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

951–960 of 1001 posts

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

#951

Post by KingMob »

vntok wrote: post #541
KingMob wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These FF forks will all be nonviable within a few years of Mozilla going under. Google and Apple will keep moving the web (for better or worse), and these forks will be unable to keep up for lack of resources. Whether they get relatively slower, or just can't support some new web tech, the writing will be on the wall.

"A few years" is at least 10 years, though. That's a lot of time to pivot or get morally sounder funding sources (users for example).

A decade seems optimistic to me, personally.

----

I doubt user funding would cover more than a small fraction of the costs. Someone crunched the numbers in the Lobsters comments, and compared it to Wikipedia's funding. They concluded Mozilla would have to be more popular than Wikipedia to make it work, and it almost certainly isn't.

I think an intergovernmental EU funding initiative might work, though.

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

#952

Post by KingMob »

em-bee wrote: post #563
KingMob wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which will go under within a few years of FF dying. (Yes, the current code may still work, but the web will move on without it.)

i don't think that matters. we are looking for firefox based alternatives to get away from stupid policy changes, not to find a browser that has a better chance of survival. any alternatives will be good as long as firefox is alive. if firefox itself dies, then that's an entirely different matter.

> if firefox itself dies

Switching to forks makes it a matter of when, not if.

All the forks are dependent on FF's current funding for their own long-term viability.

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

#953

Post by msh »

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…

By the wording here there are many Netflix shows you could not watch using Firefox.

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

#954

Post by procaryote »

DaSHacka wrote: post #599
procaryote wrote: post #464

So... for the most practical question: Anyone have a favourite Firefox fork that removes this and doesn't add other spyware or reinvent the UI too much?

That's almost exactly describing Librewolf, though it adds a ton of privacy 'hardening' features out-of-the-box, which can be a positive or negative depending on who you ask. I personally use Librewolf with the Lepton (Photon style) UI[0], which replicates the previous UI style Firefox used a couple years ago, with small square tabs and condensed menus, before the current pseudo-tabletified abomination. Of course, if…

Thank you, it seems pretty neat so far!

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

#956

Post by ayewo »

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…

To put some numbers on what a 2.54% market share means, Firefox actually tracks this data. See here: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity:

> Monthly Active Users (MAU) measures the number of Firefox Desktop clients active in the past 28 days.

> February 10, 2025: 163,203,913 clients

> February 17, 2025: 163,742,671 clients

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

#957

Post by SJC_Hacker »

bluGill wrote: post #765
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope my reading HN and watching inane Youtube videos is worth something to you. Oh it is. It definitely is

Only if they can use it for ads which was blocked in this discussion. Of course in the real world odds are they can't block ads perfectly and thus the data has value.

The ad blocking might work however

1) Their customers (i.e. advertisers) don't necessarily know that, and they only care about aggregate

2) They still have your data which can be sold off to others who have other ways of pushing ads to you

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

#958

Post by yencabulator »

userbinator wrote: post #221
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.

I don't think that's the problem here, as I don't want to see porn on e.g. Mozilla's forums either. There's a place and time for that content and Mozilla shouldn't be the one to decide for others. The problem is whether Firefox is a Mozilla "service" or not, and the way the terms is linked implies that it is.

There's a huge difference between a public forum and cloud storage for e.g. your private bookmarks.

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

#959

Post by DoingIsLearning »

ac29 wrote: post #847
justinclift wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're on macOS, then Kagi's Orion seems good: https://kagi.com/orion It's been working fine for me anyway.

They are working on Orion for Linux this year as well

I pay for Kagi and I would definitely pay for Orion on Linux.

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

#960

Post by p0w3n3d »

jeroenhd wrote: post #889
p0w3n3d wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider a browser as similar as a complicated curl with GUI. Therefore: - when I see that browser does not allow playing video in the background (youtube on mobile phones) - when my browser disallows me blocking certain things - when my browser prevents me from taking screenshot of things I can see on it ... it really angers me, as I feel betrayed. Of course, nowadays, web applications tend to get complicated and…

> - when I see that browser does not allow playing video in the background (youtube on mobile phones) The browser supports it just fine. Youtube itself disables that functionality (to try to push you to Youtube Premium). You can install an addon from the recommended addons to fix that. > - when my browser disallows me blocking certain things The only thing I remember Firefox blocking from meddling with is pages like…

Have you tried to watch YouTube in Chrome on android? It will turn off once switched to a other app or tab and it can be prevented. Prevented only on Firefox (with add-on). While other web pages like sound cloud will still play in background.

The only reason YouTube premium's background playing is possible as an additional feature are the limitations imposed by the Google company on the android and Chrome themselves. In other words Google built up the "open source" environment to make this exactly possible. They limited us from our phones and now they are selling features that never have been features - they were normal behaviour

Post reply on HN