4 ms·

The problem I have with these kinds of hot-takes is that they often don't tell the full story, and it's seemingly for the purpose of generating rage. For some i

The problem I have with these kinds of hot-takes is that they often don't tell the full story, and it's seemingly for the purpose of generating rage. For some inexplicable reason, this guy truncates the paragraph from the Terms of Use, repackaging the information without a key part of the final sentence: "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox." I'm not saying that this definitely makes a material difference, but it certainly changes the framing of it. The way he has framed it makes it sound like Mozilla has given itself carte blanche to do what it wants -- but the little caveat at the end of the sentence really does change the narrative a little bit. So why cut off a sentence half-way through it -- is it maybe to make it sound worse? For that reason alone, I can't take this guy seriously.

thorw93040494 2y ago
But Mozilla said what they will do. They also had very expensive rebranding to support it! They are now activist AI company that wants to fight disinformation, censor people and sell ads.
rectang 2y ago
[flagged]
- nindalf 2y ago
  You know, I was just wondering why no one has yet shaped the Rust vs C/C++ in US culture war terms. One side is clearly progressive in the sense of wanting to make changes for the sake of a better (more memory safe) future. The other side is more conservative, seeing enormous benefit in keeping the status quo unchanged. And that's before getting into the politics of the people working on the language, of which I won't say more. Here was me thinking we had at least one discussion where the US culture war hadn't metastasised. But I guess in the long run twitter.com/lundukejournal and friends will eventually win. Can't say I'm looking forward to it.
  - steveklabnik 2y ago
    Some people have, it’s exhausting.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
misnome 2y ago
> "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox." We weren't born yesterday, and companies pull this shit all the time. This sentence is meaningless. You could use this sentence to justify literally any behaviour. One _easy_ way to read this change: > "... to help you interact with online content" Selling your data to have more relevant ads could easily be justified as helping you interact with online content > as you indicate with your use of Firefox. Using firefox indicates that you want us to do this. Or, we made it an opt-out that is quietly rolled out in an update.
- bolognafairy 2y ago
  No. We are talking about legality. Quote the whole bloody thing. If you don’t get to say “I picked out the bit I like” in court, then you don’t get to do it here. If you’re so right, then it’s not worth taking out in the first place.
  - apalerwuss 2y ago
    Yes exactly this -- thank you for getting my point, I'm a little tired of internet people misunderstanding things. I'm not even disputing that Mozilla is trying to pull a fast one on all of us, I'm purely questioning the framing by the "journalist" this post links to. To be taken seriously, quote the whole thing -- if it really is a case that the last part of the sentence is meaningless, then leave that in your quote, and address that in your wittering diatribe, explaining to all of us why it's meaningless. Without that, all I see is someone cherrypicking half-sentences and trying to mislead people.
    - mzajc 2y ago
      While I'm by no means defending Mozilla here, one quick look at the linked twitter user's history shows that generating rage and taking text out of context is their modus operandi and very much intentional. I'm bummed that out of all the posts on the topic, this is the one that gets to stay on the frontpage.
  - 2y ago
dizhn 2y ago
That bit pretty much sounds like "by using the software you're agreeing to whatever"
- immibis 2y ago
  No it doesn't. Most businesses finish that sentence with "...for any purpose" not "... to help you navigate the web" It will still be interpreted to mean "...for any purpose" by Mozilla somehow.
  - CjHuber 2y ago
    For me it sounds similar to Google‘s phrasing that they use to make people activate personalized ads: „used to deliver better, more helpful experiences“
  - stonemetal12 2y ago
    How does them selling my data help me navigate the web?
    - dizhn 2y ago
      In their holier than thou attitude (shared by some here) you have to pay to do anything. And that's how you pay to use the web with their browser.
    - jeltz 2y ago
      By serving you relevant ads!
  - KoolKat23 2y ago
