15 ms·

A Comment on Mozilla's Policy Changes

140 points by MrAlex94 2y ago

bloopernova 2y ago
Can anyone comment on the difference between Waterfox and Librewolf?
- weikju 2y ago
  I was going to comment that one of them (WaterFox) has a shady sponsor (System1, an advertising company) but it seems WaterFox has been an independent project again since 2023 [0] [0] https://avoidthehack.com/review-waterfox-browser https://avoidthehack.com/review-waterfox-browser
  - MrAlex94 2y ago
    While branding System1 an adtech company is correct, its bread and butter [at the time] was search aggregation and in effect contextual advertising (System1 didn't want to deal with PII). The ownership made a lot of sense, and of course having a view inside the company, I could see how everything worked. It was impossible to get that point across, especially as S1 wanted to have the final say on what was said. A lot of heartache all across the board could've been saved by just being able to say things as a matter of fact. But unfortunately people jump to conclusions, don't have good faith discussions and loved just get involved in internet drama.
- JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
  I never used Waterfox but Librewolf seems to have more stricts settings, whereas people describe Waterfox as being closer to Firefox. Librewolf has sensible but annoying default settings that you have to change. For example, cookies are deleted when quitting, or you can't have night mode out of the box since it could be a privacy issue. IMHO it's a cleaner Firefox and I enjoy it so far.
  - replete 2y ago
    I contributed UX for a 'save cookies for this site' dropdown feature in the navbar, a poc was made which looked good, but it got lost in other work and eventually didn't land in a release that I'm aware of. Shame because that one feature would make it practical to use the recommended clear cookies behavior by default except for particular sites and overall boost everyone's privacy and security because I'm pretty sure most people turn it off after getting sick of logging in. After a couple of months I went back to Firefox and hardened it making it basically the same as LF but not being a month behind in updates. I guess I'll revisit the project now
    - QuinnyPig 2y ago
      Are you aware of any browser / extension that enables this behavior? It sounds like the privacy grail for some of us.
      - anotherevan 2y ago
        Cookie Autodelete is probably close to what you want. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode...
      - replete 2y ago
        Oh, I just checked Librewolf and the feature actually is there now when you click the padlock. `LibreWolf: Always store cookies/data for this site` That's great, and I think I will now switch over
  - spudlyo 2y ago
    I created a post[0] on /r/LibreWolf to discuss usability tweaks for new LibreWolf users who might not know all the ins and outs of the more strict settings. [0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/comments/1j0ckr9/recent_firefox_refugees/ https://old.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/comments/1j0ckr9/recent_f...
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
Their last message says it all: > We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses The text is confusing on purpose and mixes Firefox, the Mozilla Services (Sync maybe? That's it?), AI, and their new AD-platform (without mentioning the last two). And why are they talking about a license when it's a ToS? Everything is confusing about it, even their answers. > to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible The very same thing they did for more than 20 year without such a ToS? Why now? I think it's about AI and ads but I'm sure they are smarter than me and will explain everything in precise details to clear up such a "big confusion." > we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox to perform your searches That's a fucking lie of course. They did that last year without any issue. You can get the text from the search box (like mSearchBox->getText() in C++, wow I'm a Mozilla engineer), and put that in the URL of my favorite search engine as part of the query. > or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice I don't care about the ownership, I want to know why, why now, and I want them to explain all the details that definitely do NOT appear in their Privacy Notice. My conclusion is that they are moving away from Firefox for some reason, they pretended to fire the last CEO which keeps on working on the AI, and they want a lot of information like everyone else which is difficult when you're supposed to be the open-source knight of privacy. But I'm only typing that because I am bitter and have already moved on. They fucked with us too many times, I don't care anymore even if the only alternative left was Links.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  I hate it when companies say “there’s been some confusion about…” There hasn’t been confusion. There’s almost never confusion. Making an announcement requires clear communication. If reasonable people are interpreting their communication in a way they didn’t intend, it isn’t confusion, they just miscommunicated at best.
thorw93040494 2y ago
》This situation reveals a recurring issue in how Mozilla communicates with its user base Mozilla is very clear at its communication! They even got new leadership and rebranded recently! Their updated Privacy Policy is also very clear! Maybe they had not implement everything yet, but they are heading in clear direction. And real hammer will come in a few months, if they lose deal with Google! At this point Mozilla is a toxic organization when it comes to privacy, something like Google with Chrome. Dismissing it as a "communication issue" is not sufficient! Waterfox needs clear separation from Mozilla!
transcriptase 2y ago
Someone needs to write a book on the how and why Mozilla became whatever the hell it is now, and why they would drop the ball so hard on Firefox while jumping from one unsustainable idea nobody wants to another. Why is there no adult in the room to say no to the nonsense and direct resources towards the one thing people actually do want?
- s_dev 2y ago
  Getting rid of Brendan Eich was a bad idea in hindsight. Yes he supported Prop 8 and people didn't like his political views but given the current US climate that seems all very tame in comparison and I'm not sure exactly how that conflicts with running a Web Browser development agency.
  - edent 2y ago
