6 ms·

To Mozilla: if your intentions are indeed good as you claim in your post[1], then update the ToS accordingly. Chrome is removing µBlock origin, I and probably

by nico42 2y ago

To Mozilla: if your intentions are indeed good as you claim in your post[1], then update the ToS accordingly. Chrome is removing µBlock origin, I and probably a lot of other users saw this as a good moment to promote Firefox to our relatives, you are missing a chance and alienating your user base here. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/fi...

walrus01 2y ago
Based on this, Firefox has a 2.54% market share of browsers worldwide, so if their goal here is to shoot themselves in the foot and get that number under 2%, mission accomplished. Firefox is still the lesser of two evils when compared to Chrome with all of its telemetry turned on. And at least it supports a proper implementation of uBlock origin, which Google just broke in Chrome. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share previous discussion from mid 2023 on low firefox market share: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36759162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36759162
- m2f2 2y ago
  I'm one of them 2.54% and I cringe when some kiddie develops websites around some chrome bugs, just to let us and Apple folks down.
  - ta1243 2y ago
    I'm also the 2.54% and have been since the phoenix days. I am beyond thankful every day for apple keeping both desktop safari and ios running to prevent the internet being even more monoculture than in the IE6 days
    - weikju 2y ago
      > I am beyond thankful every day for apple keeping both desktop safari and ios running to prevent the internet being even more monoculture than in the IE6 days Don't worry, EU regulators (and other countries soon I suppose) are doing their best to fix that "bug".
      - Apocryphon 2y ago
        Users sticking with Safari because it is the browser by default on iOS and macOS and they don’t know any better isn’t some sort of moral victory for privacy. (I notice that Apple has only recently been putting out TV ads praising their browser.) It’s almost like privacy through obscurity. And it’s like thanking Samsung for accidentally pushing against Chrome dominance on Android by forcing users to use Samsung Internet by default. Or thanking Microsoft for bundling Edge with Windows. Users generally don’t know about Chrome’s privacy issues or what browser engines are. Apple simply hasn’t done enough to promote Safari and keep it a strong competitor against Chrome. Relying on their monopoly over their platform is them accidentally doing something good in the wrong way. You know why Chrome attracted so many customers when it first launched in 2008 or so? Because IE, and yes Firefox, were incredibly bloated and slow. Apple hasn’t presented a similar performance jump or another compelling reason for Safari over Chrome. And in open-source land, so many hotshot alt-browsers from Arc to Brave all use Blink. Orion uses WebKit, and it’s the only one. Apple clearly doesn’t care to promote it as a Blink alternative other than for their monopolistic mandate of WebKit on iOS. Not to mention, they killed Safari for Windows. Apple apparently doesn’t care about privacy as much as HN thinks they do, see mini-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39975620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39975620 Finally, the EU change should in theory be liberating for Mozilla, who can now provide a proper mobile Firefox for iOS that uses Gecko. Instead, from what I hear that isn’t even on the roadmap, because this is the state of modern Mozilla. Here’s hoping that Zen will instead bring Gecko to iOS.
        ta1243 2y ago
        It's not a moral victory, it is a pragmatic one. If it was 98% chrome and 2% firefox that's basically 100% chrome. Instead safari on ios (and to a lesser extent desktop) means the web isn't 100% chrome (or chrome skins like brave)
