30 ms·

An update on Mozilla's terms of use for Firefox

596 points by ReadCarlBarks 2y ago

plipt 2y ago
Is Google paying Mozilla to sabotage themselves? Stay in business, so monopoly arguments can be brushed aside. But slowly erode privacy on the internet. And slowly lose user base.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  They just lost a monopoly case because they paid Mozilla all that money, this theory has always made little sense and sticking to it now makes even less.
  - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
    In fact, one could argue that Google losing its case is what caused this. Google provided a substantial amount of revenue to Mozilla. With that now gone, new ways(TM) to get money are needed.
    - Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
      They really don’t need more revenue. They are nominally a not-for-profit and in 2023, they had 250 million cash and a billion more in investments. They’ve taken billions of dollars from Google since 2005, and now they’re turning their back on user privacy.
      - boomboomsubban 2y ago
        They spend well over 200 million a year in software development, and they've made those investments presumably expecting this revenue issue. Building a browser is expensive, that's why there's only two of them. Even Microsoft considered it too expensive to continue.
        Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
        I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser. However, Microsoft’s mission is profits for shareholders so their calculus ought to be different than Mozilla’s. It makes sense for a profit-seeking entity to surrender if they don’t see a path for a return on the investment, not so for Mozilla.
        boomboomsubban 2y ago
        >I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser. Then why post strong comments about how much funding Mozilla needs? The calculus is very different. IE could be developed at a 100% loss for the company if it still otherwise helped Microsoft, which is what happened. Chrome operates similarly. Firefox needs to generate enough money to sustain itself indefinitely. So when there are signs their main source of funding may vanish, they need to keep a war chest together and have investments to weather any oncoming storm. Otherwise they just collapse.
        Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
        Because they’ve had twenty years to figure out how to generate sustainable revenue while being propped up by Google. Mozilla got themselves into this situation, why should their users overlook the removal of the only real advantage of Firefox? They _should_ collapse if the only way for them to continue is to abandon their mission. That much revenue from a single source was always a significant vulnerability, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address. Poor leadership and wasteful spending is the problem, not revenue.
        boomboomsubban 2y ago
        >, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address. My recollection is of leadership repeatedly trying to address it, generally for the community to get furious at them and say they shouldn't remotely think of anything except Firefox. If you're full of methods for Firefox to magically generate several hundred million dollars a year, I believe they're still looking for a new CEO. Be warned though, if you take any of that money for yourself the community will eternally scorn you.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    that's true, but now google will appeal it and with the new regime in place they will withdraw the case and give google a win.
- asddubs 2y ago
  they also couldn't have timed this better with the manifestv3 thing
- slig 2y ago
  Yes, of course. If Mozilla decided to do what other user here suggested (`spend $15M on a team of 20+ highly competent full time developers for Firefox, put $450M into a trust to fund future development`) I doubt that the 500M/year would continue flowing.
blibble 2y ago
and they continue to dig themselves a bigger hole "we are selling your data, not necessarily anonymised, even though a month ago we had a text on our website said we NEVER would"
move-on-by 2y ago
> The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” THANK YOU California for this definition of selling data, which is accurate, and representative of what people think of when discussions of selling data come up. > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners Ok, so that’s pretty straightforward. According to CA and other states Mozilla is collecting and selling your data. Which is exactly what everyone is upset about and means exactly what everyone thought it meant.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  > in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” JFC, it's funny they try to call this out as some kind of a "weird" definition when that's just... what selling is.
  - hedora 2y ago
    Usually, when I point out that Google sells your data and there’s no possible way to actually opt out, someone replies to say that’s not true, then defines “sell” in some way that most people would disagree with.
