Mozilla is Introducing 'Terms of Use' to Firefox | Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice
-
Thorium certainly does https://thorium.rocks/
-
NOOOOOOO AI BAD ALL THE TIME THERE ARE NO CONCEIVABLE USE CASES FOR AI ITS ALL SLOP NOOOOOOO
Correct
-
The only acceptable privacy policy for a browser is "we won't fucking look into anything, take anything, nor send anything anywhere you didn't actually wish to send explicitly".
Firefox have an extension support. If mozilla wants to bloat it, they should do it via extension, so that they're not bloating the actually useful part. As it is, all they're doing is forcing more work on people to manage forks to remove all the shit every time they push a release.
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected] -
Well I suppose Fennec (or some other de-branded Firefox) will become more mainstream. Similar to what chromium is to chrome
If we are comparing it to Chrome, it is more like Ungoogled-Chromium.
-
But isn't Servo funded by Mozilla
After Mozilla laid off all Servo developers in 2020, governance of the project was transferred to Linux Foundation Europe. Development work officially continues at the same GitHub repository with the project itself entirely volunteer driven.
-
It says
Mozilla will collect light data on usage, such as how frequently people use the feature overall,
That says to me they want to know (among other things) how many browser users make zero use of the AI feature. To acquire that info, they have to collect it. You have to assume the worst when you see phrasing like that.
Ah yes, they're going to collect all those 0's /s
No, they're going to collect a "this person used the chatbot sidebar" if that person has telemetry enabled. That's it.
If something changes or comes to light, then I'll be worried, but this just seems like normal technical data they use to know what to prioritize.
-
Is this because some middle manager at Mozilla has to pretend to be productive?
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.
-
Give an example, a first-person example, where it is not slop.
as a glorified search engine, after pretty much all search indexes were neutered on purpose...but even then it's...mostly passable, but always untrustworthy.
-
Thorium certainly does https://thorium.rocks/
I stopped following Thorium when some questionable pics were discovered in its repo
-
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.
ladybird can't come fast enough
-
It just became bigger: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growth-planning-updates/
There's never enough money to maintain the browser but there's always enough to dump more into executives pockets.
-
You mean like Pale Moon
-
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.
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.
-
You mean like Pale Moon
I forgot that Pale Moon existed. How's development going on that these days? I see that it got an update a week ago.
-
That would be getting right back in bed with Google, gross.
-
That would be getting right back in bed with Google, gross.
i also hate it, but i see no one else putting the amount of work necessary to maintain an entire browser engine. and mozilla clearly wants to enshittify.
firefox has its days numbered. even if its still some time, we have to come up with something.
anyone up to date on how servo is doing rn, btw?
-
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.
Being a "non-profit" doesn't mean the company "shouldn't make profit" ... It means that the owners/investors don't earn anything extra based on profit. The organization itself still needs to be financially sustainable.
As shady as Mozilla is, they're competing against a functional monopoly, so the playing field is hardly fair.
-
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]
firefox-esr /usr/lib/firefox-esr/browser/features/[email protected]hey, why is this significant? I can guess what features these are linked to, but is there any significance to the email address-like formats?
-
You missed the previous memo: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-leadership-growth-planning-updates/
The writing was on the wall when the Mozilla Corporation was setup under the Foundation. A bunch of SF venture capital types have places on the board, and are in operational leadership, and are slowly transforming Mozilla into a shitty for-profit tech venture. Ads, data collection, subscription services, and a chat bot.
-
Being a "non-profit" doesn't mean the company "shouldn't make profit" ... It means that the owners/investors don't earn anything extra based on profit. The organization itself still needs to be financially sustainable.
As shady as Mozilla is, they're competing against a functional monopoly, so the playing field is hardly fair.
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.
