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

Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

cyberinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 178 posts

Re: Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

#61

Post by echoangle »

chii wrote: post #60
echoangle wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t they buy the search bar to have another competitor and not get forced to give away chrome for antitrust reasons? I don’t think they care about the search bar THAT much, it’s basically a donation right?

> for antitrust reasons? well, a benefit is a benefit. It doesn't really matter how it manifests does it? It's not a donation, as it is not altruistic.

But then I’m not the product? The government is basically forcing google to pay my browser developer, how does that make me the product it is bad for me?

Re: Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

#62

Post by yichk »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #54
yichk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Oh shove off with this Puritan attitude. First off, you're implying most of PornHub is rape. That'a ridiculous; no one is uploading videos of actual rape to PornHub. Secondly, porn ≠ abuse. It's an actual industry and so obviously the treatment of women varies by company. Simply put, if you don't like porn, DON'T WATCH IT. Don't try to shove your personal beliefs on everyoje else.

[flagged]

Re: Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

#63

Post by chii »

echoangle wrote: post #61
chii wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for antitrust reasons? well, a benefit is a benefit. It doesn't really matter how it manifests does it? It's not a donation, as it is not altruistic.

But then I’m not the product? The government is basically forcing google to pay my browser developer, how does that make me the product it is bad for me?

You are still "the product" even if google derives secondary benefits - because you are using firefox. Google doesn't pay the other forks of firefox money (at least, as far as i know). It's because you aren't using those browsers (you as in the royal you).

I didn't say you being a product is bad - but it does not align customer with software company. You may be OK with being sold as a product to google, as this relationship currently isn't damaging. But what if a future offer which would damage you is taken by mozilla because it's profitable?

Re: Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

#64

Post by bartvk »

TRYEXCEPT wrote: post #58

FireFox need to improve their integrations and offerings to be on par with Chrome at this stage. It, at times can be such a bainful browser to use and honestly I don't think a VPN is the next step. Improved account handling & switching would be huge.

I'm not sure what you mean by account handling, but you can long-press the new tab, and you can choose a different profile (for example "work") which has a differently-colored tab. It's pretty great.

Re: Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

#65

Post by encrypted_bird »

yichk wrote: post #62
encrypted_bird wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh shove off with this Puritan attitude. First off, you're implying most of PornHub is rape. That'a ridiculous; no one is uploading videos of actual rape to PornHub. Secondly, porn ≠ abuse. It's an actual industry and so obviously the treatment of women varies by company. Simply put, if you don't like porn, DON'T WATCH IT. Don't try to shove your personal beliefs on everyoje else.

[flagged]

1. That's an opinion piece, not a piece of investigative journalism.

2. That's from 5 years ago; who knows if this is even still the case, even assuming it's as widespread as the opinion piece claims.

3. See my second point.

Re: Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

#66

Post by Dylan16807 »

aragilar wrote: post #44
Dylan16807 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it only affects traffic within the browser Yes because it's VPN for the browser. I can do the same kind of targeting with most VPN software. Applying it to specific programs doesn't make it stop being a VPN. > This explains it well enough though: Which answer? The dumb bot that contradicts itself? The first human answer says it is a VPN. Though that "cyber security expert" is also not someone I would trust since th…

Is an SSH jump server a VPN (or forwarding a port from another machine at VPN)? I'd suggest neither are because it's connection-based rather than setting up a network (with routing etc). Absent a network, it's a proxy (which can be used like some deployments of a VPN).

I see your point, but I think that might label many uses of wireguard in tailscale "not a VPN" because they use imaginary network devices that only exist inside the tailscale process. Saying that would feel very wrong. On the other hand if process internals can be the deciding factor, then optimizing the code one way or the other could change whether a system is "VPN" or "not a VPN" even though it looks exactly the same from the outside. That doesn't feel great either.

And do we even know if Opera uses internal network addresses for its "VPN"?

I think I'm willing to say that routing all internet traffic from a program through a tunnel can be called either a VPN or a proxy.

Re: Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

#68

Post by yichk »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #65
yichk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

1. That's an opinion piece, not a piece of investigative journalism. 2. That's from 5 years ago; who knows if this is even still the case, even assuming it's as widespread as the opinion piece claims. 3. See my second point.

[flagged]

Re: Mozilla to launch free built-in VPN in upcoming Firefox 149

#70

Post by darkwater »

nl wrote: post #29
userbinator wrote: post #3

As a Firefox user: if I want a VPN I'll use an actual VPN. Focus on making a great browser, and not all this distraction. Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"

> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" This is such a un-nuanced take. In this case Firefox's route-to-market is the product. It's a distribution channel where some people who receive the free version will upgrade. Free tiers for products where some will pay to upgrade seems like a reasonable compromise, but it does depend on how the deal is structured. If Mullvad pays Firefox for the free use…

"Firefox’s free VPN won’t be using Mullvad’s infra though; it’s hosted on Mozilla servers around the world (if beta testing of the feature done in late 2025 tracks)."

From OMG Ubuntu

Post reply on HN