very unlikely to touch the settings, likely to keep the defaults, no matter what those defaults are. Because they know humans are driven by the "least-effort" instinct, which is quite of a fundamental principle shared among living beings as a byproduct of the "lowest energetic point" (thermodynamic equilibrium) principle.
      
      To me, a former full-stack developer, the newer Firefox interfaces don't feel like Firefox is being psychologically fair and honest with the user's mind. Dark patterns are often subtle, and they're part of a purposeful, corporate decision.

      source

      • Orygin@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        What a load of horse shit. You don’t have any clue what you’re talking about and it shows.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • XLE@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      The most menacing thing in that picture is the bold red text, assuming it isn’t Photoshopped that way. I’ve seen Firefox implement other dark patterns, including hiding the ability to disable ads from within the homepage… But this isn’t really one of them.

      It’s also true that Mozilla only supports selected AI (and search) companies, presumably the ones that give them money. Users have been begging Mozilla for StartPage integration, but Mozilla gave them a Perplexity integration instead. Firefox initially supported local LLMs in their AI sidebar, but they hid that option early on. It definitely paints all their talk about “choice” in a bad light.

      source

      • dsilverz@calckey.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        @XLE@piefed.social @Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world
        

        The most menacing thing in that picture is the bold red text, assuming it isn’t Photoshopped that way

        I'm interacting from Sharkey, on a Lemmy thread, and you're interacting from PieFed. I'm not sure if PieFed fetches the alt-text from images. If you access my original Sharkey note, you'll see the following alt-text:

        Screenshot of confirmation dialog "Block AI enhancements?" with "or pop-ups about them" highlighted.

        I disclosed the fact that "or pop-ups about them" was highlighted. Also, a quick reverse image search would point to the original picture where said excerpt isn't highlighted.
        
        It would be photoshopping/photo manipulation if I removed, added or changed text from the picture, which I didn't.

        I’ve seen Firefox implement other dark patterns, including hiding the ability to disable ads from within the homepage

        Exactly, and even this one is a matter of conundrum when it's brought to the table. Because Mozilla, and corporations in general, know the exact, dosimetric approach of pushing dark patterns, not too hard so all the user base would readily notice and complain, not too soft so all the shareholders wouldn't see the "graph line go up". Just the right amount to make things dance to their song.
        
        Even today, stating how the opting-out of "Sponsored shortcuts" isn't trivial for the average user (not to mention how said user will see the sponsored shortcuts at least once as they head to turn them off), is met with people blindly advocating for Mozilla (which, let us remember, they're a corporation with corporate interests, not a lifelong friend or a fellow trustworthy acquaintance, and corporations are driven by profit, not by friendship or psychological well-being).

        But this isn’t really one of them

        The opt-out implies a feature that was pushed without consent.
        
        Again, I bring my heavy hypothetical example: if a harasser offers the harassed a way out of the harassment after having initiated the harassment, would this make the harasser less of a harasser? Hell no, of course no! It's still harassment! It turns out opt-out features are exactly that: something that gives you the "right" to leave, only after it was pushed onto you.
        
        And The fact that "opting-out" requires double confirmation only makes it worse, as if the hypothetical harassed were to be ask by the hypothetical harasser "are you sure you don't want this?" before being "allowed" to be freed from the hypothetical harassment.

        Users have been begging Mozilla for StartPage integration, but Mozilla gave them a Perplexity integration instead.

        Exactly, another dark pattern, and another proof of how Mozilla is not a friend, but a corporation.

        the ones that give them money

        Yeah. And this is often the justification people often use to advocate for that: "oh, but Mozilla needs to mane money" (at what cost?), as if donation-based economy weren't a thing.

        source
  • skamu@mastodon.uno ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    @dsilverz @technology @Feyd

    It would have been a dark pattern if, just as an example, the "block" button was set as secondary action (in white) and the primary blue action was "cancel".

    source
  • skamu@mastodon.uno ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    @dsilverz @technology @Feyd

    A modal in general is not defined as a dark pattern (not sure why you say that).

    And in this case a modal is used to manage a user journey "subtask", which is a request to confirm a potential disruptive action: users may use firerox AI features for long, before deciding to turn them off, deeply changing their experience with the product.

    I agree that it could have been done as a full page, but it is fine also as a modal on desktop (not mobile viewport)

    source

    • dsilverz@calckey.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      @skamu@mastodon.uno @technology@lemmy.world @Feyd@programming.dev
      
      Maybe I'm overly idealistic when it comes to software but, IMHO, a software (especially a browser) should be the least distractive possible. My point about modals was about feature announcement pop-ups ("Now you can do Y... Click on Z menu to get into Y"), the ones which Mozilla Firefox explicitly mentioned within the confirmation dialog, as well as the said confirmation dialog which, as far as I could find about, is one-sided, for there are no confirmation dialog to the other action, which is to activate the clankers.
      
      The ideal workflow, to me, is as follows: the user launches the browser software, the main UI opens minimalistically listing the most frequently accessed websites and the pinned bookmarks, the user clicks on some shortcut or types in some URL, then the browser fetches the network content from said website, parses it, fetches whatever else needs to be fetched for the specific website, renders it visible on the screen, then let the user interact with the page as they please, without a MS Clippy-like behavior of reminding the user "It looks like this page has links, you can summarize them using a clanker" on a frequent basis.
      
      Lynx, for example, is the perfect example of this, it's not an utopia I'm imagining: I type lynx and I press enter, then Lynx executes and brings its TUI, then I press g and type the URL of a website, and it fetches and does what needs to be done in order to bring up the website to the TUI. No cluttered interface except for the short list of keyboard shortcuts at the bottom which don't require user interaction nor disturb the UX. That's KISS approach.
      
      When a browser has a MS Clippy-like behavior and, most importantly, when a browser brings potentially unwanted features turned on by default, whose opt-out requires the user to go through some sort of gymnastics while the usage of said feature is asymmetrically easy (seemingly no "confirm you want to use the clanker? The clanker may have access to the following: page content, currently open tabs, credentials on the page, etc..." like the opt-out confirmation dialog lists exhaustively about "enhancements that will be unavailable while the user opts out of Firefox AI enhancements"), again: perhaps I'm being too pedantic but, to me, it smells, it looks, it behaves and it whispers like a dark pattern.

      source

      • skamu@mastodon.uno ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        @dsilverz @technology @Feyd

        Hi Deamon, don't get me wrong, modals in general are bad and it is a "last resource". However, I agree with the solution of Firefox's UX designer, asking for a confirmation before turning on/off the AI functionalities (as it is a disruptive action that affect overall users XD). We may argue that maybe it needed to be done via a full page... ? Or maybe not using a "switch" in the first place. Anyway, all good. It is nice to see people with this kind of concerns 👍

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Feyd@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        It looks like this page has links, you can summarize them using a clanker” on a frequent basis.

        That doesn’t happen. I don’t recall firefox ever popping up a modal while I’m browsing.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • dsilverz@calckey.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      @skamu@mastodon.uno @technology@lemmy.world @Feyd@programming.dev
      
      Post scriptum (I'm unable to edit my replies using Sharkey): regarding the dark pattern within the modal from the opt-out confirmation dialog, I explained my understanding of it on a reply to Feyd (my reply that starts with "When we develop a system..." and explored the psychological/behavioral aspects of user interface development). I didn't link it directly here because, as I'm using Sharkey, my link to my reply would likely leave the Lemmy environment into the Sharkey environment.

      source
  • skamu@mastodon.uno ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    @dsilverz @technology @Feyd

    PS, I don't like this AI move of FF, I actually uninstalled it after years and years because of that.

    source