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

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111

Post by ndriscoll »

mozball wrote: post #35
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case anyone is unaware... https://librewolf.net/

Genuinely asking : Who is behind librewolf and why should i trust them? They don't seem to be available in any official repos yet other than ones they self-published

I'm not sure what you think of as "official", but it's been in nixpkgs for years at least. You can also take a look at what it's doing. The librewolf repo itself is basically a collection of generally small patches. Mostly you've got patches to change branding and remove antifeatures, plus fixes like preventing pages from detecting you've opened devtools and enabling JXL support.

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

#112

Post by ilyagr »

ziddoap wrote: post #61
hellcow wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "we don’t sell access to your data" has been removed, gated behind a feature flag connected to this TOS change. Their FAQ was updated to remove the "Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise" as well. [0] Combined with their blog posts from the CEO saying…

> Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you, and we don’t buy data about you. Is still present on https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/

I'm curious whether it changed in the last two hours, but now it sounds a lot less clear. Also, it sheds some light of how people at Mozilla currently think about it (so much so that I'm guessing the text will change again):

> Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

*Update:* Here's the version from Feb 6 that says exactly what the parent comment posted: https://web.archive.org/web/20250206184553/https://www.mozil...

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

#113

Post by krunck »

winkelmann wrote: post #33

An interesting implication of this is that it would point to Firefox being considered a service from Mozilla (hence why they need a license to facilitate your use of the program). If we now look at their "Acceptable Use Policy", we can find this: > You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to [...] Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violenc…

> You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to: Do anything illegal or otherwise violate applicable law,

No civil disobedience. Bad Mozilla! Bad, bad Mozilla!

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

#114

Post by mrguyorama »

butz wrote: post #71

Remember the time, when browsers were competing who will load website fastest or who will render Acid2 test correctly? Those were the days.

That was great, except everyone just installed chrome because the website google told them to and put them right back in the exact monopoly position that allowed IE6 to stagnate.

If you use chrome still, you are literally part of the problem. I still think Mozilla, just barely treading into the advertising waters, is probably a better option than the literal advertising panopticon that owns our world and data.

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

#115

Post by ziddoap »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #99
b112 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those companies are known to be privacy hostile companies. Mozilla/Firefox, not. In fact, Mozilla claims the reverse! For them to abandon privacy, is a betrayal, it's backstabbing behaviour. Feeling betrayed and wanting nothing to do with said software, as a result, seems normal to me.

Or in slightly different terms: If I wasn't using Chrome because of privacy issues, then Firefox losing the privacy advantage means they just ditched the only reason I was still using their product.

If Mozilla is abandoning their pro-privacy stance, they still have at least one thing (in my opinion) going for them over Chrome: Manifest V2 extensions. For now, at least.

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

#116

Post by mozball »

ndriscoll wrote: post #111
mozball wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely asking : Who is behind librewolf and why should i trust them? They don't seem to be available in any official repos yet other than ones they self-published

I'm not sure what you think of as "official", but it's been in nixpkgs for years at least. You can also take a look at what it's doing. The librewolf repo itself is basically a collection of generally small patches. Mostly you've got patches to change branding and remove antifeatures, plus fixes like preventing pages from detecting you've opened devtools and enabling JXL support.

I mean nixpkgs is the largest linux repo there is.[1] I think anyone can upload a package, similar to AUR :

[1] - https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/total

edit : By official i meant something backed by and guaranteed by a reputed org, like Debian's official repo, RedHat or Arch's Core Repo.

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

#117

Post by 0x2a »

drpossum wrote: post #84
lenerdenator wrote: post #66

Mozilla needs to learn that when you're an operation running honestly as a non-profit and no one's getting rich (comfortable != rich, btw), there's nothing wrong with the donate nag in a blank new tab. Wikipedia figured that out long ago. They probably wouldn't be around without that nag box asking for donations.

There is something deeply wrong with the donate nag: The money goes to funding Mozilla-branded nonsense (e.g. misguided adventures into the VPN space), overpaid executives and bloated administration (as they actively shed developers [1][2]), and not the browser. I would considering donating except I can't donate to support what I would like to support. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growt.…

Isn't the Mozilla Foundation (non-profit org) distinct from Mozilla Corporation?

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

#118

Post by 0x2a »

hellcow wrote: post #38

Since Mozilla removed all mention of not selling my data in a recent PR and seems hellbent on an ad-based future, I've deleted my Firefox account and moved to Librewolf across my devices, and I'll encourage everyone I know to do the same. It's a sad end to my literal decades of support for them.

I use a Firefox fork too, but do you think it would continue to be around without Mozilla?

It's sad to see them squander an opportunity to do good work. Mozilla should have gone all-in on ethics/privacy in contrast to tech giants and made an offering like Proton. Or gone with the Wikipedia donate model like another commenter said. Any compromise on their values is insane mismanagement, that was their whole brand.

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

#119

Post by 0x2a »

lenerdenator wrote: post #106
drpossum wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something deeply wrong with the donate nag: The money goes to funding Mozilla-branded nonsense (e.g. misguided adventures into the VPN space), overpaid executives and bloated administration (as they actively shed developers [1][2]), and not the browser. I would considering donating except I can't donate to support what I would like to support. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growt.…

That's the other problem: Mozilla just needs to focus on Firefox. Something about doing one thing and doing it well...

I wouldn't have a problem with Mozilla doing other things if they did it well and it didn't involve them compromising on their values.

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

#120

Post by bigfatkitten »

hayst4ck wrote: post #108
ziddoap wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scam sites like amazon.com Since when is Amazon a scam site ? I don't like em' either, but hyperbole doesn't help. For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds.

Scam site was probably not very precise. They have enshittified, and they don't have a quality anti-abuse team so many items, while not directly fraudulent are fraud-u-lish. Commingled inventory means you can't expect the item you get to be the item you ordered because there is no supply chain integrity. Honestly, after typing that out, I don't think scam was as wrong as it first seemed. I frequently feel deceived wh…

Amazon doesn't even particularly care whether the items they sell are even legal in the country where they sell them.

FRS radios for example. Fine in the USA, not fine in Australia where those frequencies are used for public safety radio systems, and where they are illegal to possess because they don't comply with the applicable EMC standards.

Post reply on HN