Earlier quoted context omitted.
LibreWolf? It's Firefox without the Mozilla branding
Any recommendations for an Android Firefox replacement?
Fennec on F-Droid
Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
871–880 of 1001 posts
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#872Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that Mozilla updated their site a couple days ago to remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" when a flag associated with the new Firefox terms of use is enabled (see https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b... ), I'm not so sure that this is a CYA about standard web browser usage.
> remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" You mean wording like this? ""Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements…
What a neat sleight of hand. "We're actually Truly Good, but those annoying lawyers won't let us call ourselves that, so we kind of take that back, but you get the idea right?"
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#873Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 n…
They didn't delete it. Go to the github diff they reference and check. It's still there. They just removed it from one of the JSON files but people here aren't actually checking facts, they're just jumping on the hate train. See: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
So where is that paragraph found on their website?
The relevant section isn't what you linked to - scroll down to the change in structured-data-firefox-faq.html
Here is the previous version of the FAQ: https://web.archive.org/web/20250128115051/https://www.mozil...
Here it is now: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/
All three statements about not selling your personal data are gone.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#874Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use a Firefox fork too, but do you think it would continue to be around without Mozilla? It's sad to see them squander an opportunity to do good work. Mozilla should have gone all-in on ethics/privacy in contrast to tech giants and made an offering like Proton. Or gone with the Wikipedia donate model like another commenter said. Any compromise on their values is insane mismanagement, that was their whole brand.
> I use a Firefox fork too If not LibreWolf then what? The rest seem out of date or worse than Firefox in some way.
Zen Browser, it's still beta software imo but tab grouping and vertical tabs have become must-have features for me (another thing Mozilla should be working on).
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#875Earlier 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
I think this is the most damning point: their terms extend to cover the text in URLs, and so by definition all text including titles and URLs — as well as any pages visited, due to tab syncing — would need to be in compliance with policy. If it’s as clearcut as presented here, anyways. Do the other browser profile syncing services have similar language? Is such overreach unique to Mozilla Corporation?
Though, considering how few people are likely to care about the legal exposure risk of continuing to use Firefox Sync, I don’t imagine this will end up being particularly enforceable in practice.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#876Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would wager most people that offer to buy software "one off" typically underestimate their lifetime worth earned through other means like ads and data sales. Would you pay a one-time $10 for a lifetime Firefox license? $100? $1,000? $10,000?
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.
ARPU isn't a great metric here since it's revenue averaged across all users. In my experience, the vast majority of free software users sit below ARPU and are hoisted up by whales -- who are also the main reason one-off pricing like this doesn't typically exist: Mozilla would be fine if most users just paid ARPU (in fact, they'd probably make a slight profit if they could get a higher-than-industry-average free->paid conversion rate...), but they'd quickly lose their cash cows when their whales suddenly only paid ARPU instead of the 10x, 100x, 1000x, etc they already "pay".
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#877The 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.
They've had a different license on the binaries vs. the source code for a long time.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#878I 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…
Rather odd policy choices is an understatement. The context to keep in mind here is that Mozilla purchased an ad company back in June. They spent money on it, and they will move to earn a return on investment. Absent that context this could just be another tone deaf policy choice that gets rolled back when there's enough heat, but with that context in mind it's far more likely to be them laying the legal foundation t…
This is not the first time Mozilla bought an ad company, last time it was Qlikz. And last time it cost them most of their German users. Wonder how many users they will lose this time.
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#879Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't. Most businesses finish that sentence with "...for any purpose" not "... to help you navigate the web" It will still be interpreted to mean "...for any purpose" by Mozilla somehow.
How does them selling my data help me navigate the web?
By serving you relevant ads!
Re: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox
#880The 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."…
are you replying to wrong post? the linked tweet says:
> Mozilla has just deleted the following:
> “Does Firefox sell your personal data?”
> “Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise. "
That tweet is 100% correct, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209001 for two links, all references to "not selling personal data" are gone. There is no missing context or truncation here, and this says nothing about terms-of-use (except commit message but that's immaterial)