    "...interact with online content" is pretty much all encompassing.
- simpaticoder 2y ago
  Yes and this phrasing is used in many other products, like credit cards. Additionally, the fact that the phrasing can be interpreted as such means that it will be interpreted as such and so makes Mozilla's new Terms unacceptable to anyone who values their privacy or data.
belorn 2y ago
Im fully on board that people should try to include or link as much of a story they can so that I can form my own opinion. There are way too many times that I read a reasonable take, then you read the original source, only to find that the reasonable take is completely off base. In this case I don't have the reaction, but I will agree that in general its a good idea to include more rather than less. The redacted part here looks to be a GDPR boilerplate for consent. GDRP require consent to be specific. In order to do so the lawyers of Mozilla seems to have used industry standard phrasing to comply with the law, such as "to help you navigate, enhance experience, and interact with {INSERT SERVICE/PRODUCT}". For those with some interest in legal history, there is similar stories in other boilerplate texts that consumer get exposed to. I always find the background to the WARRANTY DISCLAIMER text to have a fairly funny historical background that is a few centuries old legal case regarding a mill axle. The current form we see now was created as the first example in a list from US regulation guidelines (which reference the mill axle case). A company can use any other form given in that guideline, but as it happens, everyone just jumped on the first example, slapped it onto stuff and shipped it. Lawyers know it is valid for US trade regulation and that was apparently enough for the rest of the world.
fergie 2y ago
You are kind of answering your own question here...
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
I generally wait before jumping on the outrage-train for this reason, but two things stand out: - Mozilla explicitly deleting "we don't sell your data" statements across their documentation - Following up to criticism that the statement is vague, bullshitty and open to interpretation with statements that are even more vague, bullshitty and open to interpretation. By now, they've had time to notice that something is not right and that they need to make a clear statement, and they haven't taken the opportunity.
- nusl 2y ago
  They didn't delete it. Go to the github diff they reference and check. It's still there. They just removed it from one of the JSON files but people here aren't actually checking facts, they're just jumping on the hate train. See: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#diff-5c93e7e7cbfacf0d6a8b3bc6d46b345019653051089e00d6fe5e09a531a79442R70 https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    People love to hate Firefox. Reinforces their reasons for using the shiny big brands.
    - gunsle 2y ago
      at this point, it’s Mozilla that loves to hate Firefox and its users, not Firefox users themselves
  - crtasm 2y ago
    So where is that paragraph found on their website? The relevant section isn't what you linked to - scroll down to the change in structured-data-firefox-faq.html Here is the previous version of the FAQ: https://web.archive.org/web/20250128115051/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250128115051/https://www.mozil... Here it is now: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/ All three statements about not selling your personal data are gone.
binary132 2y ago
I can’t take people seriously who think the little frilly PR bandaids that companies slap on these types of statements mean much of anything at all. For example, “we promise”.
theamk 2y ago
are you replying to wrong post? the linked tweet says: > Mozilla has just deleted the following: > “Does Firefox sell your personal data?” > “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. " That tweet is 100% correct, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209001 for two links, all references to "not selling personal data" are gone. There is no missing context or truncation here, and this says nothing about terms-of-use (except commit message but that's immaterial)
mijoharas 2y ago
So, what do you read the end of that sentence mean? Because the way I read it is worse: > to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox." I don't read that as a caveat, so I'm assuming it means something different to you. To reword slightly and hopefully show how that sentence is coming across to me: > As you have indicated by using Firefox you have given us the right to...