  - WD-42 2y ago
    I actually laughed out loud at this. “We can’t say we don’t sell your data because some places have definitions of “sell” that are legally difficult to interpret, for example”: <completely unambiguous definition of selling follows>
    - drivingmenuts 2y ago
      That was in California. Presumably, it's worded somewhat differently, and with different intent, elsewhere. 50 states, plus Federal laws, and all the other countries of the world and internal jurisdictions is how many possible variations? And before you say "Yeah, but they all mean mostly the same thing", remember it's lawyers we're dealing with, who will happily charge large sums of money arguing over misplaced punctuation and legislators who will happily take bribes from those same lawyers.
hysan 2y ago
This pretty much confirms that this is what everyone thought the change was about. So we get clarity, but no actual change in course from Mozilla. Good. We now know very clearly where Mozilla and Firefox stand on privacy.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  Yup. This is almost a year exactly after they announced a "pivot" to "privacy." At least the most useless, overpaid person in SV is finally gone and no longer collecting her $7M salary. Not like money has ever been a problem at Mozilla - they're sitting on over $1.5B in assets, $500M or so in cash alone. That's despite a plunging market share...
- wesapien 2y ago
  If one opted out of all the possible data collection and privacy related options, are they still able to collect your data? If yes, how does it work? Is this called client-side scanning?
  - st3fan 2y ago
    Yes. Any software you installed including your operating system can turn evil and copy anything off your drive. This doomsday scenario thinking really doesn’t help the discussion.
  - userbinator 2y ago
    Companies have been long concerned about exfiltration of data and ran MITM proxies to stop it, which ironically has been the target of propaganda about "privacy" by the browser makers. Every home network needs a MITM proxy too.
    - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
      "Every home network needs a MITM proxy too." I have been running one for long time now. I depend on it so much that I cannot imagine using the internet without it. It is much smaller and easier to compile than a graphical browser. Others will have different opinions but I personally remain skeptical that TLS provides internet users with more value than it provides so-called "tech" companies that profit from data collection, surveillance and online advertising services, and the CDNs that collaborate with them. While it can be used to protect a computer owner's sensitive data from eavesdroppers as it transits across the open internet, e.g., during "e-commerce", in practice TLS is used to conceal data exfiltration from the computer owner for commercial purposes by so-called "tech" companies. Not to mention the issue of "Certificate Authorities". IMO, this is analogous to the situation with Javascript. It has the potential to provide value to www users, e.g., as a language computer owners can use to extend and control a graphical browser,^1 but in practice it provides the most value to so-called tech "companies" that are using it to control _someone else's_ browser to allow unauthorised and/or concealed data collection and surveillance. 1. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bambax/hntitles/refs/heads/master/hntitles.user.js https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bambax/hntitles/refs/heads...
0manrho 2y ago
> in the way that most people think about “selling data” I quite frankly am opposed to any entity selling my data, in any way, for any reason, without my explicit consent because it implies you were taking my data in the first place, which is the core issue. It's my data. Not yours. Taking it (eg, telemetry) is what I object to. You selling it, I further object to. Stop. Without exception. To both. Period. The how and why of it does not matter. Worried about the breadth of the law opening you up to liability? Then stop chasing enshittification for your own gain. Don't collect the data in the first place. Its that easy.
- hiccuphippo 2y ago
  Not to mention the little market share they have is from people who are actively trying to avoid bullshit like that.
issafram 2y ago
this didn't make things better
Shank 2y ago
> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. I really struggle to understand what legal team believes this language is necessary in downloaded software. There is a lot of precedent for this kind of language in online hosted services, but not downloaded software. > This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. Yes, it’s a license. Nothing changes. There is no ambiguity about ownership in a perpetual nonexclusive worldwide license, but this doesn’t explain why this license is suddenly necessary now and wasn’t before. Clearly the legal team at Mozilla is struggling with multiple issues in this update. Why are these changes being made now, and what is driving them? Others have discussed the data sale issue, but I don’t see a reasonable explanation for the license issue, and the changing text doesn’t inspire confidence.
- MatthiasPortzel 2y ago
  > I really struggle to understand what legal team believes this language is necessary in downloaded software. Exactly. Even if nothing is changing at Mozilla, their legal team has invented a new interpretation of copyright law. That’s a huge deal from a legal perspective—Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc need to be rushing to add corresponding terms to their applications. Mozilla PR is dropping the ball completely by trying to sweep this under the rug as ‘standard legal boilerplate’ because it’s not a clause in any other application I’ve ever seen. Since I use FireFox at work, I don’t even have permission to give Mozilla a license to the content I create on the clock, so I will be switching browsers.
