Firefox deletes promise to never sell personal data, asks users not to panic
-
+1 for agent switcher
-
"Worshipping"? What online spaces have you been frequenting??
-
Yeah, I think it would be very fucking easy to say "we don't sell your data" by any definition... Literally all you need to do is not fucking sell people's data
-
Fucking what?
What the fuck are you even talking about?
-
lmao another Mozilla shitshow
grabs popcorn
-
the problem with that is - if everyone switches to forks, development of firefox stops, killing it, and the forks are guaranteed to follow.
-
Don’tbe evil -
Don't collect anything on your own and don't sell the things you don't collect. Bam, problem solved.
-
palemoon is just firefox from the pre quantum days before the webextension enshittification and all they need is a decent mobile app and their own sync
-
I just wish it wasn't using blink
-
-
Hm? Paypal redirects work for me, even in my browsing profile with trimmed useragent and strict same-origin/cookie policy. This one was never a problem, even if no other webäpp worked. Seems they have good fallbacks.
-
I don't understand what you mean by Firefox's development is driven by the community? It's not a community contributed open source software; my friend worka on Firefox and is a Mozilla employee.
-
The problem is that none of this revenue or profit is guaranteed to go to Firefox. It goes to Mozilla and they decide how it is spent. It could go to pocket, a new overpaid CEO, or a hundred other ways that don't benefit FOSS.
I would have donated hundreds of dollars to Firefox development already, if that were possible, but that is not an option. The only option is Mozilla, and they may spend that on anything else but Firefox.
Also Mozilla VPN is shit. It is a severely limited implementation of Mullvad, and they even enshittified their browser for it. You can only have per container VPN's (a major gain for user privacy) if you pay for Mozilla VPN... They've already chosen to harm their users privacy for profit. This is the kind of shit that guarantees I will never donate as long as a for profit entity has control over Firefox, and its features.
-
So... entirely vibes based take. Maybe take some time to step away and come back later.
Spamming a doomerism opinion, when not backed up by anything but feelings, helps nobody. It's an overactive immune response. The fever worse than the illness your body is trying to burn out using it.
I get that it feels like the world is going to shit, and especially when things you thought were trustworthy start doing this, it's a blow. But this shit (repeated as fucking much as you have repeared it) makes the community, and people who need a non-corporate controlled browser, weaker and more vulnerable.
-
And again. 100% open source. There is no way for any functionality (including functionalitt that does that) to exist somewhere that people making forks can't modify/remove it.
-
Terms of Service (ToS) are regularly not upheld in court, and their terms are worded so poorly that as written, it would not be a difficult case to defeat.
The Firefox specific terms for the precompiled binary link to a more general terms page meant to be additional parts, but the additional parts they link to specify that the additional terms only apply to use of Mozilla "services" (sync, vpn, etc). The concerning shit on the ToS lies in the terms for their services.
It's a clear contradiction of scope, and unfortunately not Firefox's first fuckup of this kind. So far, with a multi decade history, none of these contradictions have been used to fuck over their users.
They already have separate terms for use of the source code. Those are what making forks, and what compiling the source yourself, fall under. They do not make any reference to the services ToS. Use of the source is not effected by any of this so far, on a technical (can the bad shit be removed) and on a legal (are forkers allowed to remove) level.
Hacker News has some deeper discussion about the finer points of the ToS mess.
And apparently Mozilla has clarified that the wording changes in their summary (not the actual ToS) are because California's definition of "sale" of information includes just communicaring it to a third party as part of normal operations support. Thanks again to Hacker News discussion of Mozilla's latest statement.
