Mozilla is Introducing 'Terms of Use' to Firefox | Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice
-
I forgot that Pale Moon existed. How's development going on that these days? I see that it got an update a week ago.
Still going strong. If the community reports issues or incompatibility then it gets fixed quickly.
-
Do they support ubo?
they're firefox forks and ubo comes automatically installed with them.
-
ladybird can't come fast enough
For realsies
-
Hot off the back of its recent leadership rejig, Mozilla has announced users of Firefox will soon be subject to a ‘Terms of Use’ policy — a first for the iconic open source web browser.
This official Terms of Use will, Mozilla argues, offer users ‘more transparency’ over their ‘rights and permissions’ as they use Firefox to browse the information superhighway — as well well as Mozilla’s “rights” to help them do it, as this excerpt makes clear:
You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice (aka privacy policy). This adds a crop of cushy caveats to cover the company’s planned AI chatbot integrations, cloud-based service features, and more ads and sponsored content on Firefox New Tab page.
Is Waterfox a good alternative?
-
If nukes didn’t exist, there would potentially be more wars, and thus more death.
Nukes enable larger amounts of death. They increase the possible death, while also increasing the incentive to do a war, to prevent that death. In a world with no nukes, the threat and preventative force of less deadly weapons would simply match each other, just as they currently do with nukes, and have the same effect on disincentivizing war.
We have already automated essentially everything else, and yet people work more than ever.
Oh no we have not. See:
- Every single service job that relies on human experience/interaction (robotic replacements are still only ever used as gimmicks that attract customers for that fact, but not as a continual experience in broader society, precisely because we value human connection)
- Any work environment with arbitrary non-planned variables too far outside the scope of a robot's capabilities
- Most creative works related jobs (AI generated works are often shunned by the masses because they feel inhuman and more sterile than human made works, at least on average)
Not to mention that when we automate something, and a job goes away because of that, that doesn't mean there's no new work that gets created as a result. Sure, when a machine replaces a human worker in a factory, that job goes away, but then who repairs and maintains the machine, checks that it's doing what's required of it, etc? Thus, more jobs shift to management style roles.
Your defensiveness speaks volumes.
You're defensive over believing AI will actually make humans obsolete, that must mean you're actually unable to stomach the reality that you'll have to keep working the rest of your life. Your defensiveness speaks volumes. /s
Seriously, I welcome automation and the reduction in the amount of labor human beings have to engage in so that people are free to engage in their own interests outside of producing material goods for society. A future where work is entirely optional because we've simply eliminated the need to work to survive is great to me.
An ever more powerful nucleus of mechanization that has resulted in the most devastating wars and the most widespread suffering in all of human history. Genocides, chattel slavery, famine, biochemical and nuclear weapons; mass extinction and the imminent destruction of the very planet on which we live.
Ah yes, the printing press, car, and computer, the cause of all genocides. /s
Seriously man, do you not understand that people will just do bad things regardless of if a given job/task is automated?
By the way, your logic literally has no end here. The printing press, car, etc, is just an arbitrary starting point. There's nothing about these inventions that's inherently the starting point for any other consequences. This argument quite literally goes all the way back to the development of fire.
Fire brought the ability to burn people to death. Guess we should never have used fire for anything because it could possibly lead to something bad on a broader societal scale, maybe, in some minute way, that in no way outweighs the benefits!
Sweet summer child. Making human work obsolete makes human beings obsolete. I envy your naivety.
Were you ever a kid? Y'know, the people across nearly every society on this planet that don't get jobs for years, and have little to no responsibilities, yet are provided for entirely outside of their own will and work ethic? Yet I have a sneaking suspicion you don't believe that children are obsolete because they don't do work.
The assumption that work is what gives humans their value is a complete and utter myth that only serves capitalists who want to convince you that it's good to spend most of your time doing labor, actually.
Hmm, you seem like a relatively intelligent person, so perhaps you're not accustomed to being corrected.