    Seán, how do you feel about the sign "No Irish Need Apply"? Would you be happy working for a company where the boss pays campaigners who want to discriminate against you? If not, you can perhaps see why people didn't want Eich's bigotry around their project.
    - s_dev 2y ago
      Can you confirm if that was the case at Mozilla? They actively discriminated against hiring gay people? From what I've heard that's not true at all. I think a closer analogy is no boss or CEO will likely have political views that match my own and I tolerate that and will work for such people.
      - edent 2y ago
        What is "active" discrimination? When the CEO is donating to causes which directly discriminate against you - would you apply to work there?
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    Lots of companies have political silliness going on inside them but are still able to produce good products. For example - the CCP stuff at Bytedance, the Cheobol stuff at Samsung and the various stuff at Google.
amazingamazing 2y ago
[flagged]
- wat10000 2y ago
  Why do we always have to blame the people who want to make things better? Why can’t we blame Eich for it based on his political activism trying to hurt his employees and users? Or the church for teaching Eich that their sexual hangups are more important than being good to people?
  - card_zero 2y ago
    "Did you know, the Catholic church is to blame for Firefox getting ready to sell user data?" The theory has a certain chaotic pizzazz but I'm not sure I could convince anyone.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      And yet there’s just as much connection to them as to the people who pushed to get Eich removed.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    No one can pass silly purity tests. There are people who unironically believe that if you believe in money you are a bad person and are oppressing them. Just like it would be silly for someone to blame you for being on this website founded by someone who has some questionable views, if you go looking. Or, for using this very much American website, an America that's becoming increasingly hostile. Is your participation here an implicit agreement with the current administration? Perhaps not before, but now that you've read this comment one could argue your continued participation makes you complicit. You show me someone's views and associations and I can make them a devil.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      Thinking that you should treat people well regardless of which genitals they prefer is not a “silly purity test,” it’s basic decency, at least in this millennium.
terom 2y ago
Wait, Mozilla is banning the use of their Firefox browser for porn? That's going to hurt adoption. What's with the mixup of their browser and services policies? [1] 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. [2] 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, [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you-are-responsible-for-the-consequences-of-your-use-of-firefox https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you... [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/
- ziddoap 2y ago
  That, or some variant of that, has been there for ages. 2018: https://web.archive.org/web/20181223004526/http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ https://web.archive.org/web/20181223004526/http://www.mozill... Wording was slightly different earlier than that, e.g. 2015: "Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that: [...] Is inappropriate such as obscene or pornographic materials, graphic depictions of sexuality or violence, or images that exploit or harm children" https://web.archive.org/web/20150331013034/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150331013034/https://www.mozil...
  - thorw93040494 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - terom 2y ago
    Yeah, and that makes sense in the context of an acceptable use policy for Mozilla services that are not your use of the Firefox browser. But the same AUP for the services is now explicitly referenced in the TOS for the browser. How are you supposed to read it - the AUP only applies to your use of the browser to access the services? Isn't that already implicit if you're using the services? Surely it can't be attempting to apply the services AUP to any non-service use of the browser? Very confusing, it seems badly written to me. Same thing with the "Some Services in Firefox Require a Mozilla Account" and then the "Termination" with a notification to the (optional) account. Somewhat disconcerting. [1] Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. If we decide to suspend or end your access, we will try to notify you at the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#mozilla-can-update-or-terminate-this-agreement https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#moz...
lamename 2y ago
Whats the best casual (non Tor) browser these days? Brave? Opera?
- kennysoona 2y ago
  Librewolf or Ungoogled Chromium with uBlock.
  - PrayagS 2y ago
    Ungoogled Chromium removes those pesky manifestv3 changes as well? The ones which make uBlock basically non-functional.
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      I don't think so, but in practice when running uBlock on Chrome I still don't see ads. It's less efficient under the surface but the user experience hasn't changed significantly.
- kome 2y ago
  Firefox, Vivaldi
- 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  Firefox of course. It has the most add-ons, most compatibility/support with other sites, services, software. And it has fewer bugs than newer browsers. If you just want a general purpose browser, Firefox is it. Chrome is always an option too, and they certainly have some useful extra features, but they'll also remove support for things if it conflicts with Daddy Alphabet.
kennysoona 2y ago
Man, Waterfox huh. I used to use that, but knowing it's owned by a marketing company and seeing development kind of lack behind Librewolf, there didn't seem to be much reason to use it anymore. However, being able to open a new private or tor tab in the same window as a normal tab is pretty nice.
- MrAlex94 2y ago
  Waterfox is independent again. Also some comments on System1: https://phanpy.social/#/mastodon.social/s/114080867102764721 https://phanpy.social/#/mastodon.social/s/114080867102764721
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    > Waterfox is independent again. Oh, nice! I might check it out again at some point. Also, are you the author per chance? If so, really nice work!
  - krunck 2y ago
