661–670 of 1001 posts
I think this probably isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. But I find a certain kind of joy in Mozilla being judged on the worst possible interpretation of their terms of service, since they do that to others _all the time_ [1]. [1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/
That's the correct way-- contract terms must be read defensively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My mental model of a browser is the same as of any tool, as a hammer, purely defined by its technical capabilities to do a job, like to display a website and offer basic functionality like for saving a bookmark. The very idea of an entity called "we", an anonymous and ever-changing cast of people managing "responsible defaults" and "simple tools to manage your data" and communicating it on their terms, making me try…
I consider a browser as similar as a complicated curl with GUI. Therefore: - when I see that browser does not allow playing video in the background (youtube on mobile phones) - when my browser disallows me blocking certain things - when my browser prevents me from taking screenshot of things I can see on it ... it really angers me, as I feel betrayed. Of course, nowadays, web applications tend to get complicated and…
It is your device and you are free to not run that code. You can leave
Of course this changes if it is something you specifically fund like government websites
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No better place to leave for" seems an apt way to put it. I think/fear that in the long run, there will be fewer and fewer ways to participate in activities and communities on the web on your own terms, as only a vetted, allowlisted set of client builds (that may be "open source" on the tin, but by that point it is effectively meaningless) will be able to pass CDN "anti-abuse" restrictions. It will not be a better w…
> No better place to leave for This is an amazingly common psychological trap. You wouldn't believe the number of people, men as well as women, who end up in the therapy chair, at the police station or at the hospital A&E, because they are "stuck" with a violent and abusive partner. The modern tech landscape is all about abuse. People use fancy names for it like "enshitification" or "rot economy" - but at the end of…
It's all so strange. I would happily buy Firefox, either as a one off, or as an annual license, and be done with all the weird license nonsense - presumably they want to sell data to pay the bills. But instead the choice, realistically, seems to be between giving all my browsing data to Google and to Mozilla. And Chrome works marginally better... :/
Can't the EU just sponsor Firefox?
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"
I would also love to face $7B existential wobbles.
> 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…
If that's the way the law is interpreted, it's silly.
The "publisher" in this case would be the website the file is uploaded to. If the website doesn't make the file public, then they're not a "publisher".
The browser is merely acting as a tool to do the uploading. Firefox shouldn't be held liable for the contents of the file any more than any other web client. If it did, tools like cURL should be liable in the same way.
Somewhere along the way web browser authors forgot that they're merely building a web user _agent_. It's a tool that acts _on behalf of_ the user, in order to help them access the web in a friendly way. It should in no way be aware of the content the user sends and receives, have a say in matters regarding this content, and let alone share that information with 3rd parties. It's an outrageous invasion of privacy to do otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> is easy to block network access (never plug ethernet) Some TVs secretly include a modem and SIM card, to make sure they get your personal data back to their masters. Every company in the world is coming after your privacy. How far are you willing to defend it?
The engine monoculture is not great, but they're a small team and doing a great job to create a useful browser.