The latest news and developments on Firefox and Mozilla, a global non-profit that strives to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the web.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Related
While we are not an official Mozilla community, we have adopted the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines as far as it can be applied to a bin.
Always be civil and respectful
Don't be toxic, hostile, or a troll, especially towards Mozilla employees. This includes gratuitous use of profanity.
Don't be a bigot
No form of bigotry will be tolerated.
Don't post security compromising suggestions
If you do, include an obvious and clear warning.
Don't post conspiracy theories
Especially ones about nefarious intentions or funding. If you're concerned: Ask. Please don’t fuel conspiracy thinking here. Don’t try to spread FUD, especially against reliable privacy-enhancing software. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show credible sources.
Don't accuse others of shilling
Send honest concerns to the moderators and/or admins, and we will investigate.
Do not remove your help posts after they receive replies
Half the point of asking questions in a public sub is so that everyone can benefit from the answers—which is impossible if you go deleting everything behind yourself once you've gotten yours.
Uh, isn't your quote a bit misleading?
While it's true that the specific line you quote is deleted, that's from a part of the FAQ.
But if you look further up, the line is still there just elsewhere on the page (you can see it before the re-format just above the part I linked to).
I quote:
We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OK, Mozilla, I'll use a damn fork, since you insist! WTF...
I’m kind of worried about the knee jerk reactions from people that haven’t read the full communications from Mozilla or looked into their approaches to anonymise data (which they’ve done for years as part of analyzing new feature tests).
Building an application as complex as Firefox requires full-time developers. It’s similar in scale to the Linux Kernel.
To keep building a competitive browser and continue to challenge the ubiquity of Chromium, Firefox needs to exist. Mozilla need to figure out how to make money (their previous attempts at additional services like VPN etc didn’t have much impact). If Google pull the rug from under them regarding their payments to be the default search engine, Mozilla could swiftly fall under.
Advertising, done in a privacy preserving way which they’ve an awful lot of experience at doing, in the near term gives them additional revenue streams to keep the ship afloat.
If we lose Firefox, Google owns the internet. We need to keep talking with Mozilla, not abandon them.
Don't bother, Firefox's community is all conspiracy+rage+kneejerk. That's all they are, there is nothing on top of that.
They're probably still salty how many users Firefox lost over the years from their "hardening" Firefox "pro tips", and have to project that anger outwards instead of reflecting on it.
This thread, too. Scroll just a tiny bit through the actual change of the MR, and you realize how OP intentionally constructs things to appear sinister, which says more about them than Mozilla.
That's fair, but I think not totally right.
I think Firefox is a great browser, which is why I'm using forks, not ditching it entirely. I still use Mozilla services, and I will continue to keep tabs on and support the development of the browser. However, I will not sacrifice the little privacy I can scrape up by agreeing to terms of use that gather my data, even if anonymized, for use in serving me ads, regardless of whether I think the company behind these practices needs to exist or not---and in this case, I do think Mozilla, and Firefox as a project, must remain strong if we want a free internet for all.
This implicit trust you seem to have in Mozilla, however, is not something I share. First, AI integration, then it's the terms of use, then it's the language around data privacy... Google used to say "Don't Be Evil." I don't believe Mozilla will stay good because it's Mozilla and it's been good. I don't like the recent steps they've been taking, and so I'll stop using Firefox; that's as far as it goes.
Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I don't want to compromise on this.
I don’t think you’re being unreasonable and in truth I share your concerns. Forks are doing a good job at refining the experience but should the Firefox project collapse, I doubt any fork can meaningfully continue the development needed for such a huge and complex project without the full-time and experienced development team who have been working on the project for an incredibly long time.
I wish Mozilla could figure out a more powerful way to generate revenue that doesn’t require advertising in any form.
I wonder if a yearly fundraising drive like Wikipedia could help. They generated $250Mil+ last time they did.
We need Mozilla corp to be better and there is currently no good way of forcing that to happen.
What control does Mozilla have over people quoting parts of a merge request in a misleading way so as to make it appear in a specific way?