    https://www.waterfox.net/blog/a-new-chapter-for-waterfox/ https://www.waterfox.net/blog/a-new-chapter-for-waterfox/
  - spudlyo 2y ago
    Does the stink of association every truly wear off though?
debacle 2y ago
Mozilla acts like a corporation and not a non-profit. There is no humility or grace in their communication.
- kibwen 2y ago
  Mozilla is both a non-profit foundation and also a corporation. You aren't legally allowed to use charitable donations to fund web browser development, so the corporation has to handle that.
  - inetknght 2y ago
    > You aren't legally allowed to use charitable donations to fund web browser development, so the corporation has to handle that. If the charity is a non-profit specifically for development of a non-profit web browser, what's the problem?
    - kibwen 2y ago
      That's not how charities work as a legal construct. The point of incorporating as a charity is that it makes you exempt from taxes. Obviously the government that collects taxes wants to make sure that every corporation doesn't incorporate as a charity solely to avoid taxes, so it places strict limits on what you're allowed to do with charitable donations. The Mozilla Foundation (as distinct from the Mozilla Corporation) is specifically a 501(c)(3) charity under US law. That means it can use its funds for the following: "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Notably, developing a free web browser is not one of the charitable activities that the IRS recognizes.
rererereferred 2y ago
> Browsers without formal governance may offer appealing features or privacy claims, but users have little recourse if those promises are broken. There’s no entity to hold accountable, no legal framework within which to address grievances, and often no transparency about decision-making processes. Do we get any of those with Mozilla? They can change their ToC whenever they want and keep adding things that users don't want. I don't think they are much better than a random developer building their own fork.
gortok 2y ago
While waterfax highlights a problematic section of Mozilla's change: > 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. (Emphasis mine) And they mention that we need to see the context behind this change -- but what they don't to -- is point out that the update clarification makes the whole situation even more problematic than it was previously. The private notice indicates they use data to: 1. To provide and improve search functionality 2. To serve relevant content and advertising on Firefox New Tab 3. To provide Mozilla accounts 4. To provide AI Chatbots 5. To provide Review Checker, including serving sponsored content 6. To provide and enable add-ons (addons.mozilla.org) 7. To maintain and improve features, performance and stability 8. To improve security 9. To understand usage of Firefox 10. To market our services 11. To pseudonymize, de-identify, aggregate or anonymize data 12. To communicate with you 13. To comply with applicable laws, and identify and prevent harmful, unauthorized or illegal activity 1,2,4,5,10 are problematic. We don't want those things. Mozilla wants those things. The problem isn't the lack of context behind the changes, the problem is Mozilla wants to be able to use our 'input' data for whatever they want, and I don't want them to. They said they're the privacy focused browser; and they're not. That's a lie. I moved from Chrome to Firefox precisely because I couldn't trust Google. Now I can't trust Firefox.
- throw_a_grenade 2y ago
  13 is no less problematic, because there's no explantion who decides what activity is authorized and harmless. It was supposed to be User's Agent, dammit.
jdoe2025 2y ago
The correct word for all of the recent changes is a result of the fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what constitutes acceptable use is censorship. In the United States of America, freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution. That means you can use language or show content that I may find offensive. I may do the same for you. My choice is whether or not I wish to view it or permit my non-adult children to view it. This is not the vendor's prerogative; it is my responsibility as a parent. Mozilla's "terms and conditions" mean that fear has taken hold. Freedom is hard. Allowing a vendor to restrict use that infringes on a basic right is unacceptable. In the final analysis, their terms of use are probably unenforceable. Think about it. What are they going to do? Stop me and everyone else from sharing cute baby pictures? Ones in our grandparents' scrapbooks?
- tempodox 2y ago
  The Constitution only protects you from the government, it doesn't bind individuals or companies. The government cannot make laws that take away your freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean other people or companies are legally obligated to let you say whatever you want on their turf.
  - halJordan 2y ago
    It does though. I get where you're coming from but thats a naive interpretation of a partial set of facts. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr does establish that free speech protection can be used against other private citizens
    - rascul 2y ago
      That court found that the California Constitution protected the free speech in that case. Not the US Constitution, which wouldn't protect the free speech in that case
  - jdoe2025 2y ago
    Yes, but a browser is like a wirephoto. The recipient gets an exact copy of the original -- not retouched. Spelling errors, bad grammar, "warts and all." The browser is supposed to be transparent -- what you send is what I see. How I react is up to me. It is not up to the intervening service to add or remove content. This is what the internet was intended to be.
koolala 2y ago
Does Waterfox sell your data like Firefox? I hate the Mozilla 'clarification' because they gave no example. The only information I type into Firefox is using websites. Them being 100% vague makes it feel even worse.
- bluGill 2y ago
  They sell only the data you use via their search partners. If you go direct to the search website they don't sell that data.
  - koolala 2y ago
    How is that not phishing? They made the URL bar a search bar so they can steal and sell everyone's Google search history?
8bitsrule 2y ago
FF users might want to take look at KDE's Falkon. It's come a long way - fast and solid. >can be installed on Windows 7 or newer as well as Linux from the repositories, as a flatpak and as a snap. https://userbase.kde.org/Falkon https://userbase.kde.org/Falkon
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

