But it's a pretty blurry line, isn't it? You give permission to install Firefox, and it's somewhat arbitrary is a specific code is "part of Firefox" or "part of an extension" when that extension is shipped with Firefox by default.
(In this case, the specific code wasn't even executed unless the user flipped a switch in about:config. The problematic part was something being listed among your extensions that you couldn't make sense of as a user.)
Release Notes of a new version is a good place to place that bundle. People concerned with security do set aside time for such task.
Any competent manager should be able to tell the difference between "functionality directly related to what users expect of a browser" and "code that we have installed on their machines without their knowledge, primarily motivated by our interests rather than theirs".
This is not about the specific implementation of such decisions, such as whether including it as "part of" or "extension to". That's a pointless distinction - also something any competent manager in the tech sector should be aware of.
It did not do anything, unless you manually switched on an about:config value. And if you did, then all it did, was flip some random words on webpages upside down.
No, I don't like it either to have eastereggs in my software that wasn't just put there for the fun of it, and rather was also motivated to some degree by a continued commercial relationship. But if this commercially motivated easter egg helps to gather more money to improve the software, which itself is non-commercial, and is as harmless as Looking Glass, then I do not see a problem with that.
And let me repeat that, if it is as harmless as Looking Glass. I do not see a reason to categorically exclude any sort of commercially motivated thing from the browser. Even including some actual ads would in my opinion not be unthinkable, given that they get enough money for it and have effective ways to do good with that money, while especially also taking into account that users will get pissed off by it and leave the browser, effectively slimming the ability of Mozilla to do good.
If you take everything into account, you can be morally on the good side without having to resort to never doing things from certain categories.
Easter eggs started at a time when software and games were shipped on cartridges, disks, or other media. If there was extra room available, it didn't affect the user experience to include them (performance was always very much in mind back then).
Today, however, we see a couple of changes:
First, apps and games are mostly downloaded. Easter eggs take up additional space, slowing down your download in the best case, and eating away at data caps in the worst cases. So you're already doing something that is somewhat hostile to the user.
Second, both Mozilla and Google position their browsers as fast and lightweight. Does including Easter eggs actually help further either of those claims? Most likely not. One Easter egg might not really impact performance at all, but at what point does it become a problem? There are probably different teams working on the browser, and if each of them are adding Easter eggs, how long before those start to affect performance, whether because it's cruft or because many users are on older systems that don't have as much memory as the typical developer is used to?
This at least bears consideration.
- What does it do?
- Is it needed for core functionality or optional?
- How do you switch it off/on?
- Does it transmit any data, and if so, which one and how do I control the data flow?
- Who are the developers and is the code open source or is it proprietary?
- What are the default settings and why?
If it's optional, then it's an extension. If it's on by default, I better get a very good reason for it (e.g. that it ostensibly enhances security). All of the above questions need to be answered before I install it, i.e., the information needs to be freely available and easy to find on web pages, release notes, Readme, etc. If something is added in an update or upgrade, I need to be informed and given a choice about it.
There's a fine line between "Easter Egg" and "within of 3 months we've installed without user approval CliqZ's tracking, added Google Analytics to the about:addons Discovery menu, and added some easter eggs". This is how you lose all trust.
This particular one didn't get complains because of a combination of reasons like:
- It is completely off-line (hell, it's only available on the "you're off-line" screen, where there isn't much else you can do with a browser).
- It's off by default (you need to be on a proper screen).
- It's a small and self-contained game. Doesn't impact anything else beyond a small area on the tab, which makes it just a step up from an animated GIF.
- It's just a joke, it isn't tied to any commercial franchise or brand, nor does it promote any ideology or organization.
- People expect less user-fairness from Google than from Mozilla.
Ultimately, the line is fuzzy, but Chrome's dinosaur is clearly more like an Easter egg, and Mozilla's Looking Glass is clearly more like a very specific extension/feature.
This is an interesting point - I guess the blowback would also have been far less intense had it been a reference to e.g. Big Buck Bunny rather than Mr. Robot.