Mozilla is Introducing 'Terms of Use' to Firefox | Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice
-
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.
-
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. " } },Turns out when you gotta choose between going defunct and selling ad space, selling ad space wins.
Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it, and less money to fund it.
The majority cost of Firefox is engineering salaries.
Eventually something has to give, and this is it.
-
Turns out when you gotta choose between going defunct and selling ad space, selling ad space wins.
Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it, and less money to fund it.
The majority cost of Firefox is engineering salaries.
Eventually something has to give, and this is it.
Yeah but the line between them and google is not there anymore in that case
-
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.
sometimes bound to give, if firefox isnt taking in money from having no ads, to having ads.
-
So now what the hell do we have to use to not be spied upon?
probably anti-detection browser that ban evaders are using on reddit. its a little more complicated to get to that point though.
-
It's not going to disappear, it has its place, but its not going to be shoehorned into every single thing.
i know, but companies still think AI is a replacement of : software engineers, programmers down the line, and outsourcing all thier CS. instead its just rehashing other AI content into its own. they have a place for answering simple questions, or pulling up complex programs
-
Ladybird has a platinum sponsorship on their homepage from Shopify so not a good look already.
Well it's a sponsor, it's not their product.
-
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.
Most consumer sites are optimized for chrome and even safari, firefox & Edge (Obviously) face issues with scripts and plug-ins.
This is why it's dangerous that Chrome has such a large amount of market share. Instead of using standard features, sites are using Chrome-specific features and even relying on Chrome bugs that don't exist in other browsers. It's exactly the same reason Internet Explorer was bad.
-
Ladybird has a platinum sponsorship on their homepage from Shopify so not a good look already.
Building a browser from scratch is going to cost well over a million dollars in development costs. I don't think they'd be able to achieve it without sponsors.
-
Building a browser from scratch is going to cost well over a million dollars in development costs. I don't think they'd be able to achieve it without sponsors.
I'm not saying they shouldn't seek funding, but maybe not from companies that hosted and sold literally Nazi tshirts.
-
Well it's a sponsor, it's not their product.
What's that saying about sitting at a table with a Nazi?
-
Turns out when you gotta choose between going defunct and selling ad space, selling ad space wins.
Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it, and less money to fund it.
The majority cost of Firefox is engineering salaries.
Eventually something has to give, and this is it.
Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it
Or, hear me out, that former donors don't trust them anymore!
But also that a lot of people don't want to donate, basically when they could only donate an immeasurably small amount, to a company whose CEO gets an unimaginably huge pay, that could be used for significantly boosting development.
Personally that's a big reason I rather want to support smaller projects, or even that of size like Bitwarden. -
No it’s because Firefox isn’t profitable and to try to survive in its current form they have to do something.
It might be more productive to die and live on as an open source effort. I personally doubt there’s enough open source engagement to keep Firefox current and competitive but it’s of course an alternative Mozilla in its current form is unable to consider.
they have to dip something for sure. THEY HAVE TO REDUCE THE CEO PAY BY MEASLY 20% AND FUND DEVELOPMENT FROM THAT!!!
or by even more.
-
Same here. Just turned off all data collection checkboxes. Fuck Mozilla!
and then, "uh, we are removing the URL bar in the next version because our statistics say nobody uses it!!"
-
Same here. Just turned off all data collection checkboxes. Fuck Mozilla!
and then, "uh, we are removing the URL bar in the next version because our statistics say nobody uses it!!"
