3 ms·

> Mozilla was unable to secure formal permission to continue including certain search engines in Firefox. We provided an opportunity to previously-included sear

> Mozilla was unable to secure formal permission to continue including certain search engines in Firefox. We provided an opportunity to previously-included search engines to sign an agreement and the engines that did not complete the agreement will be removed from Firefox. Does anyone have a list of the search engines which were removed?

physhster 5y ago
Perhaps some government interference?
Ajedi32 5y ago
They use the term "permission", but since when do you need to get permission to link to a search engine in a piece of software? Is Firefox being legally required to do this, or did they just decide to do it after the engine(s) in question refused to agree to Mozilla's terms?
- aaomidi 5y ago
  Honestly, the way I'm reading this is that "they didn't pay us enough to keep them as a first part search engine."
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    And even if, is that a problem? We can use their browser for free and they do a pretty good job at not tracking anyone for huge money. What’s the problem with them having some income?
    - Ajedi32 5y ago
      It's one thing to just not promote a search engine to your users. That I could understand. It's another thing entirely to intentionally override the user's preference and lie to them about why you're doing it. (Assuming they are actually lying and there isn't some sort of bizarre legal reason why they really do have to do things this way.)
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      There is none, however there's a problem with not communicating that in plain English, i.e. "we sell the spots on our preferred search engine list to generate revenue, as of now a few companies have not agreed to those terms and are being removed". For good reasons the general convention is to render sponsorships and ads visible.
      - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
        I agree that this would have been a better way to frame it, if that is what happened here.

physhster 5y ago

Perhaps some government interference?

Ajedi32 5y ago

They use the term "permission", but since when do you need to get permission to link to a search engine in a piece of software? Is Firefox being legally required to do this, or did they just decide to do it after the engine(s) in question refused to agree to Mozilla's terms?

aaomidi 5y ago
Honestly, the way I'm reading this is that "they didn't pay us enough to keep them as a first part search engine."
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  And even if, is that a problem? We can use their browser for free and they do a pretty good job at not tracking anyone for huge money. What’s the problem with them having some income?
  - Ajedi32 5y ago
    It's one thing to just not promote a search engine to your users. That I could understand. It's another thing entirely to intentionally override the user's preference and lie to them about why you're doing it. (Assuming they are actually lying and there isn't some sort of bizarre legal reason why they really do have to do things this way.)
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    There is none, however there's a problem with not communicating that in plain English, i.e. "we sell the spots on our preferred search engine list to generate revenue, as of now a few companies have not agreed to those terms and are being removed". For good reasons the general convention is to render sponsorships and ads visible.
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      I agree that this would have been a better way to frame it, if that is what happened here.