601–610 of 1001 posts
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]
> 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…
> Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations.
> You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to [...] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/
Link directly to the Github commit: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... , which links to the following issue: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/issues/16016 There are a bunch of locked Google docs linked in the issue, probably internal privacy guidelines. I can't say that this surprises me, perhaps they are looking for alternate revenue streams in case Google cuts them out? To HN: Will yo…
What's the purpose of gating "we don’t sell access to your data" by "if switch('firefox-tou')"? {% if switch('firefox-tou') %} Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
>So why isn't anyone trying to replace Mozilla yet, Because writing manifestos is easy and making a browser is proper hard work ?
I'm wondering why don't they try to step it up further by selling a paid version alongside their open source product. What is the worst that can happen? Nobody pays for it and they continue making $0 just like they are happily doing now.
All talk of "Privacy", "Principles" and "Promises" from Mozilla was already empty as they were completely dependent on Google's money. This should surprise absolutely no-one and Mozilla never cared about their claims of privacy or their users as long as Google was paying them. So now we know that when it comes down to the wire as their biggest customer (Google) was under anti-trust scrutiny; indirectly threatening Mo…
I bet there are still some software developers there who genuinely care about the mission. Other than that, I've had to backspace and abort comments so much tonight, because I was angry beyond decorum, at the repeated betrayals.
There will always be great people building alternatives.
Ask HN: Is ungoogled chromium a good alternative ?
This is exemplified compared to forks like librewolf that enable the majority of them.
Ungoogled Chromium and stock Firefox are pretty similar privacy-wise though.
The main advantage is all baked-in telemetry is stripped out, but it doesn't do much to protect you from privacy-invasive sites other than disabling WebRTC and blocking 3rd party cookies.
I used it for a number of years, but recently switched to Librewolf ~5 months ago and don't expect to switch back unless Firefox and all downstream forks completely implode.
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…
Would cdn-debian.org be allowed? Its on a different domain, but I've noticed a lot of websites use a different domain to host their CDN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm bummed that out of all the posts on the topic, this is the one that gets to stay on the frontpage.