991–1000 of 1001 posts
This is pure speculation, but what are the chances this change is simply an attempt to provide legal cover what they might have started doing 50 versions ago?[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29082856
This is pure speculation, but what are the chances this change is simply an attempt to provide legal cover what they might have started doing 50 versions ago?[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29082856
According to the tweet, Mozilla claimed > “Does Firefox sell your personal data?” > “Nope. Never have, never will.” I do believe that never is a very, very clear statement (concerning every possible future) that needs no legal cover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Actions speak louder than words. " Indeed. Talking about privacy and having spyware and ads activated by default and now this probably to legally safeguard this and more speak a very clear language. The only reason to still use FF is indeed, that the competition is worse in this regard. But that will change, once Ladybird becomes mature enough.
Pinging a Mozilla server to see if there is an active and usable internet connection is not spyware, let's stop with these useless accusations. It's a product which optionally does accept some help from the users, e.g. opt-in error reports, which is a huge help. Certain people consider that a blatant violation of their rights for some reason, and they would apparently rather see the last bastion of a non-chrome inter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same effect applies to political parties. The people that care about X focus their complaints to the party that is trying to address issues with X.
Yeah, pretty much. If you look historically, it's always that traitors and betrayers get the most severe punishment. It just wakes up something very basic in humans.
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.
Semi-crazy idea: Add clauses which destroy half the company if they change the deal without a year of advance notice.
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.
I maintain it.
> They even lost control of the dillo.org domain a long time ago
New website is at: https://dillo-browser.github.io/
See https://dillo-browser.github.io/dillo.org.html and maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFJp8JDg8Yg or https://fosdem.org/2025/schedule/event/fosdem-2025-4100-resu...
> ... which pretty much spells amateur hour
?
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…
A more appropriate comparison is a real-estate company which manages corporate offices, leasing out a corporate office space. That space is being offered under the proviso that NO brothel is opened there, underage or otherwise. Now, they won't ask you what you're doing and generally won't look but if there is a single complaint of you running an underage brothel, they look, and see any brothel activity, instead of wasting time they'll simply evict you and avoid the entire mess and waste of resources spent investigating. Easy.
The alternative is having to painstakingly prove the wrong thing was done, which is notoriously difficult, and ties up a lot of resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"risk management" is not puritanism - sex work has a different/higher risk profile for PSPs (fraud, chargebacks, etc) and it's easier to say "no" than to come up with a new product to serve customers. 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"…
First of all, not all NSFW transactions are created equal. A person subscribing to a website, a person buying a physical product, and a person paying an artist to draw what they want all have different risk profiles. (The former is far more likely to cancel). Does this change the opinion of Paypal, Visa, Mastercard et al? No, they blanket ban everything. They pressure businesses and platforms to stop selling this content and to cut out any of their NSFW creators, and the websites often have no other option. These big companies are the only available avenue for sending and receiving money.
Second of all... I think that being free to do legal transactions with whoever you want in exchange for anything you want should absolutely crush the payment processors' right to moderate their transactions in accordance to their own guidelines, rather than the law. Again, you have almost nowhere to run if these businesses turn you down - there is no digital cash. I think that companies that process transactions should be mandated to not discriminate between them, as long as it is lawful.
Lastly... The reason why this verification debate has been standing for 25 years is because it's not solvable. Every proposed scheme for reliable age verification that I've heard of either trades off your privacy, or isn't watertight (and might as well not be there). You can only have one. Given that private companies and governments love private data, and that we've had open internet for 30+ years now and nothing catastrophic has happened so far, I say we should let it be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it seems like Mozilla has long had a problem of marketing getting in the way of communication. This keeps happening over and over gain. They make changes for marketing reasons, and then people are confused when they make policy changes because they've solidified their naming so much in the pursuit of brand recognition that their audience (rightly) is confused about what they're actually saying when they use that…
Is the audience confused though or is the text simply ambiguous and thus should be interpreted defensively.
I honestly don't understand why Mozilla isn't succeeding with a "privacy subscription" where for $100/year (or $20/month or something) you get a full kit of digital sovereignty tools. Password manager, Mozilla, email with privacy features, secure file transfer, ephemeral cards... I'm genuinely curious if people can comment why this isn't working -- because it seems like they've actually already tried versions of this…
Google pays them south of a $billion/year. Your money means nothing.
Until it doesn't.