  - nativeit 2y ago
    Not for nothing, it is standard legal boilerplate. I just checked two randomly selected terms of service--one for ReadAI, the other for Google--and they both include a very similar clause with those exact parameters. That said, I'm not suggesting Mozilla isn't also being wildly hypocritical in their behavior, and hamfisted in their PR.
    - gtirloni 2y ago
betaby 2y ago
Time to move on. Mozilla lost latest pieces of relevancy. Apparently, half a billion dollars per year can't get a modern browser nowadays. At least in Mozilla case.
tofof 2y ago
While this is confirming that Mozilla is already outright selling data, it at least DOES provide clarity on the issues around the acceptible use policy. That language had been so broad that it forbade most use of the browser. For example, "send unsolicited communications" so no filing a bug report. "Deceive, mislead" so no playing Among Us. "Sell, purchase, or advertise illegal or controlled products or services" so no online refils of your antimigraine medication lasmiditan or your epilepsy medication (pregabalin) which are schedule V. "Collect or harvest personally identifiable information without permission. This includes, but is not limited to, account names and email addresses" so no browsing any forum where a username is displayed to you. And of course "access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence" that rules out watching the nightly news, stream PG-13 and R movies, to watch classic Looney Tunes cartoons, to play Fortnight, and on and on.
- matkoniecz 2y ago
  > "send unsolicited communications" so no filing a bug report why you think that filing bug reports in place inviting bug reports is "unsolicited communication"?
comex 2y ago
> Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP). But if the data was fully stripped of potentially identifying information, then it should not count as "personal information" under the California Consumer Privacy Act, therefore it should not trigger the "sale of personal information" requirement, regardless of how it's transmitted or what kind of compensation is involved. The CCPA defines "personal information" as follows: > “Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. (It also includes a list of examples [1], but the examples are conditional on the same "linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household" requirement.) So, which is it? Is the data deidentified or is it not? Is Mozilla just trying to reduce risk in case someone argues their deidentification isn't good enough? If so, I'd call that a cowardly move. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB874 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  I dunno, if legal recommends wording for your TOS you should probably listen to them.
  - winwang 2y ago
    Then comes the question: would it also obviously expand their domain of allowable actions to trespass on their users? Since that is a resounding "yes" and they also have the extremely obvious finance incentive to do so...
  - rendaw 2y ago
    Yes, so you claim you can do whatever you want with everything you can get your hands on and then social media blows up because it's batshit insane, but don't worry because you're _legally in the clear_. You're acting like they didn't have the 2nd option of just not selling the data so the current wording is accurate...
vitehozonage 2y ago
>there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar Mozilla should commit to stop doing anything like that. Then we can have a nice clear Terms of Use that promises to not sell data. I think that would alleviate community concerns.
Silhouette 2y ago
I'm sad and disappointed that simply charging a fair price in return for offering something of value - with no other strings attached - has become so out of fashion in tech world. Almost everyone running tech businesses seems to assume that subscriptions or data capitalism are the only way to make any money these days. But I have paid for good software in the past and I know plenty of indie developers who still sell software like a product and do OK with that model. Copies of great software like Firefox could surely be sold - for actual money - to the kind of people who value its independence, privacy, and user focus. Offer free security updates for some reasonable period similar to an LTS release. The web moves fast enough that a lot of people will want to buy upgrades quite regularly anyway just for the new features. Firefox appears to have close to 200M active users based on Mozilla's published data at https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity. If they could get 1/20 of those users to pay them an average of $10 per year - that's less than one month of a standard subscription to a major streaming service in most Western countries - then that's $100M/year in revenues. Based on the public financial statements that's on the same scale as their subscription and advertising revenue and their annual spend on development activities. Another possibility might be to hide some of the developer resources behind some token paywall. Almost everyone I know who works in web dev uses MDN regularly. Firefox dev tools have a lot of useful things about them. Then maybe you can even keep the main browser free and get some revenue from devs - who are mostly going to file it as a business expense anyway and whose employers benefit greatly from the continued existence and maintenance of these resources. Sure everyone would complain - just as everyone complains about paying a few bucks for a good text or graphics editor they use for hundreds or thousands of hours per year to make 1000x the asking price. But the value is obviously there to many people. I think a lot of Firefox users in particular would probably respect the transparent attempt to keep the lights on without compromising on the USPs that make Firefox attractive to those users in the first place.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  I think if they believed there would be enough people to justify charging for the software to make that model work, they would do it. But I don't think it's actually viable, I think the number of people that would pay for firefox is much lower than you think. Consider how many other similarly popular software programs charge small fees for their app... I can't even think of a single one. And you can only really charge for binaries, because as soon as one person gets the source, they can distribute it, and then they (or others) can make their own (free) binaries, and then why would anyone pay money anymore.
