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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by tokioyoyo »

_zagj wrote: post #319
tokioyoyo wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My conspiracy theory is that gears are slowly turning to revamp the culture, redefine what’s acceptable/not acceptable and eventually suggest that if you won’t have kids you’re not accepted in the society. Basically a funky way to reverse the population decline, as the governments are realizing this problem won’t be fixed by free markets and etc.

People aren't having kids because of stagnant real wages and soaring home prices. In the US, the median home price is now $450k. In Canada, it's $650k . And when people do have children, they're on average having fewer, later in life (with a greater risk of complications): https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/geriatric-pregnanc... I doubt banning porn or abortion or engaging in cultural engineering will fix this…

Top income brackets aren't really having more than 2 children either, which is a requirement for growing population. Like most studies has shown that, in general, educated women, freedom of choice and etc. will negatively impact birthrates. It's the same thing everywhere. Sure, income, less social pressure and etc. affects it somehow, but there's just no real need in general to have 3 kids in this day and age. Asking a woman to give away at the bare minimum 6 years of their youth won't cut it nowadays. And honestly, I don't blame them, I think exactly the same way.

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

#632

Post by aerzen »

sph wrote: post #590
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 t…

I'd pay for this.

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

#633

Post by tokioyoyo »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #371
tokioyoyo wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My conspiracy theory is that gears are slowly turning to revamp the culture, redefine what’s acceptable/not acceptable and eventually suggest that if you won’t have kids you’re not accepted in the society. Basically a funky way to reverse the population decline, as the governments are realizing this problem won’t be fixed by free markets and etc.

First of all, US population has been steadily growing, so I don't get why big business (whose interests current administration represent) would need to engage in long-term culture engineering for steady supply of new workers. Second of all, majority of US population is urban. People in NY or Bay Area can't elect a president who represents their interests due to how Electoral College is designed but attempting to chan…

Again, it's just a fun conspiracy theory in my head, and no, it doesn't have to be big business. Like you realize churches have been pouring money in ads, apps, and etc. right? They're actively trying to get back all the lost memberships.

US population is growing for a combination of immigration and just slightly better birth rates than others. It's nowhere close to above-replacement levels (2.1). Just check out the population pyramid, and you can see there are less younger kids than older ones.

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

#634

Post by orng »

rs186 wrote: post #594
orng wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, if you care about the open web, then you should not be using a Blink (Chromium) based browser like Brave. The less control Google has, the better for the web.

Well that ship has sailed.

The internet used to be controlled in large by Microsoft. Then it wasn't. It does not have to continue to be controlled by Google in the future. Not using Chromium based browsers is a first step.

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

#635

Post by Fnoord »

sph wrote: post #605
mariusmg wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So why isn't anyone trying to replace Mozilla yet, Because writing manifestos is easy and making a browser is proper hard work ?

My comment is targeted to the developers of Waterfox and Librewolf - they're already making a browser, so the hard part is done. 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.

A paid version needs to offer something on top of it, which is usually in one way or another proprietary (such as a proprietary service).

Something like this is regarded as the enshitification process, so what typically happens is they (e.g. VC) want to do such after they lured in their users. Which Firefox has (or arguably: had), but Waterfox and Librewolf have not.

Good thought experiment.

It ain't the first drama or controversy with regards to Mozilla, who have had a long tendency which didn't occur recently (and included the time Eich was there). Nostalgia just makes people forget the bad.

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

#636

Post by Fnoord »

nerdponx wrote: post #622
sph wrote: post #590

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…

Kagi is making the Orion browser, which you can pay for. I am a happy customer. There's also Ladybird and several Webkit wrappers.

Orion works on Apple OSes only.

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

#637

Post by jordanb »

perihelions wrote: post #399
_mitterpach wrote: post #366

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…

They said in the commit comment that the new TOU will "roll out" to different people at different times.

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

#638

Post by neuroticnews25 »

altairprime wrote: post #227
wongarsu wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So only bookmarks of porn sites if you have Sync active, sending porn tabs to a Firefox instance on another device, browsing porn while on the Mozilla VPN, or using Firefox Relay to sign up to a porn website with an anonymous email address Fine by me since I don't use a Mozilla account, but sounds to me like I shouldn't get a Mozilla account either

Bookmarks and tab URLs don’t contain porn, generally? References are not typically considered explicit, though certainly their language isn’t clear enough about that. If you bookmark a collection of data: / blob: links then that would be the outlier scenario where you shouldn’t use any third-party server-involved bookmark syncing service, as presumably they’ll all either break or ban you once they find you using thei…

Blob URL is also just a reference to a (local) resource. I guess another valid example would be something like javascript:document.write()

Do you know any other?

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

#639

Post by SiempreViernes »

wraptile wrote: post #600
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…

> I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces The wobble seems to somewhat artificial. I'm having trouble believing Firefox could ever not be able to afford to continue browser development — there are way too many interests at stake. Google alone would have no choice but to bail Firefox out because Chrome can't be the only browser without being regulated to hell and back.

Google providing most of their funding is a fact, and that this provides a large amount of leverage over what Firefox can do is obvious. So how is the balancing act artificial?

For it to be self-imposed there needs to be an comparable amount of money ready to spring forth if Google ever pulled out that Mozilla is somehow keeping a lid on.

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

#640

Post by jordanb »

matsemann wrote: post #444
_mitterpach wrote: post #366

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…

> To HN: Will you be quitting firefox over this change, or is there simply no better place to leave for? Not to be overly whataboutistic, but we tolerate sooo much more from other players. It's annoying how we hold some to a higher standard, but ignore others doing worse. I get people are disappointed in Mozilla and wants them to do better, but it's a bit like the "we live in a society meme", where those doing good m…

I use Firefox, and advocate for people to use Firefox, because I believe it's the one browser that is not evil. It's the entire reason for the existence of Firefox.

Saying, well, why aren't you upset that Chrome is evil is such a confusion of ideas I barely know how to respond. Yes, I know Chrome is evil, I've been telling people that for many years, and I don't use it.

Post reply on HN