140 points by MrAlex94 2y ago

bloopernova 2y ago

Can anyone comment on the difference between Waterfox and Librewolf?

weikju 2y ago
I was going to comment that one of them (WaterFox) has a shady sponsor (System1, an advertising company) but it seems WaterFox has been an independent project again since 2023 [0] [0] https://avoidthehack.com/review-waterfox-browser https://avoidthehack.com/review-waterfox-browser
- MrAlex94 2y ago
  While branding System1 an adtech company is correct, its bread and butter [at the time] was search aggregation and in effect contextual advertising (System1 didn't want to deal with PII). The ownership made a lot of sense, and of course having a view inside the company, I could see how everything worked. It was impossible to get that point across, especially as S1 wanted to have the final say on what was said. A lot of heartache all across the board could've been saved by just being able to say things as a matter of fact. But unfortunately people jump to conclusions, don't have good faith discussions and loved just get involved in internet drama.
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
I never used Waterfox but Librewolf seems to have more stricts settings, whereas people describe Waterfox as being closer to Firefox. Librewolf has sensible but annoying default settings that you have to change. For example, cookies are deleted when quitting, or you can't have night mode out of the box since it could be a privacy issue. IMHO it's a cleaner Firefox and I enjoy it so far.
- replete 2y ago
  I contributed UX for a 'save cookies for this site' dropdown feature in the navbar, a poc was made which looked good, but it got lost in other work and eventually didn't land in a release that I'm aware of. Shame because that one feature would make it practical to use the recommended clear cookies behavior by default except for particular sites and overall boost everyone's privacy and security because I'm pretty sure most people turn it off after getting sick of logging in. After a couple of months I went back to Firefox and hardened it making it basically the same as LF but not being a month behind in updates. I guess I'll revisit the project now
  - QuinnyPig 2y ago
    Are you aware of any browser / extension that enables this behavior? It sounds like the privacy grail for some of us.
    - anotherevan 2y ago
      Cookie Autodelete is probably close to what you want. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode...
    - replete 2y ago
      Oh, I just checked Librewolf and the feature actually is there now when you click the padlock. `LibreWolf: Always store cookies/data for this site` That's great, and I think I will now switch over
- spudlyo 2y ago
  I created a post[0] on /r/LibreWolf to discuss usability tweaks for new LibreWolf users who might not know all the ins and outs of the more strict settings. [0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/comments/1j0ckr9/recent_firefox_refugees/ https://old.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/comments/1j0ckr9/recent_f...