~~They removed that question from the FAQ, but it still states in multiple other sections, in the same link, that they do not sell user data~~
~~Am I reading this wrong?~~
Edit: New FAQ
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 you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
Ah, so it's not that they sell data, it's that they share data in order to achieve commercial viability. I don't sell items on ebay, I share them in a commercially viable way!
Yeah, this kind of semantic gymnastics is what makes them so suspicious.
“You’re gonna make a lot of money?”
“Yep.”
“And the data’s not yours?”
“Well, it becomes ours.”
I feel like it would've been really helpful if it had provided an example of something that legally counts as "selling your data", but that any sane person would not define as such.
I mean, yeah.
Although it's not difficult.
Take online hosting. Say you run a sync service - fully encrypted - and you upload to a hosting provider. Now I'm not an expert on when you pay for it, I'd intuitively assume this no longer applies but it can get messy with complementary services. Say you rent an AWS system and you get a file upload space as an "extra".
Anyhow, you just exchanged non-anonymized user data (that it's encrypted is irrelevant because you knew when uploading what it is it, so it was intentifyable and in fact that's how you even knew what to upload and what not to) for a service (hosting) that can be constructed as payment for the data.
Sounds absurd? It is. That's why lawyers cost so much money. 😂
I am so fucking tired of PR speak. This is removed now so that they can sell your data later. That and the ToS change is the canary in the coalmine.
"We akchually don't sell your data because it isn't the legal definition everywhere". Fuck you
Interesting, did you go check the merge request? Because I quote:
We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history.
Yes, that's from post-change.
Have you looked through the proposed PR linked in this post?
It doesn't matter that Mozilla has backtracked after the backlash. It matters that they've shown us where they want to go, and its not good. They will try to push the change again until it works.
Yeah I quote from that PR, in fact. That's where I got that from.
Then you are obtuse on purpose because the PR removed the part where they explicitly say they won't sell your data.
Marked as deprecated and will be removed outright not to be replaced.
I've been using Mozilla since version 1.0, and have gone through the highs and lows. This is the point where I get off, what a shame.
Get off to what? Everything else is chromium based. Or do you have a tip?
A more privacy focused fork of Firefox, I haven't decided which yet.
If everybody would as a consequence use Librewolf, Mozilla would be forced to change minds.
The LibreWolf Debian repository was down all of last week. I peeked over at their forum and it looks like the team is really struggling to maintain the project since a key member left. Its struggles to keep up with security updates is why its no longer being recommended by Privacy Guides. I'm trying out Mullvad browser right now to see how it fairs
"never will" "promise"
I do not think these words mean what you think they mean.
Honest question for people in this thread:
Would you pay a subscription to use Firefox, and if no, what would you propose as a means of sustaining Firefox's professional development budget if they lose Google's Monopoly money?
they are going to need ads, and that would mean anti-adblocking down the line.
I pay for email so I'd be fine paying for a version of Firefox that is stripped of AI and other shit to support them.
It's about time the community throws its weight behind a hard Firefox fork. Mozilla has been blinded by Google's money for more than a decade consistently doing the bare minimum to stay an alternative.
they became content from the money.
So, it's Librewolf and IronFox on mobile.
IronFox
Dang, I was out of the loop, I'm still on Mull. Guess I'll be moving to IronFox.
looks to me like they just changed the phrasing. am I misreading it?
To some extent they have changed the wording, as clarified here: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#commitcomment-153095625
Saying the new wording is:
"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 you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP)."
Which seems to be because of the legal definition of selling data. Note this quote is now live on their privacy FAQ: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
However, this part:
We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable)
Sounds an awful lot like straight up selling our data. It would be nice to have specifics. The privacy FAQ page doesn't seem to actually provide clarity.
Yeah, specifics would be great. "Someone clicked this ad", or potentially even "someone in Germany clicked this ad" is a big difference from "a 20-year old man who likes blahaj in Hamburg has opened a new tab".
Unbelievable
Welp, back to chrome
What a shame. I tried waterfox for the first time and I got a good first impression. Will probably switch to it.
In December 2019, System1, an advertising (paid notice) company that claims to be focused on privacy, bought Waterfox. In July 2023, Alex Kontos said that Waterfox is an independent and separate project again.
I'm rather unsure about what is truly going on behind the scenes, but my trust in them is far to find...