GNOMES 2y ago
I thought the initial wording/hype was around poorly phrased lawyer speak for "you give FF permission to interact (post/get requests) with a web page as a browser. Don't sue us". The whole some may consider it "legally selling your data" proves this is not just a Terms of Use change in good faith.
- layer8 2y ago
  Read again, they are addressing two unrelated wording changes in two separate documents.
hajile 2y ago
In what countries is this FAQ (removed in their PR) not seen as a legally-binding contract with all current Firefox users? It seems like a very clear contractual obligation in the US. { "@type": "Question", "name": "Does Firefox sell your personal data?", 1 "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "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. " 9+ } },
- mod50ack 2y ago
  Contracts in the US require consideration. A promise made in exchange for nothing is not a contract because there's no consideration.
  - hajile 2y ago
    That contract is made in exchange for your willingness to use their product and your willingness to use Mozilla is what gets them big contracts from companies like Google.
- cmcaleer 2y ago
  I don’t think there is a contract here in most parts of the world. But maybe there’s an argument to be made for promissory estoppel e.g. by a company who moved from IE to Firefox based on these promises and spent $x moving to Firefox and now have to spend $x moving to something else in response to new information? In reality there’ll probably be nothing from this, though I’d love to see companies get punished for walking back statements like these.
teshaq 2y ago
While I agree with folks that this is a step backwards in privacy, I think it’s a good exercise to zoom out and understand Firefox’s position. The browser market is highly competitive, and Mozilla’s competitors have orders of magnitude more resources at their disposal. As we all know Firefox’s market share has been dropping over the past years and unfortunately the revenue supporting all of Mozilla comes predominantly from their Google deal (which itself has been risked by the ongoing case against Google) Unfortunately as well - unfortunate for Mozilla, but fortunate for its mission and users :) - the Mozilla corporation is wholly owned by the foundation, so there is no easy way to raise funds (donations amount to so little compared to its Google revenue). Given no access to traditional fundraising, Mozilla has limited options on sustaining its business. All this is to say, Mozilla seems to be trying to diversify its revenue hard, and its previous on-brand attempts (Firefox OS, VPN, etc) haven’t yielded the return they expected from them, so I’m not surprised Mozilla is trying to make money off of ads and selling data. I disable data collection, though if it came to it, I trust Mozilla a tad bit more than its competitors to protect my data - initiatives like ohttp give me a sign that at least they’re trying
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Mozilla were pulling in ~$500M/year on those search deals. So on year one, spend $15M on a team of 20+ highly competent full time developers for Firefox, put $450M into a trust to fund future development, and find something to waste $35M on. Then for the next 15 years, find something to waste $500M on. The amount of money they've squandered is mind-boggling. If their goal had been to develop Firefox/Thunderbird/Mozilla Suite, and they had focused on how to sustainably do that, they never would've needed to diversify income sources.
