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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by dtech »

ta1243 wrote: post #689
KingOfCoders wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got more than $7B to build a browser. "I appreciate the constant existential wobble Firefox faces" I would also love to face $7B existential wobbles.

To put that number in perspective, drawing just 1% of that down each year and putting in a bank account earning interest would fund 100 engineers on $500k/year indefinitely.

They got it over many years with ongoing expenses because they had a browser, so comparing it with 7B lump sum is silly.

With the same argument you could probably retire, after all you already earned (years you've been working) * (average salary).

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

#742

Post by binary132 »

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 can’t take people seriously who think the little frilly PR bandaids that companies slap on these types of statements mean much of anything at all.

For example, “we promise”.

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

#743

Post by bluGill »

agumonkey wrote: post #680
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…

I tip some projects that help me. It's been years since mozilla started to do evolve in ways that feel weird. I'd tip for a fork. Question is: how many people would jump ship, and then how much money would that represent to pay devs.

https://buymeacoffee.com/waterfox

please do tip a fork. Right now this money seems to go to one person, but if that person starts making significant money we can probably talk them into hiring others to work on the project.

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

#744

Post by socksy »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #710
amelius wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> presumably they want to sell data to pay the bills. Can't the EU just sponsor Firefox?

That's the surest way to kill it, and that is before taking their recent anti-privacy policies into consideration.

That feels like a witty thing to say without much basis in reality. If the EU got their act together and gave Firefox funding, it would be more of a pain in the neck for them to stop doing that than it would for them to threaten Mozilla over e.g. anti privacy policies. Even Germany, a single nation with a lot less difficulty in passing laws, hasn't used their Sovereign Tech Fund (https://sovereign.tech) in such a manner.

And even if they did, it would have to be a world in which they've lost all funding from Google and becoming dependent only on the EU. Perhaps such a thing might happen, but it wouldn't happen overnight — in the meantime it would be more money, from more diversified sources.

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

#745

Post by wobfan »

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.

Tbh while I have been using Kagi as search and their AI assistant a lot lately, their browser lacks massively in functionality. uBlock Origin has never been working for me, neither on macOS nor on iOS, and for me it just doesn't deliver enough to convince me to switch.

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

#746

Post by bluGill »

1oooqooq wrote: post #620
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…

we need to clean cut from mozilla. do they still make ot worthwhile for developers? are any on the payroll still? i think the community should mobilize to sign up for adopting A single fork* as the official fork and completely drop mozilla from existence. * only criteria should be the fork that is most convenient for all the other forks to just point to instead of mozilla and continue to ship with their patches. and…

More importantly that fork should be what other forks base off of. Anyone can put a skin on a browser, but someone needs to do the engine. If every fork who wants an engine improvement goes to the one place there is some mass behind making the fork real, and the other forks can still to their skin if they think it useful. That one fork also means that when mozilla comes out with a new version there are enough hands to merge (at least until Mozilla diverges too far from the fork)

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

#747

Post by Timwi »

lupusreal wrote: post #602
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…

At this point my trust in Mozilla is so low that I could almost believe they intent to run the text I download and upload through an LLM nanny that can scold or ban me if anything offends its Californian sensibilities. > 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. > You may not u…

“Californian”??...

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

#748

Post by einsteinx2 »

amiga386 wrote: post #655
thorw93040494 wrote: post #495

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?

> Some TVs secretly include a modem and SIM card, to make sure they get your personal data back to their masters.

That’s a pretty wild accusation to make without naming even a single brand or model…

> Every company in the world is coming after your privacy.

This is clearly true though.

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

#749

Post by bluGill »

stateoff wrote: post #532
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...

Absolutely agree. The blog post is claiming the opposite to what their ToS is granting - but one is fluff (that will be forgotten soon) while the other is legally binding. I cannot imagine applications like browsers that would require such an unrestricted license for user input just to do its service. That clearly indicates some "other" future motive that is underlined by the notion to remove the FAQ entry and other…

The blog does come from company officials and so you can show it to a judge and state "this is how you should interpret their ToS". It will be harder than if the ToS was clear, but the judge on seeing the ToS and blog differ is likely to come down hard to Mozilla for creating this situation. But you also need a good (expensive) lawyer to pull this off.

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

#750

Post by scheeseman486 »

Sharlin wrote: post #430
scheeseman486 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Chrome works marginally better" Performance, compatibility, security. Chromium runs faster, it works with more websites, it's sandbox is better, particularly on Android. I don't care much about memory usage as I don't need a billion tabs open at once (does anyone). There's options available beyond Chrome that offer most of the same privacy benefits as Firefox does. I think marginal is an understatement. As for Moz…

> (does anyone) Oh yes. And you don't even need that many tabs open for Chrome to eat half of your RAM.

There's a cool feature web browsers have called "bookmarks"
Post reply on HN