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

An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 381 posts

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#91

Post by abdullahkhalids »

Shank wrote: post #14

> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. I really struggle to understand what legal team believes this language is necessary in downloaded software. There is a lot of precedent for this kind of language in online hosted services, but not downloaded software. > This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that conte…

They have for example recently added AI chat sidebar via Firefox Labs. So in effect, the browser itself is collecting and sending information to third parties. And I imagine Mozilla is or will get some money for these integrations. I would guess this is how they will try to diversify their income away from Google Search integration.

Of course the question then shifts to, do we need AI in the browser sidebar?

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#92

Post by userbinator »

wesapien wrote: post #51
hysan wrote: post #10

This pretty much confirms that this is what everyone thought the change was about. So we get clarity, but no actual change in course from Mozilla. Good. We now know very clearly where Mozilla and Firefox stand on privacy.

If one opted out of all the possible data collection and privacy related options, are they still able to collect your data? If yes, how does it work? Is this called client-side scanning?

Companies have been long concerned about exfiltration of data and ran MITM proxies to stop it, which ironically has been the target of propaganda about "privacy" by the browser makers.

Every home network needs a MITM proxy too.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#93

Post by userbinator »

dietr1ch wrote: post #86

BS we're sorry you noticed announcement. There's a few ff forks that may work for you. So far I'm quite happy with Librewolf since I migrated this morning, there's other forks that also cover Android, but there's more privacy-related research to do there as alternatives like Waterfox have past drama. You can delete your Mozilla account here if you want to send a strong signal that privacy matters, - https://support.m…

and on top of that Chromium is the new IE, which on it's own a bit better than before since the core is open

The original IE was closed source, yet it wasn't anything more than just a browser, and people trusted MS on that.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#95

Post by nickthegreek »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #90
tuananh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it open-source? doesn't look like it. if it's not, why are you putting trust on them more than firefox?

> why are you putting trust on them more than firefox? Literally this article. I care about my privacy more than open source. And I care about honesty above both. If open source can’t deliver, so be it.

Waterfox or Librewolf aren’t viable alternatives?

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#96

Post by wtallis »

ranger_danger wrote: post #29
Silhouette wrote: post #23

I'm sad and disappointed that simply charging a fair price in return for offering something of value - with no other strings attached - has become so out of fashion in tech world. Almost everyone running tech businesses seems to assume that subscriptions or data capitalism are the only way to make any money these days. But I have paid for good software in the past and I know plenty of indie developers who still sell…

I think if they believed there would be enough people to justify charging for the software to make that model work, they would do it. But I don't think it's actually viable, I think the number of people that would pay for firefox is much lower than you think. Consider how many other similarly popular software programs charge small fees for their app... I can't even think of a single one. And you can only really charg…

I also doubt whether that business model could work. But I don't think doubt is the reason Mozilla hasn't tried it. They won't go that route because the best-case outcome is that it becomes a sustainable but small business. They aren't interested in something that doesn't have a chance at turning into a jackpot.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#97

Post by chinathrow »

move-on-by wrote: post #4

> The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or othe…

Mozilla, then Phoenix, then Firefox user for over 27y or so.

If they can't stop abusing their users, I will look for another browser, goddamnit.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#98

Post by solardev »

teshaq wrote: post #34

While I agree with folks that this is a step backwards in privacy, I think it’s a good exercise to zoom out and understand Firefox’s position. The browser market is highly competitive, and Mozilla’s competitors have orders of magnitude more resources at their disposal. As we all know Firefox’s market share has been dropping over the past years and unfortunately the revenue supporting all of Mozilla comes predominantl…

Their weird org structure is their own fault. Millions of dollars squandered on things most people simply do not care about, while neglecting Firefox for a decade.

When Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix first came out, the org structure wasn't that weird yet. The hybrid structure came a few years later, and even then it was fine for a while, but somehow mission creep set in and they became this ginormous org that did nothing useful, but padded exec salaries at the expense of their only service that people actually cared about, the Firefox browser. They kept adding more and more ads and intrusive partnership and lost marketshare year after year until it became completely irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the Mozilla org tried to become some sort of EFF-wannabe, but heavy on the virtue signaling and low on producing anything of actual value.

At this point, I think Firefox would be better off spun off and managed by another FOSS entity altogether, not whatever the husk of Mozilla is today.

Re: An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

#100

Post by Zamiel_Snawley »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #16
boomboomsubban wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just lost a monopoly case because they paid Mozilla all that money, this theory has always made little sense and sticking to it now makes even less.

In fact, one could argue that Google losing its case is what caused this. Google provided a substantial amount of revenue to Mozilla. With that now gone, new ways(TM) to get money are needed.

They really don’t need more revenue. They are nominally a not-for-profit and in 2023, they had 250 million cash and a billion more in investments.

They’ve taken billions of dollars from Google since 2005, and now they’re turning their back on user privacy.

Post reply on HN