Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
721–730 of 1001 posts
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#722Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#723Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#724Earlier 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…
The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either. MBA creep will happen and suddenly the TOS changes and my paid tier is going to have data collection and 'some' ads. I have to move to a high tier to avoid them. After a few cycles of that, one day all the tiers have data collection and ads.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#725Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how a regulated entity is better in any way than an individual. We repeatedly see attacks on freedom and privacy by the people who are supposed to protect them, those so-called "regulators": chatcontrol, recent UK backdoor wishes, repeated French proposals to enforce DRM even on opensource. And I wouldn't even google Russia, China, or other less democratic states. Regulated is probably worse than some ana…
> I don't see how regulated entity is better in any way than individual. I feel you. Regulatory bodies have definitely fallen short in many cases, and we've seen concerning proposals from governments that threaten digital privacy and freedom. "Who watches the watchmen" seems incredibly apt nowadays. However, I feel there's a fundamental difference between imperfect accountability and no accountability at all. With a…
Many regulatory bodies seem to constantly fall short of what they are supposed to do and then demand more money and powers to continue to fail at what they are supposed to do.
At what point would you accept that they maybe not fit for purpose and other solutions should be considered?
It maybe better to put resources into educating people on how to protect themselves from privacy breaches or minimise the impact.
The only thing I've ever seen from the ICO is a letter saying that if I have customer data I have to pay them a fee or pay a fine. Then I have to go through the inconvenience of telling them I don't have any, so I don't have to pay this fee.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#726Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are under an attack by Puritanism that is quite astounding actually. And no one is doing anything. Everyone just keeps bending the knee. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1hqqpbt/newest_ver... Some of the things that are happening are just from the threat of “something bad might come down from the new administration”. It’s so ridiculous.
Confused. What do Firefox's terms of service have to do with puritanism ? Have Firefox developers become puritanist or something ? That would be extremely surprising if true. Any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to this ?
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#727I 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…
1. Is github the best place to report bugs / issues for Waterfox? 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…
This is so melodramatic. It’s a set of patch files applied to the Firefox source tree. If an evil maintainer hatches a maniacal plan to collect user statistics and deletes the patch that removes telemetry or whatever, you can just `git revert`.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#728Earlier 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…
And almost all growth is immigration, the fertility rate hits new lows constantly.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/...
“U.S. Fertility Rate Drops to Another Historic Low”
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#729Earlier 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's Orion browser has a lifetime sponsor price of $150. That plus the Kagi subscription support its development. It's currently macOS and iPad/iPhone only, but a Linux version is being worked on. I don't know their plans for a Windows version.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#730Earlier 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…
The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either. MBA creep will happen and suddenly the TOS changes and my paid tier is going to have data collection and 'some' ads. I have to move to a high tier to avoid them. After a few cycles of that, one day all the tiers have data collection and ads.
There is a reason I get my email via fastmail: they differentiate themselves on privacy features. I also have my own domain, so if fastmail does turn evil they know I can easially move away. I can run my own email server, but having done that I know it is harder than I want. There are other services I'd pay for if I could find someone I could trust to take a small amount of money. (small is key - plenty would do this for thousands, but I don't have that much free cash)
Don't get me wrong, the above is not very large, but it is still something.