Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data
-
Too late. That wasn't a typo, Terms are going downhill from here. I'm gone.
We saw it with reddit and that place is fucked now. Seems no one can be content with their status, they all need more.
-
Anyone have a decent Android alternative? Updated my phone last night and this morning got a notification that Firefox had full permissions for accessing my location data. I'd like to move away from Firefox before enshitification is in full swing.
Websites can ask the browser for location data, so the browser asks to be able to collect that data for sites that ask. Any web browser that wants to provide that function would need those permissions whether they are sending that data to their parent company or not.
But as you've done, you can just not give the browser that permission.
-
Anyone have a decent Android alternative? Updated my phone last night and this morning got a notification that Firefox had full permissions for accessing my location data. I'd like to move away from Firefox before enshitification is in full swing.
I use Fennec
-
I use Fennec
Righto, pop that on the list. Thanks
-
Which is a ridiculous thing to want for most users and exposes how little so much of the self-identified "techie" crowd actually understands about how this stuff works.
The first 6 years of Firefox were done without telemetry and after it was implemented it was opt-in for a while.
While I see the use of telemetry for development purposes, I would not call it aridiculous thing to not want
-
I mean if you are already ok with using a browser from a crypto ad company your standards are already set.
People who use Firefox are concerned that Forefox is slowly shifting into what Brave is now. Aka an ad company.
But you have no problem with the paid-for-by-Google, ad company influenced, whittle away at the few protections they used to have, browser?
-
But you have no problem with the paid-for-by-Google, ad company influenced, whittle away at the few protections they used to have, browser?
This is literally better in every way.
This being said, better in every way does not mean good. It’s just hard to be worse than a crypto bro run, literal ad company, who’s browser is a reskin of chrome.
-
The first 6 years of Firefox were done without telemetry and after it was implemented it was opt-in for a while.
While I see the use of telemetry for development purposes, I would not call it aridiculous thing to not want
I more meant that the average user actually wants a significant amount of data collection and telemetry, as part of their normal web usage. There are some true privacy geeks who are actually maintaining near-anonymity on the modern internet, but there's a lot of people who get riled up about things like this while using Android phones, or signing up for loyalty programs, using corporate social media, etc.
-
The browser manufacturer doesn't need a license to my inputs to process them and give them to the server it's supposed to give them to. If you type a text in Libre office, does it ask you for a license to the text in order to save it?
No, but that's a local program processing and saving data entirely on your system. It's a world of difference from what a web browser does, which is oversee a whole suite of protocols connecting you to remote servers and transmitting data back and forth in requests that build on and reference each other. With the complexity of modern web interactions, there's a ton of reasons why a browser might need to store your data and share it with others, even ignoring profit-seeking motives.
And let's remember that the last thing Mozilla got heat for was the introduction of a method to anonymize bulk user data for sharing & selling purposes, as opposed to the granular, extremely invasive tracking that 99% of websites are doing these days.
I see a company that needs to make a decent amount of money in a crazy competitive environment, that's trying their best to do so in the way least destructive to user privacy and choice.
-
No, but that's a local program processing and saving data entirely on your system. It's a world of difference from what a web browser does, which is oversee a whole suite of protocols connecting you to remote servers and transmitting data back and forth in requests that build on and reference each other. With the complexity of modern web interactions, there's a ton of reasons why a browser might need to store your data and share it with others, even ignoring profit-seeking motives.
And let's remember that the last thing Mozilla got heat for was the introduction of a method to anonymize bulk user data for sharing & selling purposes, as opposed to the granular, extremely invasive tracking that 99% of websites are doing these days.
I see a company that needs to make a decent amount of money in a crazy competitive environment, that's trying their best to do so in the way least destructive to user privacy and choice.
Not even the lemmy instance you're on needs a license to your content, and it is stored there and displayed for the world to see. Why is that? Because storing and displaying your posts is the very thing you want it to do. That is the service it is providing for you, and you declare that you want it to do that by clicking "send". They would need a license if they wanted to do anything else with your stuff, which doesn't directly have to do with displaying your posts in the fediverse.
The browser is supposed to take my requests and inputs, carry them to the server that I'm talking to and bring back the answer. The mail doesn't need a license to my letters. That only changes if they want to open them and do something I originally had not intended.
But you know who claims a license to your content? Meta. Because you're the product there, not the costumer.
And let's remember that the last thing Mozilla got heat for was the introduction of a method to anonymize bulk user data for sharing & selling purposes,
as opposedin addition to the granular, extremely invasive tracking that 99% of websites are doing these days.Ftfy. It's never going to replace more invasive tracking and just constitutes yet another party collecting my data.
I see a company that needs to make a decent amount of money
Mozilla already makes Enougn money from passive Investment income. They don't need to make any money from Firefox at all (but they do, it's from google). They also don't need to pay their CEO 6 Million a year.
-
Exactly!
Hetzner kind of does this, where there's a separate EULA for US customers that lays out precisely how they're screwing you in that jurisdiction (e.g. forced arbitration). I'm not happy about that, but I appreciate having a separate, region-specific TOS.
If some wording only applies in California, state that. Or if it's due to similar laws elsewhere, then state that. And then detail which features collect data, why, what control you have, and how you can opt-out. Maybe have a separate mini-TOS/EULA for each major component that gets into details.
But just saying "you give us a license to everything you do on Firefox" may appease their legal counsel, but it doesn't appease many of their users, especially since they largely appeal to people who care about privacy.
At this point I care about ownership of what I do on my browser, Chrome under these guidelines is a better alternative (and that’s a low bar)
-
At this point I care about ownership of what I do on my browser, Chrome under these guidelines is a better alternative (and that’s a low bar)
How is chrome better? It's literally run by an ad company, and there's no way they have a better TOS.
-
System shared this topic on
