this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
464 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

63375 readers
5497 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Get ready for ads as well

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#commitcomment-153095625

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. "

                }

            },

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 hours ago

Yeah but the line between them and google is not there anymore in that case

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

sometimes bound to give, if firefox isnt taking in money from having no ads, to having ads. they are going to need tons of ads, and the ability to sell your browser info for money, much like chrome is doing. surprised its taken this long to finally say "private donations isnt enough"

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 21 points 22 hours ago

Damn we really can't have anything nice.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Guys Mullvad browser and Librewolf exist.

[–] Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca 7 points 23 hours ago

Zen Browser too

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they're firefox forks and ubo comes automatically installed with them.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 83 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 system. 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.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They are the demanded features-as-extension, shipped by default. They do that since they got rid of XUL i think?

About the @, no clue.

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is this because some middle manager at Mozilla has to pretend to be productive?

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Mozilla is a nonprofit (or it at least it 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.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 1 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] ExFed@lemm.ee 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

As shady as Mozilla is, they’re competing against a functional monopoly

yeah this is a part we need to recognize. right now there are essentially three browsers. Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. Every other browser is some derivative of one of these- mostly Chromium.

Google can change some small detail about how they render HTML or a small part of their JS engine and that has global effects all over the internet. Without a Firefox to compete, they will implement policies to hurt the consumer. People think just because Chromium is open source that this mitigates the risk.

Google's V8 javascript engine does not only power all Chrome and chrome-derivatives, it also powers nodeJS and therefore vast swathes of server-side javascript as well.

it's actually difficult to understate how much raw power Google has in determining what you see on the internet and how you see it

we desperately need Firefox. I really hope that an open source alternative could be viable but it's been decades and we haven't had a real browser pop into existence. will the death of Firefox mean something else comes out? Or will the death of Firefox be the last nail in the coffin for a free internet?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] msgraves@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

ladybird can't come fast enough

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Ladybird has a platinum sponsorship on their homepage from Shopify so not a good look already.

[–] loics2@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Well it's a sponsor, it's not their product.

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 3 points 6 hours ago

What's that saying about sitting at a table with a Nazi?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've been willingly enabling data collection features for Mozilla but I guess that time is revolute, they don't feel trustworthy anymore.

[–] PullPantsUnsworn@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

Same here. Just turned off all data collection checkboxes. Fuck Mozilla!

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wtf is happening, why is now even Firefox going off the rails?

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] smeg@infosec.pub 12 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 day ago (14 children)

So now what the hell do we have to use to not be spied upon?

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago

probably anti-detection browser that ban evaders are using on reddit. its a little more complicated to get to that point though.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 150 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, that last paragraph doesn't give me hope at all. Fucking AI chatbots.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 206 points 1 day ago (10 children)

The actual addition to the terms is essentially this:

  1. If you choose to use the optional AI chatbot sidebar feature, you're subject to the ToS and Privacy Policy of the provider you use, just as if you'd gone to their site and used it directly. This is obvious.
  2. Mozilla will collect light data on usage, such as how frequently people use the feature overall, and how long the strings of text are that are being pasted in. That's basically it.

The way this article describes it as "cushy caveats" is completely misleading. It's quite literally just "If you use a feature that integrates with third party services, you're relying on and providing data to those services, also we want to know if the feature is actually being used and how much."

[–] Viri4thus@feddit.org 83 points 1 day ago (18 children)

The problem is the inclusion of the feature to begin with. It should be an opt in add install.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 108 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Privacy policies should legally be called surveillance policies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yourFanatic@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is Waterfox a good alternative?

[–] shortrounddev@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

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

[–] DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org 66 points 1 day ago

Good thing LibreWolf and other forks exist, including hard forks like the Goanna browsers.

load more comments
view more: next ›