  - NullPrefix 2y ago
    >spend $15M on a team of 20+ highly competent full time developers Implies that the browser is the mission, not some social cause is the mission
    - rolobio 2y ago
rbc 2y ago
Maybe this will provide some momentum to SeaMonkey or other browsers?
techjamie 2y ago
I use Firefox Nightly on Android, and originally had location sharing on for the handful of websites where I'm fine with sharing it. But today, my phone notified me that Nightly updated what it does with location data on the play store to include using location for marketing or advertising purposes. Changed it to ask every time instantly, and I'm not going to be giving Mozilla nearly as much trust ever again.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ants_everywhere 2y ago
It may be relevant that Mozilla recently acquired a Meta-created ad tracking company and is now awash with Meta ad execs. [0] It may also be relevant that Meta is recently upsetting people in Europe for tracking and targeting people in spite of Europe's data protection rules [1]. My guess (and this is just speculation at this point) is that Meta and Mozilla think they're being clever and getting away with some "private" ad tracking and are underestimating how much damage they're doing to Mozilla's reputation. I doubt the Anonym tech has been built into Firefox yet, but it's clear that the corporate strategic direction is to bet on some concept of "acceptable ads" like Google did in the 90s. [0] https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-a-privacy-tech-startup-founded-by-two-top-former-meta-execs/ https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-... [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/digital-rights-activists-file-complaints-europe-over-metas-targeted-ads-2025-02-27/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/digital-rights-activists-...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Facebook is sort of tech’s Enron / McDonnell Douglas.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  > "private" ad tracking My guess is that they're aiming to pivot to become a Brave competitor, and either find a new (profitable) niche in the market, or just ride the business down to collapse. Don't forget that private, hard-to-access data is now doubly valuable as AI training data.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  Ahh, the Unity game engine special.
- cmcaleer 2y ago
  Mozilla mentioned their viability in this statement, but one has to wonder how much more viable they’d be had they not wasted tens of millions of dollars on acquisitions such as this, Pocket, and of course their former CEO’s salary. I would happily donate to a company that focussed on just making Firefox and Thunderbird, but the reason why I don’t and probably will not donate to Mozilla ever again is that I have no idea what hare-brained acquisition they’ll do next. Their mission and plan for the future is so incomprehensible that it’s probably just easier to assume actual malice.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Hard uninstall. Can’t believe I’m mainling Kagi’s Orion browser. Yet here we are.
- wyclif 2y ago
  I think you made the right decision. Becoming an active Orion user will help the browser ecosystem improve, while Firefox is clearly a dead end.
- ajdude 2y ago
  I made the same decision earlier today. Migrating to Orion as we speak... It's frustrating because I've used Firefox since 2006 and have stuck by them and defended their decisions for decades. I still won't touch anything chrome-based, but Mozilla has sold out their customers and I cannot deal with that.
- tuananh 2y ago
  is it open-source? doesn't look like it. if it's not, why are you putting trust on them more than firefox?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > why are you putting trust on them more than firefox? Literally this article. I care about my privacy more than open source. And I care about honesty above both. If open source can’t deliver, so be it.
    - nickthegreek 2y ago
      Waterfox or Librewolf aren’t viable alternatives?
      - mmphosis 2y ago
        The reports about this Terms of Use for Firefox pushed me to build from source and run LibreWolf. In the past, I have not been able to successfully build FireFox. Today was a breakthrough for me as I was able to successfully build and run LibreWolf. Things I like so far: open ... "about:telemetry" Blocked Page Your organization has blocked access to this page or website. Lots of sane defaults that actually respect privacy and security. uBlock Origin is installed by default. No information is sent back to Mozilla.
koolala 2y ago
How do you turn off getting your search history sold? You can turn off seeing the suggestions. Can you request they don't sell it though? The company they sell your search profile to could then sell that to someone else.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Where does it say your search history could be sold? They say they will use your data only to do things you request - probably you aren't requesting that.