Your arguments contradict themselves and lack logical consistency. They are flimsy at best, and I lack the energy to explicitly demonstrate their triviality at the current moment. It seems that you start with the assumption that humanity is destined for a post scarcity utopia, and haphazardly arrange your arguments to help justify that conclusion.
Or more to the point, you refuse to admit to yourself that your original comment was ill-considered, and thus you are forced to spout this nonsense in order to protect yourself from the emotional ramifications of admitting you may have misjudged the relative harm of nuclear weapons as compared to AI.
I would recommend that you reflect on my words when you've given yourself some time to calm down. It's not so bad to be wrong sometimes, just think of it as an opportunity to learn and become smarter.
-
waterfox
This one says that waterfox also has Google and Mozilla telemetry, but I guess you can turn it off? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox
-
I stopped following Thorium when some questionable pics were discovered in its repo
Can you elaborate on this?
-
ladybird can't come fast enough
Ladybird has a platinum sponsorship on their homepage from Shopify so not a good look already.
-
Can you elaborate on this?
-
Guys Mullvad browser and Librewolf exist.
I have librewolf, don't use it much. Is it functionally the same as FF?
In terms of plug-in and website compatibility.Most consumer sites are optimized for chrome and even safari, firefox & Edge (Obviously) face issues with scripts and plug-ins.
-
I have librewolf, don't use it much. Is it functionally the same as FF?
In terms of plug-in and website compatibility.Most consumer sites are optimized for chrome and even safari, firefox & Edge (Obviously) face issues with scripts and plug-ins.
It's basically the same, but the devil is in the detail. DRM disabled from the get go, which is a show stopper for some sites (say, netflix). Some sites will bork themselve on the strange user-agent. Some advanced privacy features are quite hard to disable willingly, which may or may not be a good thing if you actually have to get things done on sites that breaks.
One would argue that sites that breaks when privacy features are enforced are not worth it, but you don't always have a choice in that regard.
-
Guys Mullvad browser and Librewolf exist.
Zen Browser too
-
Hot off the back of its recent leadership rejig, Mozilla has announced users of Firefox will soon be subject to a ‘Terms of Use’ policy — a first for the iconic open source web browser.
This official Terms of Use will, Mozilla argues, offer users ‘more transparency’ over their ‘rights and permissions’ as they use Firefox to browse the information superhighway — as well well as Mozilla’s “rights” to help them do it, as this excerpt makes clear:
You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice (aka privacy policy). This adds a crop of cushy caveats to cover the company’s planned AI chatbot integrations, cloud-based service features, and more ads and sponsored content on Firefox New Tab page.
Damn we really can't have anything nice.
-
Hmm, you seem like a relatively intelligent person, so perhaps you're not accustomed to being corrected.
Your arguments contradict themselves and lack logical consistency. They are flimsy at best, and I lack the energy to explicitly demonstrate their triviality at the current moment. It seems that you start with the assumption that humanity is destined for a post scarcity utopia, and haphazardly arrange your arguments to help justify that conclusion.
Or more to the point, you refuse to admit to yourself that your original comment was ill-considered, and thus you are forced to spout this nonsense in order to protect yourself from the emotional ramifications of admitting you may have misjudged the relative harm of nuclear weapons as compared to AI.
I would recommend that you reflect on my words when you've given yourself some time to calm down. It's not so bad to be wrong sometimes, just think of it as an opportunity to learn and become smarter.
It seems that you start with the assumption that humanity is destined for a post scarcity utopia
I'm not. Apologies if I was unclear, but I was specifically referencing the fact that you were saying AI was going to accelerate to the point that it replaces human labor, and I was simply stating that I would prefer a world in which human labor is not required for humans to survive, and we can simply pursue other passions, if such a world where to exist, as a result of what you claim is happening with AI. You claimed AI will get so good it replaces all the jobs. Cool, I would enjoy that, because I don't believe that jobs are what gives human lives meaning, and thus am fine if people are free to do other things with their lives.
