Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox • Hacker News Board

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

#581

Post by sph » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:14 AM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #552

closewith wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked, Mozilla's ARPU was less than $5 pa. I think many of us would pay a multiple of that per annum _iff_ it went towards Firefox and not whatever project/cause of the week that Mozilla has undertaken.

You're overestimating people's willingness to pay for software when free and arguably better alternatives are available. Preferring Firefox to free Chromium alternatives requires a level of nuance and tech literacy that most people will never have, and even with that tech literacy, people may still prefer Chromium. You're basically talking about asking for donations from people that prefer to ad-block YouTube instead…

You are forgetting that Firefox has been around until now with no profit except Google's bribe.

They could've at least tried to sell a paid version - what's the worst that could happen? Any sale would be on top of what they're currently earning per download, i.e. pure "profit" that could be reinvested in the product.

It never was an "either/or" proposition.

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

#582

Post by Zak » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:15 AM UTC

Digit-Al wrote: post #446

pmontra wrote: post #400

> When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information, Taken literally it means that when I use Firefox to upload a file to a customer's web site Mozilla is getting that file too, which does not seem likely. They could get a copy of the text I'm typing right now in Firefox or it means that the browser could do some local pro…

I have seen discussions of this sort of wording so many times over the years. My understanding is as follows (and I could be wrong, but this is my understanding of why that wording is used). If you use Firefox to upload a file to a website then, legally speaking,the browser is acting as a "publisher"of that file. Because of Draconian laws in many countries, to publish a file you have to have a legal right to the file…

Perhaps the legal situation is different somewhere, but I would think the browser isn't acting at all. It has no agency; it's just software running on my computer, following instructions I give it. Mozilla has no agency in that situation either; the software is running on my computer, not theirs.

The new terms grant Mozilla, the corporation a license to do things with my data.

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

#583

Post by dizhn » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:15 AM UTC

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"

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

#584

Post by lupusreal » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:15 AM UTC

misnome wrote: post #527

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."…

> "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox." We weren't born yesterday, and companies pull this shit all the time. This sentence is meaningless. You could use this sentence to justify literally any behaviour. One _easy_ way to read this change: > "... to help you interact with online content" Selling your data to have more relevant ads could easi…

Correct, that quote is very typical corporate language that includes selling your data to advertising companies to ""help users discover new experiences which align with their interests"" or some other weasel speak. People acting like that language meaningfully changes the meaning are either painfully naive or think the rest of us are.

If it's simply a matter of principle, quoting the full section with no abridgements because we're larping like we're in a court room or something, whatever. But get real, that section doesn't make Mozilla look any better.

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

#585

Post by nindalf » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:17 AM UTC

rectang wrote: post #523

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."…

[flagged]

You know, I was just wondering why no one has yet shaped the Rust vs C/C++ in US culture war terms. One side is clearly progressive in the sense of wanting to make changes for the sake of a better (more memory safe) future. The other side is more conservative, seeing enormous benefit in keeping the status quo unchanged.

And that's before getting into the politics of the people working on the language, of which I won't say more.

Here was me thinking we had at least one discussion where the US culture war hadn't metastasised. But I guess in the long run twitter.com/lundukejournal and friends will eventually win. Can't say I'm looking forward to it.

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

#586

Post by apalerwuss » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:17 AM UTC

bolognafairy wrote: post #559

misnome wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox." We weren't born yesterday, and companies pull this shit all the time. This sentence is meaningless. You could use this sentence to justify literally any behaviour. One _easy_ way to read this change: > "... to help you interact with online content" Selling your data to have more relevant ads could easi…

No. We are talking about legality. Quote the whole bloody thing. If you don’t get to say “I picked out the bit I like” in court, then you don’t get to do it here. If you’re so right, then it’s not worth taking out in the first place.

Yes exactly this -- thank you for getting my point, I'm a little tired of internet people misunderstanding things. I'm not even disputing that Mozilla is trying to pull a fast one on all of us, I'm purely questioning the framing by the "journalist" this post links to. To be taken seriously, quote the whole thing -- if it really is a case that the last part of the sentence is meaningless, then leave that in your quote, and address that in your wittering diatribe, explaining to all of us why it's meaningless. Without that, all I see is someone cherrypicking half-sentences and trying to mislead people.

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

#587

Post by Grimblewald » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:17 AM UTC

caturopath wrote: post #262

jcranmer wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's against the Terms of Use to use Firefox to... watch porn? Firefox isn't a Mozilla service. The Mozilla services are things like account sync, or the review tool they use.

I think Mozilla VPN is a Mozilla service? It's pretty odd if you aren't allowed to use their VPN to watch or share porn - send unsolicited communications (for example cold emailing an employer about a job) - Deceive or mislead (for example inviting your brother over for a surprise party under false pretenses) - Purchase legal controlled products (for example sending the pharmacy a refill for your Xanax) - Collect ema…

look, i'd have similar clauses if I ran such a service. Porn gets very messy very quickly. Revenge porn, porn of generally unconsenting parties etc. are all to common and people who share know it is wrong and so try to use things like vpns to hide. The problem for you as a vpn provider is proving they're doing the wrong thing with your service, so it is much easier to simply say there is a blanket ban and then selectivly enforce.

The upside for users in general is such a vpn service tends not to be associated with underbelly behaviour and so isn't blocked from 90% of the web.

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

#588

Post by DaSHacka » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:19 AM UTC

MortyWaves wrote: post #489

I see a lot of people suggesting Brave, but is it still full of crypto nonsense?

The coin is still baked into the browser, but it's disabled by default and doesn't really nag you about it.

At least, that's how it was when I used Brave around 2021-2022.

I've long-since moved to Librewolf, but it's my 'plan C' browser if SHTF with firefox and its downstream forks ('plan B' being Ungoogled Chromium)

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

#589

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:20 AM UTC

MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #569

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User explicitly requests connection to a specific server (e.g. navigates to debian.org), so browser makes a connection to debian.org: Not telemetry. User explicitly requests a connection to a specific server (e.g. navigates debian.org), then browser makes a connection to mozilla.org to upload metadata: Telemetry. In general telemetry is when the software connects to a server chosen by the developers and not telemetry…

When I open Slack, to which servers am I explicitly requesting a connection? I see your point, but my point is that implementing this is either impossible or would require changing how networks are used by programs at a fundamental level. A middle ground might be to create a distro that uses something like SELinux to prevent all network access to non-system processes. Then each package would have to be audited to det…

> When I open Slack, to which servers am I explicitly requesting a connection?

Debian only supplies open source software. Proprietary apps that only support the vendor's service aren't included as it is. Open source apps using standard protocols like Matrix or similar do allow the user to choose the server.

> A middle ground might be to create a distro that uses something like SELinux to prevent all network access to non-system processes.

We're talking about open source software in the official repositories. You're not putting it in a jail to thwart it from defecting on you, you're modifying the code so that it doesn't even try.

> How do updates work?

When you install Debian it asks you which mirror you want to use for updates. Several of them are provided by universities etc. You can also make your own and some large organizations do that.

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

#590

Post by sph » Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 11:20 AM UTC

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 the product healthy and the user-centric promise alive. The Internet is saved.

So why isn't anyone trying to replace Mozilla yet, with a more sane business model than living on the back of Google's fear of antitrust investigation? What's the worse that can happen?

Just sell a bonafide paid version alongside the free one, don't just rely on donations. There is a massive difference between offering a paid product and begging passers-by to spare some change.