4 ms·
Which has a few privacy scandals of its own. Marginally better than Chrome, not a silver bullet.
by sinaz 8y ago
Which has a few privacy scandals of its own. Marginally better than Chrome, not a silver bullet.
- matthewmacleod 8y agoMarginally better than Chrome That's a gross misrepresentation.
- sinaz 8y agoWell... regarding what Mozilla did with Cliqz, I'm sure Google won't be sending my user data to third parties, which Mozilla did. So maybe Chrome is better than Firefox in that regard.
- icebraining 8y agoGoogle does send your user data to third-parties, for "external processing" (it's in their privacy policy).
- lallysingh 8y agoDo you mean this https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-which-slurps-user-browsing-data/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-whi... ? Mozilla was an investor in Cliqz, so it's not precisely a full-on third party. And the data was (at least, according to the article) well anonymized. I can see why Moz would want to try and keep up with the user advantages of collecting this information -- catching malicious URLs, etc -- but even if it's just appearance-wise, they've lost a bit of trust here. Frankly I think they should have two distributions of Firefox, one that's bells-and-whistles for the best user experience, and another that takes a more aggressive pro-privacy stance. This can be little more than the set of preinstalled extensions + default config.
- sciurus 8y agoTo an extent Mozilla has that now on mobile with Firefox vs Firefox Focus. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/mobile/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/mobile/
- lallysingh 8y agoDownloading focus now. Thanks!
- paulryanrogers 8y agoAre you saying you think it's much better or much worse?
- matthewmacleod 8y agoFirefox is better.
- orf 8y agoCan you elaborate as to why it is "marginally better than Chrome" please. You could start by explaining how a privacy focused nonprofit is marginally worse than a multi-billion dollar advertising company with regards to privacy.
- _red 8y agoBecause your "privacy focused nonprofit" is itself funded by those very same "multi-billion ad companies".
- lallysingh 8y agoThe money flow itself doesn't invalidate them. They have multiple bidders for their defaults, and that isolates them from the whims of their funders. The funders are just customers.
- orf 8y agoSure, so this means they are now a multi-billion dollar advertising company as well? If a tobacco company makes a donation to a cancer research charity, do we now hate the charity?
- Valmar 8y ago"Scandals" which have been nothing more than a bunch of idiots completely misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what Mozilla is actually doing. Mozilla does not have a history remotely related to any sort of privacy violations, except in the eyes of those who think that literally anything to do with "telemetry" or "advertizing" is automatically evil. Problem is, you can have non-privacy-invasive and non-malicious telemetry and advertizing. Google and Microsoft are particularly nasty in this regard. But don't extrapolate their behaviour onto Mozilla.