Or perhaps it’s because you refuse to admit to yourself that your original comment was ill-considered, and thus you are forced to spout this nonsense in order to protect yourself from the emotional ramifications of admitting you may have misjudged the relative harm of nuclear weapons as compared to AI.
The automation of labor is not even remotely comparable to the creation of a technology who's explicit, sole purpose is to cause the largest amount of destruction possible.
Could there hypothetically be an AI model far in the future, once we secure enough computing power, and develop the right architecture, that technically meets the definition of AGI, (however subjective it may be) that then decides to do something to harm humans? I suppose, but that's simply not looking to be likely in any way, (and I'd love if you could actually show any data/evidence proving otherwise instead of saying "it just is" when claiming it's more dangerous) and anyone claiming we're getting close (e.g. Sam Altman) just simply has a vested financial interest in saying that AI development is moving quicker and at a higher scale than it actually is.
Regardless, it’s frustrating to watch you spin this web of sophistry instead of simply acknowledging that you were mistaken.
It’s not so bad to be wrong sometimes, just think of it as an opportunity to learn and become smarter.
It's called having a disagreement and refuting your points. Just because someone doesn't instantly agree with you doesn't mean that I'm automatically mistaken. You're not the sole arbiter of truth. Judging from how you, three times now, have assumed that I must be secretly suppressing the fact that AI is actually going to do more damage than nuclear bombs, just because I disagree with you, it's clear that you are the one making post-hoc justifications here.
You are automatically assuming that because I disagree, I actually don't disagree, and must secretly believe the same thing as you, but am just covering it up. Do not approach arguments from the assumption that the other person involved is just feigning disagreement, or you will never be capable of even considering a view other than the one you currently hold.
I sincerely hope that you did not utilize AI to assist in writing that wall of text.
The fact you'd even consider me possibly using AI to write a comment is ridiculous. Why would I do that? What would I gain? I'm here to articulate my views, not my views but only kind of, without any of my personal context, run through a statistical probability machine.
-
I want to say thanks but also I hated reading that lol
-
Is Waterfox a good alternative?
Waterfox's creator, while not being HOSTILE to privacy, has said in the past that making the most private browser in the world is not the goal of the project. The goal is a more customizable browser for power users
-
Most non-profits are not financially sustainable and rely on donations and grants to operate. If the service they provided could be financially sustainable, a for-profit would popup and operate in that space.
Fair enough. Although, for those reading at home, I'll reiterate the distinction between nonprofit and charity; all charities are nonprofits, not all nonprofits are charities. Research universities are an example.
On that note, I guess I'm enough of an academic to not consider grants a "gift" ... It's not consumerism-driven revenue, but it's hard to call it a gift when you're on the hook to produce something (research papers & prototypes) that you then turn around and use to sell for more revenue (in the form of grants).
-
Give an example, a first-person example, where it is not slop.
-
Hot off the back of its recent leadership rejig, Mozilla has announced users of Firefox will soon be subject to a ‘Terms of Use’ policy — a first for the iconic open source web browser.
This official Terms of Use will, Mozilla argues, offer users ‘more transparency’ over their ‘rights and permissions’ as they use Firefox to browse the information superhighway — as well well as Mozilla’s “rights” to help them do it, as this excerpt makes clear:
You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice (aka privacy policy). This adds a crop of cushy caveats to cover the company’s planned AI chatbot integrations, cloud-based service features, and more ads and sponsored content on Firefox New Tab page.
Get ready for ads as well
They removed this:
{ "@type": "Question", "name": "Does Firefox sell your personal data?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "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. " } }, -
Mozilla is a nonprofit (or it at least to should be, technically it's a for profit corporation that's wholly owned by a nonprofit foundation, shady asf).
They shouldn't be trying to make a profit, they should make enough money to pay their programmers to maintain the browser.
They should not be dumping money into more executive hires and AI bullshit like they are doing.
They are losing money and their business model is not breaking even. I want getting to make a governance point (though I agree with yours), merely saying they are desperate.