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago

Their last message says it all: > We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses The text is confusing on purpose and mixes Firefox, the Mozilla Services (Sync maybe? That's it?), AI, and their new AD-platform (without mentioning the last two). And why are they talking about a license when it's a ToS? Everything is confusing about it, even their answers. > to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible The very same thing they did for more than 20 year without such a ToS? Why now? I think it's about AI and ads but I'm sure they are smarter than me and will explain everything in precise details to clear up such a "big confusion." > we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox to perform your searches That's a fucking lie of course. They did that last year without any issue. You can get the text from the search box (like mSearchBox->getText() in C++, wow I'm a Mozilla engineer), and put that in the URL of my favorite search engine as part of the query. > or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice I don't care about the ownership, I want to know why, why now, and I want them to explain all the details that definitely do NOT appear in their Privacy Notice. My conclusion is that they are moving away from Firefox for some reason, they pretended to fire the last CEO which keeps on working on the AI, and they want a lot of information like everyone else which is difficult when you're supposed to be the open-source knight of privacy. But I'm only typing that because I am bitter and have already moved on. They fucked with us too many times, I don't care anymore even if the only alternative left was Links.

bee_rider 2y ago
I hate it when companies say “there’s been some confusion about…” There hasn’t been confusion. There’s almost never confusion. Making an announcement requires clear communication. If reasonable people are interpreting their communication in a way they didn’t intend, it isn’t confusion, they just miscommunicated at best.

thorw93040494 2y ago

》This situation reveals a recurring issue in how Mozilla communicates with its user base Mozilla is very clear at its communication! They even got new leadership and rebranded recently! Their updated Privacy Policy is also very clear! Maybe they had not implement everything yet, but they are heading in clear direction. And real hammer will come in a few months, if they lose deal with Google! At this point Mozilla is a toxic organization when it comes to privacy, something like Google with Chrome. Dismissing it as a "communication issue" is not sufficient! Waterfox needs clear separation from Mozilla!

transcriptase 2y ago

Someone needs to write a book on the how and why Mozilla became whatever the hell it is now, and why they would drop the ball so hard on Firefox while jumping from one unsustainable idea nobody wants to another. Why is there no adult in the room to say no to the nonsense and direct resources towards the one thing people actually do want?

s_dev 2y ago
Getting rid of Brendan Eich was a bad idea in hindsight. Yes he supported Prop 8 and people didn't like his political views but given the current US climate that seems all very tame in comparison and I'm not sure exactly how that conflicts with running a Web Browser development agency.
- edent 2y ago
  Seán, how do you feel about the sign "No Irish Need Apply"? Would you be happy working for a company where the boss pays campaigners who want to discriminate against you? If not, you can perhaps see why people didn't want Eich's bigotry around their project.
  - s_dev 2y ago
    Can you confirm if that was the case at Mozilla? They actively discriminated against hiring gay people? From what I've heard that's not true at all. I think a closer analogy is no boss or CEO will likely have political views that match my own and I tolerate that and will work for such people.
    - edent 2y ago
      What is "active" discrimination? When the CEO is donating to causes which directly discriminate against you - would you apply to work there?
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  Lots of companies have political silliness going on inside them but are still able to produce good products. For example - the CCP stuff at Bytedance, the Cheobol stuff at Samsung and the various stuff at Google.

amazingamazing 2y ago

[flagged]

wat10000 2y ago
Why do we always have to blame the people who want to make things better? Why can’t we blame Eich for it based on his political activism trying to hurt his employees and users? Or the church for teaching Eich that their sexual hangups are more important than being good to people?
- card_zero 2y ago
  "Did you know, the Catholic church is to blame for Firefox getting ready to sell user data?" The theory has a certain chaotic pizzazz but I'm not sure I could convince anyone.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    And yet there’s just as much connection to them as to the people who pushed to get Eich removed.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  No one can pass silly purity tests. There are people who unironically believe that if you believe in money you are a bad person and are oppressing them. Just like it would be silly for someone to blame you for being on this website founded by someone who has some questionable views, if you go looking. Or, for using this very much American website, an America that's becoming increasingly hostile. Is your participation here an implicit agreement with the current administration? Perhaps not before, but now that you've read this comment one could argue your continued participation makes you complicit. You show me someone's views and associations and I can make them a devil.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Thinking that you should treat people well regardless of which genitals they prefer is not a “silly purity test,” it’s basic decency, at least in this millennium.

