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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by m-schuetz »

drpossum wrote: post #617
m-schuetz wrote: post #246

The text leaves way too much up for shady interpretation. At that point I might as well fully switch to Chrome, even at home. Privacy was the single last reason for sticking with firefox, and these terms do not sound like privacy anymore.

Chrome is absolutely not a step in the right direction if this is pushing you away from Firefox. Look at the number of forks that strip out this nonsense and behave functionally identically instead.

I'm not going to go out of my way to fetch a modified build for a functionally worse browser. I only use FF at home due to privacy, but since that is no longer covered by Mozilla I might as well use the browser I've already been using for web dev for years at work.

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

#733

Post by Hizonner »

userbinator wrote: post #151

The other WTF is here: Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations. Acceptable Use Policy links to https://www.mozilla.org/about/legal/acceptable-use/ which says "You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to[...]Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that…

Welp, they stopped being open source, then. From the OSD:

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

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

#734

Post by tremon »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #659
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…

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.

Yes, this. When Mozilla (or any other corporation) demonstrates positive cashflow, the odds of MBAs and other vulture capitalists descending on it increase massively. And I have never seen customer agreements like this survive a buy-out: the new owners are never constrained by the promises (or even contracts) of the previous company.

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

#735

Post by bluGill »

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.

https://buymeacoffee.com/waterfox wasn't hard to find that. (they also make money from search). Put your money where your mouth is and donate.

Librewolf doesn't want to deal with the administrative overhead of donations - which if they'd only get a few donations makes sense. It likely costs several hundred a month just to hire the accountants and lawyers needed to get the paper work right (you can do it yourself at cost of time doing other things. Often you can find accountants and lawyers who will donate their services, but it is still several hundred dollars worth)

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

#737

Post by bluGill »

bloopernova wrote: post #703
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'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.

What is a fair price? Developers are not cheap and you need to pay many of them every month (or get the equivalent in donated time). We can debate that number of course, so I'm going to start the discussion at $50/year. So your "lifetime sponser" is only worth 3 years (ignoring interest which isn't significant at this time scale).

Accounting for lifetime anything is hard (I don't know how to do the math, I'm sure people that do debate a lot of complex issues), but I'm again going to suggest that a lifetime subscription needs to be 20x the yearly fee to give a number to start the debate at.

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

#738

Post by evertedsphere »

nico42 wrote: post #437

To Mozilla: if your intentions are indeed good as you claim in your post[1], then update the ToS accordingly. Chrome is removing µBlock origin, I and probably a lot of other users saw this as a good moment to promote Firefox to our relatives, you are missing a chance and alienating your user base here. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi...

> Finally, you are in control. We’ve set responsible defaults that you can review during onboarding or adjust in your settings at any time: These simple, yet powerful tools let you manage your data the way you want.

"simple yet powerful tools" (derogatory) is how i would describe the windows popup that gives you the choice between setting up a microsoft account now or being nagged about it later

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

#739

Post by gfkclzhzo »

jmward01 wrote: post #299

I am, unfortunately, looking at alternative browsers because of this. Firefox was the best fit. Big enough that they could reasonably keep up but not one of the corporate browsers that I have 0 trust in. It wasn't perfect but it was better than chrome for sure. Browsers are like cars now. It is becoming impossible to buy a new(er) car and have your privacy respected, but it is unreasonable to expect any normal life (…

Icecat is the GNU build of the open-source base of Firefox. I think that's the best bet until Ladybird is ready for daily diving.

Fennec on Android.

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

#740

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

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."…

I generally wait before jumping on the outrage-train for this reason, but two things stand out:

- Mozilla explicitly deleting "we don't sell your data" statements across their documentation

- Following up to criticism that the statement is vague, bullshitty and open to interpretation with statements that are even more vague, bullshitty and open to interpretation.

By now, they've had time to notice that something is not right and that they need to make a clear statement, and they haven't taken the opportunity.

Post reply on HN