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

341–350 of 381 posts

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

#341

Post by tiltowait »

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…

> The browser market is highly competitive

I disagree. There's one dominant player with ~66% of the market, a distant secont place at ~18%, an embarrassing third place at 5%, and then a bunch of also-rans making up the rest [0]. This doesn't look like a particularly healthy, nor competitive, market.

[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

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

#342

Post by mystified5016 »

mmooss wrote: post #186
wtallis wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They say it's only for "doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox" - how is that alarming? Nothing that I intend to do with Firefox requires any such statement. The mere existence of the statement is evidence that Mozilla's intentions are drastically out of line with what a web browser should be doing.

> Nothing that I intend to do with Firefox requires any such statement. So what? Millions of people use Firefox. Lots of things in Firefox and their ToS don't apply to me, of course. None of my personal info will be collected at all, based on what I've read.

Mozilla is telling you they can collect the data. Whether or not they are right now is not relevant. Mozilla is informing you that you have agreed to them collecting all of this data. They now have the right to collect and transmit said data at any point.

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

#343

Post by Zamiel_Snawley »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #117
Zamiel_Snawley wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They spend well over 200 million a year in software development, and they've made those investments presumably expecting this revenue issue. Building a browser is expensive, that's why there's only two of them. Even Microsoft considered it too expensive to continue.

I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser.

However, Microsoft’s mission is profits for shareholders so their calculus ought to be different than Mozilla’s.

It makes sense for a profit-seeking entity to surrender if they don’t see a path for a return on the investment, not so for Mozilla.

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

#344

Post by eipi10_hn »

wtallis wrote: post #194
eipi10_hn wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, legal words are frustrating like that. When the law comes to their house, using "acting purely as a user agent and sending data" will just help them on reddit but not on court. And no, you don't always send the data to the "address in URL bar", there can be services that are in iframes or with other add-on services like their Pocket, VPN, AI chats (ChatGPT...), similar to any client softwares sending data to ot…

I feel like you're deliberately ignoring the crux of the issue: a web browser's job does not require anything remotely resembling a copyright license from the user to the browser vendor . Yes, Mozilla has been developing and acquiring a host of other services, many of which do involve Mozilla taking possession of user data and processing it. Those services need legal policies that cover Mozilla doing stuff with your…

> a web browser's job does not require anything remotely resembling a copyright license from the user to the browser vendor.

Yes, I know that, you know that, we all know that. This has always been our implicit agreements between us and the softwares. The thing is, are you sure your argument would help Firefox and Mozilla in the court? Can you be Firefox' lawyers when other legal entities approach them nowadays? I don't see any laws that specifically allow those implicit agreements automatically in browsers. Like Epic founder said:

> The license says that when you type stuff, the program can use the stuff you typed to do the thing you asked it to do. This is what programs ordinarily do, but nowadays lawyers tend to advise companies to say it explicitly.

https://x.com/looking5452/status/1895458253854711854

Firefox is made by Mozilla Corporation (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/), the codes that run the browser are made by Mozilla Corporation, a taxable subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation. It integrates other services like Password Manager (which includes "Alerts for breached websites" feature), Autofill payment method, Deceptive Content and Dangerous Software Protection, Query OCSP for certificates validation, DoH, DRM, their up-coming AI Chats... All of these would potentially be targeted in legal confrontations. And where would those legal disputes be sent to? Mozilla Corporation, even when those activities are in your Firefox PID 3808. The activities do not limit in just sending data.

If I just make a program for myself or for others but without any big entities behind, I won't need to think about anything. But if my program is backed by a taxable company, any implicit agreements between my program and other users would leave legal concerns for me and my company for sure.

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

#345

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

wtallis wrote: post #110
userbinator wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't forget the push for browsers to ignore your DHCP-provided DNS server and instead get their DNS from a server outside your control over an encrypted tunnel. It's an obvious attack on stuff like PiHole, with little to no real upside for users.

One point to support this is that any "privacy" offered by DoH is generally defeated by the TLS SNI extension exposing cleartext domain names on the wire. (Exception being use of ECH-enabled browsers^1 to access Cloudflare-hosted websites that support ECH. But even then, there is no privacy from Cloudflare. HN commenters have historically acknowledged Cloudflare is itself a "MITM".)

