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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by Macha »

Digit-Al wrote: post #446
pmontra wrote: post #400

> 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…

So why doesn't my backpack come with a mandatory TOS that I won't e.g. put illegal drugs in it and bring it across the border? Why is Firefox any more liable if I used it to publish illegal content on the web than the backpack manufacturer would be if I used it to smuggle illegal content across a border?

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

#692

Post by paulryanrogers »

Y_Y wrote: post #626
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…

This idea of having an moral alignment covenant I think is a great one. I'm fed up of being bait-and-switched by companies that get buy-in by being open and friendly, and then later they decide to kill the golden goose. If you're committed to FOSS then commit! Make it official so that people can trust that you're not going to enshittify later.

Open AI is still technically a non-profit. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

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

#693

Post by ta1243 »

m2f2 wrote: post #646
walrus01 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this, Firefox has a 2.54% market share of browsers worldwide, so if their goal here is to shoot themselves in the foot and get that number under 2%, mission accomplished. Firefox is still the lesser of two evils when compared to Chrome with all of its telemetry turned on. And at least it supports a proper implementation of uBlock origin, which Google just broke in Chrome. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-m…

I'm one of them 2.54% and I cringe when some kiddie develops websites around some chrome bugs, just to let us and Apple folks down.

I'm also the 2.54% and have been since the phoenix days. I am beyond thankful every day for apple keeping both desktop safari and ios running to prevent the internet being even more monoculture than in the IE6 days

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

#694

Post by simpaticoder »

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…

>it seems daft to me when others suggest using forks with no well-established governance of their own

Yes, it may be that we are jumping from the frying pan into the fire. On the bright-side this opens up an opportunity for a company, or a suite of companies, to fund an alternative browser. Such an entity might have Signal at its lead, or similar, who's mission is solely to "tighten up" the software stack on which it runs.

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

#695

Post by braiamp »

People are acting like this is new. This is about:studies. With about:studies you agreed to upload usage data. Right now they are enabling credit card autofill support, a CRL alternative that doesn't give information about the sites you visit, etc. Actual corporate goes out of their way to say "we do whatever we want", Mozilla at least gives a condition.

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

#696

Post by netdevphoenix »

Like they say, die early or live long enough to become a villain.

I never thought I would live to see the day when Mozilla's ethics would shift away so much from the "ethical" alignment.

Does anyone have any idea of what has changed inside Mozilla to prompt this?

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

#697

Post by fergie »

apalerwuss wrote: post #511

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."…

You are kind of answering your own question here...

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

#698

Post by KingOfCoders »

einr wrote: post #683
KingOfCoders wrote: post #678

Windows user, 32 years FF user (Mosaic, Netscape, Firefox), what to do now? 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

Firefox forks: * Waterfox * Librewolf * GNU IceCat * Pale Moon * Seamonkey Chromium forks: * Ungoogled-Chromium * Thorium * Iridium You'll have to do your own due diligence as far as how trustworthy or suitable these are, but nominally privacy-respecting alternatives do exist.

Thanks didn't know, thought Waterfox etc. were just a new UI on top of Firefox rendering/HTTP/HTTPS/etc. engine and were depending on Firefox development. Didn't know they were forks like the Redis forks for example. Will take another look.

"Ungoogled-Chromium"

Can't be a fork? Don't they just patch Chromium?

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

#699

Post by akimbostrawman »

mFixman wrote: post #684
akimbostrawman wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use https://librewolf.net

Why Librewolf and not Waterfox or any other open source fork?

because I don't think a tiny browser fork that moves too far from the original is maintainable and secure long term. even someone of microsofts size seems to think so. librewolf is mostly config changes and couple small patches removing superficial anti-feature like pocket.

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

#700

Post by yyyyz »

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…

[dead]
Post reply on HN