671–680 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd go with Ungoogled Chromium at that point.
I’m kind of addicted to tab containers right now and I have them set up in a way where I can proxy specific containers out different socks proxies that go through different VPN tunnels. Niche I know but it’s keeping me on FF.
>UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice. From their blog post…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that Mozilla updated their site a couple days ago to remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" when a flag associated with the new Firefox terms of use is enabled (see https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... ), I'm not so sure that this is a CYA about standard web browser usage.
> remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" You mean wording like this? ""Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements…
> We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data.
and instead there's vague weaseling
> doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“)
I'm not like most people, I am a bit stupid and have a very low threshold for what selling my data is.
> Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love.
You can either have 2.5% of users who know why they are using your browser and are willing to make a donation or you can have nothing while we use a fork with your telemetry ripped out.
> 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…
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…
2. When (not in your lifetime obviously) Waterfox is broken, what canaries do you have deployed that we can archive now, like Mozilla's tell here?
3. What keeps waterfox afloat? Where/how do you accept funds?
4. How do I find a sync alternative or provide my own? Such that, I'm not reliant on Mozilla sync/backend? ... If none exists, how much would it cost for you to embed one? Would you accept a serious bounty for it assuming the focus is self hosted / no Waterfox backend services?
Anyone forking? (I don't want a derivate which Mozilla controls)
[edit] Switched to Waterfox (Macos, Windows, Linux, Android), no fork but better than FF for now
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…
People use FF, _because_ they can hold it to a higher standard. That's the entire point.
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…
Question is: how many people would jump ship, and then how much money would that represent to pay devs.