1. Test: https://defo.ie

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

#346

Post by dietr1ch »

userbinator wrote: post #93
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.

True, now browsers are all about for-profit surveillance.

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

#347

Post by boomboomsubban »

Zamiel_Snawley wrote: post #343
boomboomsubban wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They spend well over 200 million a year in software development, and they've made those investments presumably expecting this revenue issue. Building a browser is expensive, that's why there's only two of them. Even Microsoft considered it too expensive to continue.

I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser. However, Microsoft’s mission is profits for shareholders so their calculus ought to be different than Mozilla’s. It makes sense for a profit-seeking entity to surrender if they don’t see a path for a return on the investment, not so for Mozilla.

>I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser.

Then why post strong comments about how much funding Mozilla needs?

The calculus is very different. IE could be developed at a 100% loss for the company if it still otherwise helped Microsoft, which is what happened. Chrome operates similarly.

Firefox needs to generate enough money to sustain itself indefinitely. So when there are signs their main source of funding may vanish, they need to keep a war chest together and have investments to weather any oncoming storm. Otherwise they just collapse.

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

#348

Post by Zamiel_Snawley »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #347
Zamiel_Snawley wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser. However, Microsoft’s mission is profits for shareholders so their calculus ought to be different than Mozilla’s. It makes sense for a profit-seeking entity to surrender if they don’t see a path for a return on the investment, not so for Mozilla.

>I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser. Then why post strong comments about how much funding Mozilla needs? The calculus is very different. IE could be developed at a 100% loss for the company if it still otherwise helped Microsoft, which is what happened. Chrome operates similarly. Firefox needs to generate enough money to sustain itself indefinitely. So when there are signs th…

Because they’ve had twenty years to figure out how to generate sustainable revenue while being propped up by Google. Mozilla got themselves into this situation, why should their users overlook the removal of the only real advantage of Firefox?

They _should_ collapse if the only way for them to continue is to abandon their mission.

That much revenue from a single source was always a significant vulnerability, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address. Poor leadership and wasteful spending is the problem, not revenue.

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

#349

Post by sam_goody »

scottbez1 wrote: post #227
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Librewolf is a Firefox fork with this crap removed.

And if everyone switches to Librewolf, Librewolf will die because Mozilla will no longer make money and won't be able to devote resources towards maintaining upstream Firefox. I use Firefox. I hate ads. I don't love that Mozilla engages in some level of affiliate deals to pay the bills, but it's the only viable alternative to Google controlling the entire web and doing much worse tracking/advertising at this point, u…

If even a tiny appreciable amount of user move to librewolf, Mozilla will fix their business model.

They were doing fine as a business under Eich, whatever you think of him. They make over $500M just from their search box - and frankly, that is way more than you need to make a fantastic browser. And Thunderbird.

Baker took home over $7M a year for the past six years, and though she stepped down as CEO, we don't know if they even cut her pay, or what the other top tier salaries are [1]. Mozilla is a "open" company, but they announced that they will "not be disclosing salaries" after Baker stepped down.

Kagi makes a browser with 35 employees and ~200K inn sales. And I know, they are not building from scratch - but neither is FF at this point. It is ridiculous to suggest that Mozilla will go under if they don't become spyware.

[1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/leadership)

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

#350

Post by boomboomsubban »

Zamiel_Snawley wrote: post #348
boomboomsubban wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser. Then why post strong comments about how much funding Mozilla needs? The calculus is very different. IE could be developed at a 100% loss for the company if it still otherwise helped Microsoft, which is what happened. Chrome operates similarly. Firefox needs to generate enough money to sustain itself indefinitely. So when there are signs th…

Because they’ve had twenty years to figure out how to generate sustainable revenue while being propped up by Google. Mozilla got themselves into this situation, why should their users overlook the removal of the only real advantage of Firefox? They _should_ collapse if the only way for them to continue is to abandon their mission. That much revenue from a single source was always a significant vulnerability, a vulner…

>, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address.

My recollection is of leadership repeatedly trying to address it, generally for the community to get furious at them and say they shouldn't remotely think of anything except Firefox.

If you're full of methods for Firefox to magically generate several hundred million dollars a year, I believe they're still looking for a new CEO. Be warned though, if you take any of that money for yourself the community will eternally scorn you.

Post reply on HN