terom 2y ago

Wait, Mozilla is banning the use of their Firefox browser for porn? That's going to hurt adoption. What's with the mixup of their browser and services policies? [1] 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. [2] 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, [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you-are-responsible-for-the-consequences-of-your-use-of-firefox https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#you... [2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/

ziddoap 2y ago
That, or some variant of that, has been there for ages. 2018: https://web.archive.org/web/20181223004526/http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ https://web.archive.org/web/20181223004526/http://www.mozill... Wording was slightly different earlier than that, e.g. 2015: "Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that: [...] Is inappropriate such as obscene or pornographic materials, graphic depictions of sexuality or violence, or images that exploit or harm children" https://web.archive.org/web/20150331013034/https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/acceptable-use/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150331013034/https://www.mozil...
- thorw93040494 2y ago
  [flagged]
- terom 2y ago
  Yeah, and that makes sense in the context of an acceptable use policy for Mozilla services that are not your use of the Firefox browser. But the same AUP for the services is now explicitly referenced in the TOS for the browser. How are you supposed to read it - the AUP only applies to your use of the browser to access the services? Isn't that already implicit if you're using the services? Surely it can't be attempting to apply the services AUP to any non-service use of the browser? Very confusing, it seems badly written to me. Same thing with the "Some Services in Firefox Require a Mozilla Account" and then the "Termination" with a notification to the (optional) account. Somewhat disconcerting. [1] Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. If we decide to suspend or end your access, we will try to notify you at the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#mozilla-can-update-or-terminate-this-agreement https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox/#moz...

lamename 2y ago

Whats the best casual (non Tor) browser these days? Brave? Opera?

kennysoona 2y ago
Librewolf or Ungoogled Chromium with uBlock.
- PrayagS 2y ago
  Ungoogled Chromium removes those pesky manifestv3 changes as well? The ones which make uBlock basically non-functional.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    I don't think so, but in practice when running uBlock on Chrome I still don't see ads. It's less efficient under the surface but the user experience hasn't changed significantly.
kome 2y ago
Firefox, Vivaldi
0xbadcafebee 2y ago
Firefox of course. It has the most add-ons, most compatibility/support with other sites, services, software. And it has fewer bugs than newer browsers. If you just want a general purpose browser, Firefox is it. Chrome is always an option too, and they certainly have some useful extra features, but they'll also remove support for things if it conflicts with Daddy Alphabet.

kennysoona 2y ago

Man, Waterfox huh. I used to use that, but knowing it's owned by a marketing company and seeing development kind of lack behind Librewolf, there didn't seem to be much reason to use it anymore. However, being able to open a new private or tor tab in the same window as a normal tab is pretty nice.

MrAlex94 2y ago
Waterfox is independent again. Also some comments on System1: https://phanpy.social/#/mastodon.social/s/114080867102764721 https://phanpy.social/#/mastodon.social/s/114080867102764721
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > Waterfox is independent again. Oh, nice! I might check it out again at some point. Also, are you the author per chance? If so, really nice work!
- krunck 2y ago
  https://www.waterfox.net/blog/a-new-chapter-for-waterfox/ https://www.waterfox.net/blog/a-new-chapter-for-waterfox/
- spudlyo 2y ago
  Does the stink of association every truly wear off though?

debacle 2y ago

Mozilla acts like a corporation and not a non-profit. There is no humility or grace in their communication.

kibwen 2y ago
Mozilla is both a non-profit foundation and also a corporation. You aren't legally allowed to use charitable donations to fund web browser development, so the corporation has to handle that.
- inetknght 2y ago
  > You aren't legally allowed to use charitable donations to fund web browser development, so the corporation has to handle that. If the charity is a non-profit specifically for development of a non-profit web browser, what's the problem?
  - kibwen 2y ago
    That's not how charities work as a legal construct. The point of incorporating as a charity is that it makes you exempt from taxes. Obviously the government that collects taxes wants to make sure that every corporation doesn't incorporate as a charity solely to avoid taxes, so it places strict limits on what you're allowed to do with charitable donations. The Mozilla Foundation (as distinct from the Mozilla Corporation) is specifically a 501(c)(3) charity under US law. That means it can use its funds for the following: "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Notably, developing a free web browser is not one of the charitable activities that the IRS recognizes.

