Firefox deletes promise to never sell personal data, asks users not to panic
-
Is librewolf a good alternative? Most plugins seem compatible
It's just Firefox but you trust some nerds they've weeded all of Mozilla out. It comes with ublock origin installed and a simple searchbar homepage. It's great because Firefox is great and the nerds who added value by stripping bullshit did a good job, but if Putin replaced them with some blyat and pushed an update I'm not sure I'd notice on time.
-
It's pi day, so I'll probably be eating a nice pie that day.
Mmmm, pie. It's better than cake.
-
Anyone still using Firefox after this probably hasn't been keeping up with Mozilla's many controversies. If this is your first time here, I can see why you'd decide to overlook it. I did for a long time, but this is the final straw for me. Luckily, instead of building anything useful over the past decades, Mozilla leadership has been instead focused on enriching themselves. That means deleting my Mozilla account right now was easy.
I've now moved to LibreWolf, because I don't want to support Chromium's dominance, but if that project dies out I'll jump ship. It'll be a real shame if the world gets stuck with Chromium as the only viable browser, but it won't be my fault. It will be Mozilla leadership's fault.
Jump ship to what? It seems like going to Tor browser full time might be the answer?
I'm just not sure what the steps are from Librewolf to More private.
-
Yeah, these guys were early participants in the browser wars. They aren't your friends.
-
Yeah, these guys were early participants in the browser wars. They aren't your friends.
-
There are no alternative browsers out there. Our situation has came down to choose one of the least evil out there.
I don't know about you but I fulfill all my e-commerce needs with Offpunk.
-
You’re a good friend
It's actually not watercolor, I'm just old and I don't wear sunscreen
take care of your ink, kids -
They should clarify that then. Explain any and all situations that could be considered "selling user data" and explain what data that consists of. Then explain how to avoid it.
That shouldn't be hard.
Across every country they operate in, and if anyone in those countries disagrees they might sue?
Not saying Im supporting FF here but it's not as easy as you might think if their stated reason is honest
-
I don't know about you but I fulfill all my e-commerce needs with Offpunk.
God, I love what people manage to create
I also love that any time someone asks if (tool) exists in non-evil form and someone says "no, not really" that you can almost guarantee someone will show up with a CLI solution that nobody wants to use because it's a CLI solution
-
Yeah, these guys were early participants in the browser wars. They aren't your friends.
Duckduckgo's browser uses webview as it's main engine, which means that on a phone it will simply use blink (chromium) on Android and Windows device or webkit on Apple devices.
-
They're cash strapped and cash strapped companies are the worst when it comes to being trustworthy. That's all the calculus that needs to be done.
They're not that cash strapped though. Their blog post says that they need the revenue to 'grow', and they go on to talk about the new people they've added to the board. So it isn't really about getting enough money to survive. It's about getting money to support a top-heavy company structure.
-
Across every country they operate in, and if anyone in those countries disagrees they might sue?
Not saying Im supporting FF here but it's not as easy as you might think if their stated reason is honest
They wouldn't have to do every country. A single example would be helpful, for context and clarity.
-
You can always install a fork
How good is mullvad browser?
-
I mean you could argue that them defaulting to Google search is already them selling your data. Google definitely pay them for that.
I don't quite understand what the backlash is here. The article is about FAQs on the Mozilla website. It seems reasonable that some people might interpret "sell" to be accepting money to set the default browser to Google. Clarifying that on their site seems fine. The FAQ was surely never legally binding.
Their 'Terms of Use' document is new as of Feb 26 AFAIK. Is that what people are upset by?
-
There are different kinds of free. Free beer, free speech and free weekend are three different kinds of free that software can have, but not necessarily at the same time.
I was thinking more along the lines of "install and play this free unity game while it siphons personal data off your computer and sends it back to epic servers"
They're specifically getting something of value in return for the good or service and then claiming it's free and that customers are not customers, merely "users."
-
Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users' personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn't fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users' personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:
Does Firefox sell your personal data?
Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That's a promise.
That promise is removed from the current version. There's also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, "Mozilla doesn't sell data about you, and we don't buy data about you."
The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define "sale" in a very broad way:
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).
Mozilla didn't say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.
The screw-ups keep mounting like they want to be Google.
They (and we)'ve got to admit, the solution is not going to come from within their (managerial) ranks.
At this point I'd be happy to offer my services as a BDFL for Mozilla, at but a small fraction of the wages of any of their C-suites.
-
Mmmm, pie. It's better than cake.
Which is better than death (relevant part at 4:44).
-
Which is better than death (relevant part at 4:44).
Eddie Izzard?
What. Could. Be. More. Surprising.
-
It's a browser, not a platform. Having a bunch of groypers use it doesn't ruin the experience for everyone else so long as it retains good privacy features.
While I agree with this sentiment on the surface, using a privacy focused application that was built by folks who yield to cops as part of their identity doesn’t inspire long term viability in that space.
It’s the same reason I moved away from Proton when their CEO told us all where his values lie. It’s not outright backtracking on privacy promises but with so many comparable alternatives in this space, why chance it with the bootlickers?
-
Do you know what impact this would have on extensions though? Would extensions developed for current Firefox versions work securely in Pale Moon?
The Pale Moon extensions are different from the Firefox ones and not compatible with each other. Please look at the available extensions in Pale Moon to see your favourite feature is implemented or not.