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        I’m arguing that Apple should strengthen Safari (and not just on iOS and macOS but to other operating systems owned by them) to make it more compelling to use for customers, and not rely on App Store guideline lock-in on iOS. But they clearly don’t care to, even when they could afford to. And they don’t care about promoting WebKit at all, because any alt-browsers running it would just provide competition for Safari anyway. As it stands it all seems very half-hearted and kind of lazy. “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.” - T.S Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral
- lost_womble 2y ago
  This is such a bad way to look at Firefox browser share. Instead, look at desktop share worldwide, where it's more like 7%.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    Why is it a bad way to look at it? If anything, I'd argue Firefox is more compelling on Android than desktop.
  - account42 2y ago
    This is quibbling over details - both numbers are already low enough that many developers won't even bother to test on FF not to mention fix non-trivial issues, and for both stats the trend is clearly downwards.
- ayewo 2y ago
  To put some numbers on what a 2.54% market share means, Firefox actually tracks this data. See here: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity: > Monthly Active Users (MAU) measures the number of Firefox Desktop clients active in the past 28 days. > February 10, 2025: 163,203,913 clients > February 17, 2025: 163,742,671 clients
stateoff 2y ago
Absolutely agree. The blog post is claiming the opposite to what their ToS is granting - but one is fluff (that will be forgotten soon) while the other is legally binding. I cannot imagine applications like browsers that would require such an unrestricted license for user input just to do its service. That clearly indicates some "other" future motive that is underlined by the notion to remove the FAQ entry and other past actions towards an advertising future at Mozilla. Am looking forward to explore some of the alternatives. And no, I don't want a just a correcting/updating/informing follow-up blog post of how we the users got it all wrong. In fact, the current UPDATE makes it worse: "UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice." vs. the ToS: "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." No - you don't need a license for my input. Just pass the butter, it's not your job to "use that information" in any way, form or shape. How did you survive 26 years without any license to our input? What did legally change that would require that license? No one asked you to: "We use data to make Firefox functional and sustainable, improve your experience, and keep you safe." (from the blog). What does that even mean? If you have specific use-cases in mind state them clearly, instead of this overreaching general license, that may or may not be misused now or in future. As of this ToS you may very sell my data to AI companies to "help me navigate the internet" which is not even part of the Privacy Notice protection. Reinstatement your privacy guarantees in the ToS and be transparent about explicit use-cases. Meanwhile, so long, and thanks for all the fish.
- flir 2y ago
  I haven't read the article. All I know is, Firefox changed their TOS. > That clearly indicates some "other" future motive It's training data, isn't it? (It's always training data).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
evertedsphere 2y ago
> Finally, you are in control. We’ve set responsible defaults that you can review during onboarding or adjust in your settings at any time: These simple, yet powerful tools let you manage your data the way you want. "simple yet powerful tools" (derogatory) is how i would describe the windows popup that gives you the choice between setting up a microsoft account now or being nagged about it later
- bee_rider 2y ago
  ‘“Simple yet powerful tools” (derogatory)’ is my new favorite phrase I think. It seems like it has wide applications outside tech as well.
dk1138 2y ago
Or they are taking the gamble that being able to continue to use µBlock outweighs the sale of customer data.

