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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by kbelder »

tavavex wrote: post #199
Mistletoe wrote: post #155

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…

I don't think it's particularly driven by religion anymore. The new puritanism is as much left-wing as right, and often atheist.

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

#912

Post by goode »

pixelpoet wrote: post #312
ivolimmen wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LibreWolf? It's Firefox without the Mozilla branding

Any recommendations for an Android Firefox replacement?

I use https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser for its ability to install any extension, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_Paywalls_Clean. If you don't need that, I'd recommend IronFox because of its explicit security goals.

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

#913

Post by Y_Y »

bluGill wrote: post #746
1oooqooq wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

What about Servo? That's coming along and already has a company/coop behind it.

https://blogs.igalia.com/mrego/servo-revival-2023-2024/

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

#914

Post by thayne »

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…

> 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[

So the text of the policy itself limits its scope to Mozilla Services.

But the purpose of that section is unclear to me. If it just means you have to comply with that policy when using features that use Mozilla services, why is that section necessary, since the license for the services should already apply.

If it is trying to mean that all the terms for Mozilla services also applies to any use of Firefox... that is really clumisily written, and also just generally terrible.

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

#916

Post by winwang »

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.

Semi-crazy idea: Add clauses which destroy half the company if they change the deal without a year of advance notice.

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

#917

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#918

Post by plipt »

drpossum wrote: post #627
globular-toast wrote: post #357

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand I just want Firefox to keep being a free software web browser that I can trust. But on the other hand I realise Firefox isn't some hobby project and competing with Google isn't cheap. They already take money from Google and this could be shut off at any time. How can Firefox be independent if it doesn't have some revenue? Unfortunately they've been stupid and blurred the l…

I'm of one mind about this because > Unfortunately they've been stupid They could have had an enormous amount of good will and they do nothing but burn it. Weird how they get a lot of money from google and then, while technically meeting their mission by providing a browser alternative, seem to do a lot of self-sabotage in google's favor. I honestly think the best thing that could happen to Firefox would be for Mozil…

Maybe Google is paying them to self-sabotage?

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

#919

Post by TylerE »

thayne wrote: post #914
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…

> 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[ So the text of the policy itself limits its scope to Mozilla Services. But the purpose of that section is unclear to me. If it just means you have to comply with that policy when using features that use Mozilla services, why is that section necessary, since the license for the…

Is bookmark sync, say, a “Mozilla service”?

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

#920

Post by thayne »

Delk wrote: post #910
stateoff wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> How did you survive 26 years without any license to our input? Might be a case of covering their asses in the context of services they provide for search suggestions etc. Those are not mere programs users run on their own devices, and they rather make use of services run by Mozilla, which probably leads to their lawyers seeing the need for legally covering Mozilla ass. A less charitable interpretation is that they…

> Might be a case of covering their asses in the context of services they provide for search suggestions etc.

But they already have a separate policy for the services. Why do they also need a policy for the browser itself?

Post reply on HN