851–860 of 1001 posts
Thunderbird raises more than $8mn a year in donations to support their development. Thunderbird's success has proven that this model would work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bookmarks and tab URLs don’t contain porn, generally? References are not typically considered explicit, though certainly their language isn’t clear enough about that. If you bookmark a collection of data: / blob: links then that would be the outlier scenario where you shouldn’t use any third-party server-involved bookmark syncing service, as presumably they’ll all either break or ban you once they find you using thei…
> Bookmarks and tab URLs don’t contain porn, generally? Do URL stubs of porn titles count as explicitly sexual? They can get pretty raunchy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
1. We won't show ads in our product -> We'll show skippable unobtrusive adds in our free product only -> We'll show bottom-of-the-barrel scum ads in our free product only -> Those skippable ads are now not skippable -> We'll add a few vetted ads to the paid product -> We're going to shove ads onto every surface of the product we can find!
2. We don't collect or sell data about you -> We will collect limited data for "telemetry." -> We'll also collect some demographic data "to improve the product." -> We're going to collect everything we can get our hands on, but we won't sell it. -> We share your data with only vetted, trusted "partners." -> We share your data with everyone we do business with -> We firehose your data to anyone willing to pay for it!
It's the same progression every time, but users keep thinking this time it will be different.
Title is a complete lie/misleading. They get a license, not ownership. Let's dissect what it actually says, and we do it backwards, because given the discussion around this subject it seems like people space out or have their mind clouded by outrage before they get to the end of the sentence: > help you [do things] as you indicate with your use of Firefox. So this already only covers things that you indicate you want…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
AFAICT there is no restriction on the application itself: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/eula/
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…
Dillo is only sporadically developed. They even lost control of the dillo.org domain a long time ago, which pretty much spells amateur hour. Ladybird would be a better choice, but it's not even fully baked yet. Coming sometime in 2026, supposedly. I'd recommend the Brave browser for people concerned about recent bad news from Mozilla.
These seem like a more direct migration path for someone wanting to move off of Firefox.
Earlier 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.
The squeeze on any content that religious people find 'yucky' is double-pronged in the US - encouraged both by governments and businesses. Paypal, Visa, Mastercard et al are given complete discretion over what transactions they can block, and they have already extensively used this to deprive legal NSFW platforms and creators of their income. So, on one end, state governments are trying to strongarm NSFW services by…
An enterprising PM at a PSP or fintech could look at the size of the sex industry, measure the risk of providing payment/banking services to sex workers and businesses and offer them at a premium like any other "niche" financial area.
And while we're on the topic of "draconian" regulations from the government - it's not outside their interest to limit the availability of obscene content from children. This isn't a "think of the children" argument so much as "children consume graphic pornography at huge rates and porn providers make money off them as consumers and producers with such inept guardrails that age verification has been a meme for 25 years." I don't think validating your identity with a government ID (and storing it forever) is a good countermeasure but I disagree its some kind of draconian limitation on free speech. If porn sites didn't buy and sell sex from kids and self regulated, this wouldn't be necessary (nb4 "it's the parent's problem" - good luck!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
look, i'd have similar clauses if I ran such a service. Porn gets very messy very quickly. Revenge porn, porn of generally unconsenting parties etc. are all to common and people who share know it is wrong and so try to use things like vpns to hide. The problem for you as a vpn provider is proving they're doing the wrong thing with your service, so it is much easier to simply say there is a blanket ban and then select…
Do hammer manufacturers required you to sign an agreement at the hardware store with a bunch of legalese so they aren't held liable if you use the hammer to beat someone to death? Do alcohol companies get shut down when people drink and kill someone with their car? Did you know that a nonzero percentage of child molesters wear Nike sneakers when they kidnap children? Why doesn't Nike actively try to prevent this?! So…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try going to gitlab.com with librewolf, you'll see a white page with no content. Librewolf is blocked off from half the internet that uses cloudflare, so it's kind of a useless browser. Every browser that's not a majority browser will be associated with these kind of blocking risk. I can't risk access to my financially important accounts, nobody can. So to me this is not a feasible alternative. The only way to build…
This is purely FUD per my experience. I use librewolf on websites behind cloudflare and with plenty of js. They all work just as well as they did in Firefox. Librewolf sends Firefox in the user agent, and you can toggle Firefox "features" on if a website you use requires them. Not trying to convince you to switch to it--you do you. Just sharing with someone who might be reading this thread and that hasn't tried libre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the legal situation is different somewhere, but I would think the browser isn't acting at all. It has no agency; it's just software running on my computer, following instructions I give it. Mozilla has no agency in that situation either; the software is running on my computer, not theirs. The new terms grant Mozilla , the corporation a license to do things with my data.
My comments above are based on precedence when sites like Facebook added these clauses and people got all panicked thinking the company was going to start selling their content (rather than selling their souls /s). The mundane truth was that they needed the wording to make sure they were legally given the right to publish the content onto the web in the way they did. So people were assuming nefarious reasons when the…