Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#621

Post by RandyOrion »

tux wrote: post #484

Ask HN: Is ungoogled chromium a good alternative ?

Ungoogled chromium is a good alternative in terms of privacy because all google-related services are gutted and there are no other built-in telemetry things.

There are some downsides, too.

First, you have to do some research on learning to make this browser work conveniently, e.g. finding alternative services to sync and backup your settings, bookmarks, accounts and passwords, etc.

Second, changes pushed by Google like Manifest V3 is still hard to deal with.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#622

Post by nerdponx »

sph wrote: post #590
MrAlex94 wrote: post #450

I might have differed with Brendan Eich on a few matters, but he was a good steward of Firefox in my book. When Mitchell Baker took the reins, Mozilla became rather more heavy-handed towards us - the irony being that Waterfox was once proudly displayed on the Mozilla website under their "Powered By" banner. I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces, but they've made some peculiar decisions as of late…

Here's my question: in light of what Mozilla is doing, why don't other forks like Waterfox or Librewolf write a manifesto/contract saying they'll never sell your user data and won't turn "evil" (until they do, of course), and then decide to offer a paid version of their browser. Two possible outcomes: 1. No one cares. No one pays for it. Nothing changes and nobody loses anything. 2. Enough people pay for it to keep t…

Kagi is making the Orion browser, which you can pay for. I am a happy customer.

There's also Ladybird and several Webkit wrappers.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#623

Post by dheerajvs »

DaSHacka wrote: post #607
tux wrote: post #484

Ask HN: Is ungoogled chromium a good alternative ?

It's missing containers and overall has less privacy features available than firefox. This is exemplified compared to forks like librewolf that enable the majority of them. Ungoogled Chromium and stock Firefox are pretty similar privacy-wise though. The main advantage is all baked-in telemetry is stripped out, but it doesn't do much to protect you from privacy-invasive sites other than disabling WebRTC and blocking 3…

The main question for me is can ungoogled Chromium run uBlock Origin?

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#624

Post by 3836293648 »

spacechild1 wrote: post #413
userbinator wrote: post #151

The other WTF is here: Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations. Acceptable Use Policy links to https://www.mozilla.org/about/legal/acceptable-use/ which says "You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to[...]Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that…

I'm pretty sure this is about Mozilla services . AFAICT, Firefox itself is licensed under the https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License and as such doesn't put any restrictions on how you use the software.

That's the Firefox source code though, not necessarily the Firefox binary. A Visual Studio Code situation, basically.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#625

Post by immibis »

dizhn wrote: post #583
apalerwuss wrote: post #511

The problem I have with these kinds of hot-takes is that they often don't tell the full story, and it's seemingly for the purpose of generating rage. For some inexplicable reason, this guy truncates the paragraph from the Terms of Use, repackaging the information without a key part of the final sentence: "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."…

That bit pretty much sounds like "by using the software you're agreeing to whatever"

No it doesn't. Most businesses finish that sentence with "...for any purpose" not "... to help you navigate the web"

It will still be interpreted to mean "...for any purpose" by Mozilla somehow.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#626

Post by Y_Y »

sph wrote: post #590
MrAlex94 wrote: post #450

I might have differed with Brendan Eich on a few matters, but he was a good steward of Firefox in my book. When Mitchell Baker took the reins, Mozilla became rather more heavy-handed towards us - the irony being that Waterfox was once proudly displayed on the Mozilla website under their "Powered By" banner. I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces, but they've made some peculiar decisions as of late…

Here's my question: in light of what Mozilla is doing, why don't other forks like Waterfox or Librewolf write a manifesto/contract saying they'll never sell your user data and won't turn "evil" (until they do, of course), and then decide to offer a paid version of their browser. Two possible outcomes: 1. No one cares. No one pays for it. Nothing changes and nobody loses anything. 2. Enough people pay for it to keep t…

This idea of having an moral alignment covenant I think is a great one. I'm fed up of being bait-and-switched by companies that get buy-in by being open and friendly, and then later they decide to kill the golden goose. If you're committed to FOSS then commit! Make it official so that people can trust that you're not going to enshittify later.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#627

Post by drpossum »

globular-toast wrote: post #357

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand I just want Firefox to keep being a free software web browser that I can trust. But on the other hand I realise Firefox isn't some hobby project and competing with Google isn't cheap. They already take money from Google and this could be shut off at any time. How can Firefox be independent if it doesn't have some revenue? Unfortunately they've been stupid and blurred the l…

I'm of one mind about this because

> Unfortunately they've been stupid

They could have had an enormous amount of good will and they do nothing but burn it. Weird how they get a lot of money from google and then, while technically meeting their mission by providing a browser alternative, seem to do a lot of self-sabotage in google's favor.

I honestly think the best thing that could happen to Firefox would be for Mozilla to exactly have their funding removed, have the foundation die, and a better entity focused just on Firefox, perhaps with more earnest and honest fundraising efforts and not a multimillion CEO salary, fills the vacuum.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#629

Post by DaSHacka »

dheerajvs wrote: post #623
DaSHacka wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's missing containers and overall has less privacy features available than firefox. This is exemplified compared to forks like librewolf that enable the majority of them. Ungoogled Chromium and stock Firefox are pretty similar privacy-wise though. The main advantage is all baked-in telemetry is stripped out, but it doesn't do much to protect you from privacy-invasive sites other than disabling WebRTC and blocking 3…

The main question for me is can ungoogled Chromium run uBlock Origin?

Yes, it's just a downstream fork of chromium. It can run any extension that runs on the equivalent upstream build of chromium.

For the same reasons you can install it on Librewolf too, and it actually comes with ublock origin pre-installed.

Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox

#630

Post by bluebarbet »

sph wrote: post #605
mariusmg wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So why isn't anyone trying to replace Mozilla yet, Because writing manifestos is easy and making a browser is proper hard work ?

My comment is targeted to the developers of Waterfox and Librewolf - they're already making a browser, so the hard part is done. I'm wondering why don't they try to step it up further by selling a paid version alongside their open source product. What is the worst that can happen? Nobody pays for it and they continue making $0 just like they are happily doing now.

>the hard part is done

The hard part is the rendering engine and security. Both are done by the maintainer of the upstream source, i.e. Mozilla.

Post reply on HN