thorw93040494 2y ago

But Mozilla said what they will do. They also had very expensive rebranding to support it! They are now activist AI company that wants to fight disinformation, censor people and sell ads.

rectang 2y ago

[flagged]

nindalf 2y ago
You know, I was just wondering why no one has yet shaped the Rust vs C/C++ in US culture war terms. One side is clearly progressive in the sense of wanting to make changes for the sake of a better (more memory safe) future. The other side is more conservative, seeing enormous benefit in keeping the status quo unchanged. And that's before getting into the politics of the people working on the language, of which I won't say more. Here was me thinking we had at least one discussion where the US culture war hadn't metastasised. But I guess in the long run twitter.com/lundukejournal and friends will eventually win. Can't say I'm looking forward to it.
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  Some people have, it’s exhausting.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

misnome 2y ago

> "....to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox." We weren't born yesterday, and companies pull this shit all the time. This sentence is meaningless. You could use this sentence to justify literally any behaviour. One _easy_ way to read this change: > "... to help you interact with online content" Selling your data to have more relevant ads could easily be justified as helping you interact with online content > as you indicate with your use of Firefox. Using firefox indicates that you want us to do this. Or, we made it an opt-out that is quietly rolled out in an update.

bolognafairy 2y ago
No. We are talking about legality. Quote the whole bloody thing. If you don’t get to say “I picked out the bit I like” in court, then you don’t get to do it here. If you’re so right, then it’s not worth taking out in the first place.
- apalerwuss 2y ago
  Yes exactly this -- thank you for getting my point, I'm a little tired of internet people misunderstanding things. I'm not even disputing that Mozilla is trying to pull a fast one on all of us, I'm purely questioning the framing by the "journalist" this post links to. To be taken seriously, quote the whole thing -- if it really is a case that the last part of the sentence is meaningless, then leave that in your quote, and address that in your wittering diatribe, explaining to all of us why it's meaningless. Without that, all I see is someone cherrypicking half-sentences and trying to mislead people.
  - mzajc 2y ago
    While I'm by no means defending Mozilla here, one quick look at the linked twitter user's history shows that generating rage and taking text out of context is their modus operandi and very much intentional. I'm bummed that out of all the posts on the topic, this is the one that gets to stay on the frontpage.
- 2y ago

dizhn 2y ago

That bit pretty much sounds like "by using the software you're agreeing to whatever"

immibis 2y ago
No it doesn't. Most businesses finish that sentence with "...for any purpose" not "... to help you navigate the web" It will still be interpreted to mean "...for any purpose" by Mozilla somehow.
- CjHuber 2y ago
  For me it sounds similar to Google‘s phrasing that they use to make people activate personalized ads: „used to deliver better, more helpful experiences“
- stonemetal12 2y ago
  How does them selling my data help me navigate the web?
  - dizhn 2y ago
    In their holier than thou attitude (shared by some here) you have to pay to do anything. And that's how you pay to use the web with their browser.
  - jeltz 2y ago
    By serving you relevant ads!
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  "...interact with online content" is pretty much all encompassing.
simpaticoder 2y ago
Yes and this phrasing is used in many other products, like credit cards. Additionally, the fact that the phrasing can be interpreted as such means that it will be interpreted as such and so makes Mozilla's new Terms unacceptable to anyone who values their privacy or data.

belorn 2y ago

Im fully on board that people should try to include or link as much of a story they can so that I can form my own opinion. There are way too many times that I read a reasonable take, then you read the original source, only to find that the reasonable take is completely off base. In this case I don't have the reaction, but I will agree that in general its a good idea to include more rather than less. The redacted part here looks to be a GDPR boilerplate for consent. GDRP require consent to be specific. In order to do so the lawyers of Mozilla seems to have used industry standard phrasing to comply with the law, such as "to help you navigate, enhance experience, and interact with {INSERT SERVICE/PRODUCT}". For those with some interest in legal history, there is similar stories in other boilerplate texts that consumer get exposed to. I always find the background to the WARRANTY DISCLAIMER text to have a fairly funny historical background that is a few centuries old legal case regarding a mill axle. The current form we see now was created as the first example in a list from US regulation guidelines (which reference the mill axle case). A company can use any other form given in that guideline, but as it happens, everyone just jumped on the first example, slapped it onto stuff and shipped it. Lawyers know it is valid for US trade regulation and that was apparently enough for the rest of the world.

fergie 2y ago

You are kind of answering your own question here...

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago

I generally wait before jumping on the outrage-train for this reason, but two things stand out: - Mozilla explicitly deleting "we don't sell your data" statements across their documentation - Following up to criticism that the statement is vague, bullshitty and open to interpretation with statements that are even more vague, bullshitty and open to interpretation. By now, they've had time to notice that something is not right and that they need to make a clear statement, and they haven't taken the opportunity.

nusl 2y ago
They didn't delete it. Go to the github diff they reference and check. It's still there. They just removed it from one of the JSON files but people here aren't actually checking facts, they're just jumping on the hate train. See: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#diff-5c93e7e7cbfacf0d6a8b3bc6d46b345019653051089e00d6fe5e09a531a79442R70 https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...
- olyjohn 2y ago
  People love to hate Firefox. Reinforces their reasons for using the shiny big brands.
  - gunsle 2y ago
    at this point, it’s Mozilla that loves to hate Firefox and its users, not Firefox users themselves
- crtasm 2y ago
  So where is that paragraph found on their website? The relevant section isn't what you linked to - scroll down to the change in structured-data-firefox-faq.html Here is the previous version of the FAQ: https://web.archive.org/web/20250128115051/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250128115051/https://www.mozil... Here it is now: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/faq/ All three statements about not selling your personal data are gone.

binary132 2y ago

I can’t take people seriously who think the little frilly PR bandaids that companies slap on these types of statements mean much of anything at all. For example, “we promise”.

theamk 2y ago

are you replying to wrong post? the linked tweet says: > Mozilla has just deleted the following: > “Does Firefox sell your personal data?” > “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. " That tweet is 100% correct, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209001 for two links, all references to "not selling personal data" are gone. There is no missing context or truncation here, and this says nothing about terms-of-use (except commit message but that's immaterial)

mijoharas 2y ago

So, what do you read the end of that sentence mean? Because the way I read it is worse: > to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox." I don't read that as a caveat, so I'm assuming it means something different to you. To reword slightly and hopefully show how that sentence is coming across to me: > As you have indicated by using Firefox you have given us the right to...