by nico42 2y ago

walrus01 2y ago

Based on this, Firefox has a 2.54% market share of browsers worldwide, so if their goal here is to shoot themselves in the foot and get that number under 2%, mission accomplished. Firefox is still the lesser of two evils when compared to Chrome with all of its telemetry turned on. And at least it supports a proper implementation of uBlock origin, which Google just broke in Chrome. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share previous discussion from mid 2023 on low firefox market share: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36759162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36759162

m2f2 2y ago
I'm one of them 2.54% and I cringe when some kiddie develops websites around some chrome bugs, just to let us and Apple folks down.
- ta1243 2y ago
  I'm also the 2.54% and have been since the phoenix days. I am beyond thankful every day for apple keeping both desktop safari and ios running to prevent the internet being even more monoculture than in the IE6 days
  - weikju 2y ago
    > I am beyond thankful every day for apple keeping both desktop safari and ios running to prevent the internet being even more monoculture than in the IE6 days Don't worry, EU regulators (and other countries soon I suppose) are doing their best to fix that "bug".
    - Apocryphon 2y ago
      Users sticking with Safari because it is the browser by default on iOS and macOS and they don’t know any better isn’t some sort of moral victory for privacy. (I notice that Apple has only recently been putting out TV ads praising their browser.) It’s almost like privacy through obscurity. And it’s like thanking Samsung for accidentally pushing against Chrome dominance on Android by forcing users to use Samsung Internet by default. Or thanking Microsoft for bundling Edge with Windows. Users generally don’t know about Chrome’s privacy issues or what browser engines are. Apple simply hasn’t done enough to promote Safari and keep it a strong competitor against Chrome. Relying on their monopoly over their platform is them accidentally doing something good in the wrong way. You know why Chrome attracted so many customers when it first launched in 2008 or so? Because IE, and yes Firefox, were incredibly bloated and slow. Apple hasn’t presented a similar performance jump or another compelling reason for Safari over Chrome. And in open-source land, so many hotshot alt-browsers from Arc to Brave all use Blink. Orion uses WebKit, and it’s the only one. Apple clearly doesn’t care to promote it as a Blink alternative other than for their monopolistic mandate of WebKit on iOS. Not to mention, they killed Safari for Windows. Apple apparently doesn’t care about privacy as much as HN thinks they do, see mini-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39975620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39975620 Finally, the EU change should in theory be liberating for Mozilla, who can now provide a proper mobile Firefox for iOS that uses Gecko. Instead, from what I hear that isn’t even on the roadmap, because this is the state of modern Mozilla. Here’s hoping that Zen will instead bring Gecko to iOS.
      - ta1243 2y ago
        It's not a moral victory, it is a pragmatic one. If it was 98% chrome and 2% firefox that's basically 100% chrome. Instead safari on ios (and to a lesser extent desktop) means the web isn't 100% chrome (or chrome skins like brave)
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        I’m arguing that Apple should strengthen Safari (and not just on iOS and macOS but to other operating systems owned by them) to make it more compelling to use for customers, and not rely on App Store guideline lock-in on iOS. But they clearly don’t care to, even when they could afford to. And they don’t care about promoting WebKit at all, because any alt-browsers running it would just provide competition for Safari anyway. As it stands it all seems very half-hearted and kind of lazy. “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.” - T.S Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral
lost_womble 2y ago
This is such a bad way to look at Firefox browser share. Instead, look at desktop share worldwide, where it's more like 7%.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Why is it a bad way to look at it? If anything, I'd argue Firefox is more compelling on Android than desktop.
- account42 2y ago
  This is quibbling over details - both numbers are already low enough that many developers won't even bother to test on FF not to mention fix non-trivial issues, and for both stats the trend is clearly downwards.
ayewo 2y ago
To put some numbers on what a 2.54% market share means, Firefox actually tracks this data. See here: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity: > Monthly Active Users (MAU) measures the number of Firefox Desktop clients active in the past 28 days. > February 10, 2025: 163,203,913 clients > February 17, 2025: 163,742,671 clients

stateoff 2y ago

Absolutely agree. The blog post is claiming the opposite to what their ToS is granting - but one is fluff (that will be forgotten soon) while the other is legally binding. I cannot imagine applications like browsers that would require such an unrestricted license for user input just to do its service. That clearly indicates some "other" future motive that is underlined by the notion to remove the FAQ entry and other past actions towards an advertising future at Mozilla. Am looking forward to explore some of the alternatives. And no, I don't want a just a correcting/updating/informing follow-up blog post of how we the users got it all wrong. In fact, the current UPDATE makes it worse: "UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice." vs. the ToS: "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." No - you don't need a license for my input. Just pass the butter, it's not your job to "use that information" in any way, form or shape. How did you survive 26 years without any license to our input? What did legally change that would require that license? No one asked you to: "We use data to make Firefox functional and sustainable, improve your experience, and keep you safe." (from the blog). What does that even mean? If you have specific use-cases in mind state them clearly, instead of this overreaching general license, that may or may not be misused now or in future. As of this ToS you may very sell my data to AI companies to "help me navigate the internet" which is not even part of the Privacy Notice protection. Reinstatement your privacy guarantees in the ToS and be transparent about explicit use-cases. Meanwhile, so long, and thanks for all the fish.

flir 2y ago
I haven't read the article. All I know is, Firefox changed their TOS. > That clearly indicates some "other" future motive It's training data, isn't it? (It's always training data).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

evertedsphere 2y ago

> Finally, you are in control. We’ve set responsible defaults that you can review during onboarding or adjust in your settings at any time: These simple, yet powerful tools let you manage your data the way you want. "simple yet powerful tools" (derogatory) is how i would describe the windows popup that gives you the choice between setting up a microsoft account now or being nagged about it later

bee_rider 2y ago
‘“Simple yet powerful tools” (derogatory)’ is my new favorite phrase I think. It seems like it has wide applications outside tech as well.

dk1138 2y ago

Or they are taking the gamble that being able to continue to use µBlock outweighs the sale of customer data.