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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by lost_womble »

walrus01 wrote: post #482
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...

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…

This is such a bad way to look at Firefox browser share. Instead, look at desktop share worldwide, where it's more like 7%.

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

#752

Post by nottorp »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #692
Y_Y wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lol and they're as open as they're non profit.

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

#753

Post by gfkclzhzo »

Lately I've been working on strategies to use software in unusual enough ways that I'm essentially off the radar of, well, anyone looking. The dark forest approach to the internet.

To avoid interacting with the web directly, I'm thinking of running some AI software in a container on a home server that would be a translation layer between me and the real web. All webpages would be converted to a simple, and secure, format. Gopher, gemini, asciidoc, or maybe just static html.

Is that a tractable problem with modern AI tools?

The only way to win is not to play, but I'd like to have my cake and eat it too.

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

#754

Post by nottorp »

dtech wrote: post #741
ta1243 wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't know... do they even have 100 engineers? Or 20 and the rest is management and crypto and AI projects?

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

#755

Post by eduction »

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.

And it crashes constantly. Lots of other bugs that you start noticing when doing deeper things. I tried it for about six months. Just not a reliable or serious browser although very fast when it actually works.

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

#756

Post by KingOfCoders »

dtech wrote: post #741
ta1243 wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You are right, they got $400M+ a year.

I stand corrected, I would want to face the $400M+ per year existential wobble.

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

#757

Post by heresie-dabord »

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.

> The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either.

Yes, Trust is at the foundation of the whole problem with the Tech Industry:

/1/ users (consumers) expect to be protected (not injured, not cheated, not surveilled) by the products that they use, and

/2/ the WWW is a monstrosity, the only software that we can in fact trust is never connected to the Internet (in other words, we don't trust any software)

Ergo...

Given /2/, we cannot trust any software, full stop. Even paying $CORP for its products is no guarantee of care, safety, and security.

and

Given /1/, which software do we accept? For OS, I prefer Linux by far. Even where usability is a little rough, I can exclude components that I do not want. When obliged to use Windows, I hold my nose and try as much as possible to foil all the bloat, anti-user patterns, and telemetry. I resent it all the way!

I prefer Firefox because I like the features and I insist on a small set of extensions: uBlock Origin, Multi-Account Containers, Privacy Badger. Google is a nasty surveillance ecosystem and Microsoft is a Spaghetti Western: by turns good, bad, and ugly.

If it will fund further development and maintain the current commitment to respect for privacy, I am willing to allow Mozilla to do some aggregate analysis of my browsing habits, just as I am willing to provide survey answers for products that I buy.

I don't love the aggregate analysis, but Mozilla needs to do browser business in the modern world.

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

#758

Post by ac130kz »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #469
ac130kz wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They made too many decisions on their own to be a 1:1 replacement. I think there needs to be a new fork, which would just remove all of the spyware bits.

Which decisions? LibreWolf ist exactly that + hardening used in tor browser maybe you mean those but all of them you can change in setting.

Like I need to watch DRM for my job, and it doesn't work at all. I also already ported most of their configs that I actually researched each and every line of myself + Waterfox + Arkenfox's configs into my generic Mozilla Firefox, and it works great.

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

#759

Post by bluGill »

Macha wrote: post #691
Digit-Al wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because the legal system around backpacks are better understood. The more common something is the less legal paperwork there is. Judges understand backpacks and have for hundreds of years. Many judges don't understand technology. As a result when selling a backpack you can rely on the court's understanding and thus not have to account for every possibility. Meanwhile because the court might not understand technology you have to account for every possible trivial thing.

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

#760

Post by 34679 »

bad_user wrote: post #552
closewith wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked, Mozilla's ARPU was less than $5 pa. I think many of us would pay a multiple of that per annum _iff_ it went towards Firefox and not whatever project/cause of the week that Mozilla has undertaken.

You're overestimating people's willingness to pay for software when free and arguably better alternatives are available. Preferring Firefox to free Chromium alternatives requires a level of nuance and tech literacy that most people will never have, and even with that tech literacy, people may still prefer Chromium. You're basically talking about asking for donations from people that prefer to ad-block YouTube instead…

Kagi, a search engine with countless free alternatives, starts at $5/month.

The people who care are willing to pay.

Post reply on HN