6 ms·

An interesting implication of this is that it would point to Firefox being considered a service from Mozilla (hence why they need a license to facilitate your u

An interesting implication of this is that it would point to Firefox being considered a service from Mozilla (hence why they need a license to facilitate your use of the program). If we now look at their "Acceptable Use Policy", we can find this: > You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to [...] Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence, [...] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ And to corroborate the applicability of the Acceptable Use Policy to the Firefox browser: > Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, [...] ("Acceptable Use Policy" is hyperlinked to the aforementioned page) https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ So one could interpret this all to say that you're not allowed to view or download porn via Firefox. Additionally, "graphic depictions of violence" could extend to things like the sort of bodycam footage and reporting from war zones frequently seen in news reports.

rightbyte 2y ago
It is really unfortunate. My Firefox install lately added links to what could be considered not so nice sites for grandmas like amazon.com and hotels.com to the start screen. It is quite clear they see it as their program not mine program. I dunno for how long I will stick to using the least worst alternative. To go for custom builds would be giving up on Mozilla. edit: Toned down language
- winkelmann 2y ago
  Yeah, it's annoying, but also nothing particularly new I believe. There seem to be two types of garbage links added by default: 1. "Sponsored shortcuts" that can be "easily" turned off in `about:preferences#home` 2. I guess "non-sponsored" shortcuts? I believe they pointed to Facebook, eBay, and something else (Pinterest maybe). Those have to be removed/"blocked" individually. I think they end up in `browser.newtabpage.blocked` after doing so. I don't like that this is a thing I have to do whenever I set up a new Firefox install. It's not often, to be fair, but it still sucks nonetheless.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Ye that feels like trying to unmess a Windows install. I have like 6 Firefox installs I need to do this on. And then they add the next thing to block in 2 years. I think the old premade bookmarks are as far as you can go with these kind of things. Takes like 2s to remove and you know how instinctivly.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >scam sites like amazon.com Since when is Amazon a scam site? I don't like em' either, but hyperbole doesn't help. For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds.
  - renewedrebecca 2y ago
    > For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds. Sure, but why should anyone have to?
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      Look, I hate ads as much as the next person. But Firefox also needs to generate money somehow, right? A small advert to amazon/hotels/whatever that can be removed basically permanently with a small change in the settings is about the best balance I can think of. If you donate to Mozilla, I have more sympathy for you. Perhaps they could make it so that if you have a Firefox account linked to a donation that they remove this, or something.
      - happymellon 2y ago
        I have struggled to find methods as an individual to donate to Firefox.
        _Algernon_ 2y ago
        https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/
        diggan 2y ago
        I'm fairly sure that's for donating to Mozilla, where the funds go who knows where (kidding, it goes to the executives and marketing). Is there anywhere I can donate to Firefox, specifically the development and the maintenance of the browser itself, and only the browser? Maybe donating directly to developers working on Firefox would be the best approach here.
- manbart 2y ago
  Use LibreWolf. It's just firebox rebuilt and released with better defaults (no suggestions/spying)
unethical_ban 2y ago
Firefox has Mozilla facilitated services in it, and the license is saying " we get to use the data we see to help the service". I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.
- winkelmann 2y ago
  > I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service. One would think so, right? But why does Mozilla want me to "license" to them everything I "upload or input [...] through Firefox"[1]. Where do the "facilitated services" start and where do they end? It sure would be nice if they could draw that distinction, without it, the cautious interpretation would be that that everything is a facilitated service. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
- fwn 2y ago
  > I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service. It is not just about their services! They clarify it by writing: "Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations." Src.: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
mtzaldo 2y ago
Isn't the internet for pr0n?
singlow 2y ago
I don't read it the way you say. The more restrictive terms are for use of services. If you use firefox, you have to agree not to use the Mozilla services for the prohibited categories, but there are many uses of the browser that are not using Mozilla services. If you accessed graphic content using the browser, you are not violating the terms unless you put that content up on a mozilla service somewhere. The obvious issue would be some type of bookmark sync. If you bookmarked a graphic url you might violate the terms when it syncs to mozilla, but even then it would be hard to argue that you are granting access to your future self, so unless you used a bookmark sharing service provided by mozilla, I would say its a gray area. So disable bookmark sync. I typically disable all external services in my browser so this would not be relevant. But my point is that even though you have to agree to the use policy when downloading the browser, it doesn't mean it governs all use of the browser. IANAL
krunck 2y ago
> You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to: Do anything illegal or otherwise violate applicable law, No civil disobedience. Bad Mozilla! Bad, bad Mozilla!