rererereferred 2y ago

> Browsers without formal governance may offer appealing features or privacy claims, but users have little recourse if those promises are broken. There’s no entity to hold accountable, no legal framework within which to address grievances, and often no transparency about decision-making processes. Do we get any of those with Mozilla? They can change their ToC whenever they want and keep adding things that users don't want. I don't think they are much better than a random developer building their own fork.

gortok 2y ago

While waterfax highlights a problematic section of Mozilla's change: > 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. (Emphasis mine) And they mention that we need to see the context behind this change -- but what they don't to -- is point out that the update clarification makes the whole situation even more problematic than it was previously. The private notice indicates they use data to: 1. To provide and improve search functionality 2. To serve relevant content and advertising on Firefox New Tab 3. To provide Mozilla accounts 4. To provide AI Chatbots 5. To provide Review Checker, including serving sponsored content 6. To provide and enable add-ons (addons.mozilla.org) 7. To maintain and improve features, performance and stability 8. To improve security 9. To understand usage of Firefox 10. To market our services 11. To pseudonymize, de-identify, aggregate or anonymize data 12. To communicate with you 13. To comply with applicable laws, and identify and prevent harmful, unauthorized or illegal activity 1,2,4,5,10 are problematic. We don't want those things. Mozilla wants those things. The problem isn't the lack of context behind the changes, the problem is Mozilla wants to be able to use our 'input' data for whatever they want, and I don't want them to. They said they're the privacy focused browser; and they're not. That's a lie. I moved from Chrome to Firefox precisely because I couldn't trust Google. Now I can't trust Firefox.

throw_a_grenade 2y ago
13 is no less problematic, because there's no explantion who decides what activity is authorized and harmless. It was supposed to be User's Agent, dammit.

jdoe2025 2y ago

The correct word for all of the recent changes is a result of the fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what constitutes acceptable use is censorship. In the United States of America, freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution. That means you can use language or show content that I may find offensive. I may do the same for you. My choice is whether or not I wish to view it or permit my non-adult children to view it. This is not the vendor's prerogative; it is my responsibility as a parent. Mozilla's "terms and conditions" mean that fear has taken hold. Freedom is hard. Allowing a vendor to restrict use that infringes on a basic right is unacceptable. In the final analysis, their terms of use are probably unenforceable. Think about it. What are they going to do? Stop me and everyone else from sharing cute baby pictures? Ones in our grandparents' scrapbooks?

tempodox 2y ago
The Constitution only protects you from the government, it doesn't bind individuals or companies. The government cannot make laws that take away your freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean other people or companies are legally obligated to let you say whatever you want on their turf.
- halJordan 2y ago
  It does though. I get where you're coming from but thats a naive interpretation of a partial set of facts. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr does establish that free speech protection can be used against other private citizens
  - rascul 2y ago
    That court found that the California Constitution protected the free speech in that case. Not the US Constitution, which wouldn't protect the free speech in that case
- jdoe2025 2y ago
  Yes, but a browser is like a wirephoto. The recipient gets an exact copy of the original -- not retouched. Spelling errors, bad grammar, "warts and all." The browser is supposed to be transparent -- what you send is what I see. How I react is up to me. It is not up to the intervening service to add or remove content. This is what the internet was intended to be.

koolala 2y ago

Does Waterfox sell your data like Firefox? I hate the Mozilla 'clarification' because they gave no example. The only information I type into Firefox is using websites. Them being 100% vague makes it feel even worse.

bluGill 2y ago
They sell only the data you use via their search partners. If you go direct to the search website they don't sell that data.
- koolala 2y ago
  How is that not phishing? They made the URL bar a search bar so they can steal and sell everyone's Google search history?

8bitsrule 2y ago

FF users might want to take look at KDE's Falkon. It's come a long way - fast and solid. >can be installed on Windows 7 or newer as well as Linux from the repositories, as a flatpak and as a snap. https://userbase.kde.org/Falkon https://userbase.kde.org/Falkon

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]