rightbyte 2y ago

It is really unfortunate. My Firefox install lately added links to what could be considered not so nice sites for grandmas like amazon.com and hotels.com to the start screen. It is quite clear they see it as their program not mine program. I dunno for how long I will stick to using the least worst alternative. To go for custom builds would be giving up on Mozilla. edit: Toned down language

winkelmann 2y ago
Yeah, it's annoying, but also nothing particularly new I believe. There seem to be two types of garbage links added by default: 1. "Sponsored shortcuts" that can be "easily" turned off in `about:preferences#home` 2. I guess "non-sponsored" shortcuts? I believe they pointed to Facebook, eBay, and something else (Pinterest maybe). Those have to be removed/"blocked" individually. I think they end up in `browser.newtabpage.blocked` after doing so. I don't like that this is a thing I have to do whenever I set up a new Firefox install. It's not often, to be fair, but it still sucks nonetheless.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Ye that feels like trying to unmess a Windows install. I have like 6 Firefox installs I need to do this on. And then they add the next thing to block in 2 years. I think the old premade bookmarks are as far as you can go with these kind of things. Takes like 2s to remove and you know how instinctivly.
ziddoap 2y ago
>scam sites like amazon.com Since when is Amazon a scam site? I don't like em' either, but hyperbole doesn't help. For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds.
- renewedrebecca 2y ago
  > For what it's worth, it can be removed in about 4 seconds. Sure, but why should anyone have to?
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    Look, I hate ads as much as the next person. But Firefox also needs to generate money somehow, right? A small advert to amazon/hotels/whatever that can be removed basically permanently with a small change in the settings is about the best balance I can think of. If you donate to Mozilla, I have more sympathy for you. Perhaps they could make it so that if you have a Firefox account linked to a donation that they remove this, or something.
    - happymellon 2y ago
      I have struggled to find methods as an individual to donate to Firefox.
      - _Algernon_ 2y ago
        https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/
        diggan 2y ago
        I'm fairly sure that's for donating to Mozilla, where the funds go who knows where (kidding, it goes to the executives and marketing). Is there anywhere I can donate to Firefox, specifically the development and the maintenance of the browser itself, and only the browser? Maybe donating directly to developers working on Firefox would be the best approach here.
manbart 2y ago
Use LibreWolf. It's just firebox rebuilt and released with better defaults (no suggestions/spying)

unethical_ban 2y ago

Firefox has Mozilla facilitated services in it, and the license is saying " we get to use the data we see to help the service". I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service.

winkelmann 2y ago
> I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service. One would think so, right? But why does Mozilla want me to "license" to them everything I "upload or input [...] through Firefox"[1]. Where do the "facilitated services" start and where do they end? It sure would be nice if they could draw that distinction, without it, the cautious interpretation would be that that everything is a facilitated service. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/
fwn 2y ago
> I don't think their AUP considers the browser software a service. It is not just about their services! They clarify it by writing: "Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations." Src.: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/

mtzaldo 2y ago

Isn't the internet for pr0n?

singlow 2y ago

I don't read it the way you say. The more restrictive terms are for use of services. If you use firefox, you have to agree not to use the Mozilla services for the prohibited categories, but there are many uses of the browser that are not using Mozilla services. If you accessed graphic content using the browser, you are not violating the terms unless you put that content up on a mozilla service somewhere. The obvious issue would be some type of bookmark sync. If you bookmarked a graphic url you might violate the terms when it syncs to mozilla, but even then it would be hard to argue that you are granting access to your future self, so unless you used a bookmark sharing service provided by mozilla, I would say its a gray area. So disable bookmark sync. I typically disable all external services in my browser so this would not be relevant. But my point is that even though you have to agree to the use policy when downloading the browser, it doesn't mean it governs all use of the browser. IANAL

krunck 2y ago

> You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to: Do anything illegal or otherwise violate applicable law, No civil disobedience. Bad Mozilla! Bad, bad Mozilla!