  - koolala 2y ago
    "there are a number of places where we collect and share data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar" These are the places they say they sell user data to be commercialy viable. Search history data is the most valuable data they could steal. Selling it for suggestions turns giving it away to companies into a feature. You can turn off 'showing' the suggestions but the feature could still be active.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > "there are a number of places where we collect and share data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar" That doesn't say search history is sold. And elsewhere they say the provide sponsored suggestions without any data leaving your computer.
diggernet 2y ago
> You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. You don't need a license for data you never see. When I use Firefox to type a comment on HN, that comment goes from me to HN. It doesn't go to Mozilla. Mozilla does not need a license. (And no, Firefox doesn't need a license either, because licenses are granted to people and organizations, not software.) The only possible reason for Mozilla to need a license to the data I type into Firefox is if Mozilla intends to have Firefox send that data to them.
- usr1106 2y ago
  Right. Some people want Sync, Pocket, oneline translation, etc. Others like me just want a browser. There should be a simple option to choose between a browser and some multifunction beast that some people and even more managers at Mozilla are dreaming of.
  - diggernet 2y ago
    Those things are Mozilla services. If they spoke of operating Mozilla services and data you input into Mozilla services, it'd be fine and expected. But instead they speak of operating Firefox and data input into Firefox, which is much more broad, and just happens to give them coverage for all kinds of data collection and abuse. The fact they've issued this update and not clarified the scope as Mozilla services is disturbing.
    - usr1106 2y ago
      Thanks for the terminology clarification. So ideally the services would be used by an extension that users are offered to download. Next best would be a simple choice do you want any services or not. If yes, all of them or customize.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      I thought they removed the reference to Firefox?
wilkystyle 2y ago
From the page: > TL;DR Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”) Three paragraphs later: > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. Sharing our data with advertisers in return for money is exactly the way most people think about "selling data".
user3939382 2y ago
Fixed headline: Mozilla adds insult to injury by trying to PR-talk their way out of their Judas-level piece of shit license change
dietr1ch 2y ago
BS we're sorry you noticed announcement. There's a few ff forks that may work for you. So far I'm quite happy with Librewolf since I migrated this morning, there's other forks that also cover Android, but there's more privacy-related research to do there as alternatives like Waterfox have past drama. You can delete your Mozilla account here if you want to send a strong signal that privacy matters, - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-delete-my-firefox-account https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-delete-my-fire... --- I'm quite concerned about the web becoming closed at this point. Bigger websites are mostly walled gardens, there's an increasingly big amount of generated crap (even before LLMs), and on top of that Chromium is the new IE, which on it's own a bit better than before since the core is open, but still a bad cherry on top, especially since the Ad push from Google. I don't want `chrome://settings/adPrivacy` on my browser as the optimal amount of ads and tracking is zero.
- userbinator 2y ago
  and on top of that Chromium is the new IE, which on it's own a bit better than before since the core is open The original IE was closed source, yet it wasn't anything more than just a browser, and people trusted MS on that.
  - dietr1ch 2y ago
    True, now browsers are all about for-profit surveillance.
sabareesh 2y ago
Hate to say it but seems Safari might be the alternative. Only missing piece is ublock origin
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't believe there are any adblockers on Safari that are very effective. I'd love to be proven wrong.
  - monkeyshelli 2y ago
    I moved from Wipr to this, have been pleasantly surprised. https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock
    - Aaron2222 2y ago
      There's also this[0] that was posted here yesterday. Haven't tried it myself, I've personally found Wipr/1Blocker to be sufficient. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406
solardev 2y ago
TLDR Firefox has been selling your data all along in exchange for ad money, but now state laws with more teeth forced them to come clean about this behavior.
- chrismorgan 2y ago
  I wouldn’t put it as all along; it’s only been in the last few years.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Could you quote where it says that?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - solardev 2y ago
    Sure. It's the part right after the horizontal rule line. > The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” [is the transfer] of a consumer’s personal information [from one business to another in exchange for something of value]. > [...] > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. This is them saying "it's not that we've suddenly become more evil... we've been doing this for a while... we gotta make money somehow, and advertising and sharing your data is how we do that, but now state privacy laws make us have to be clearer about it". Firefox gets almost all of its money from Google Search sponsorships and other ads. (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041315/how-mozilla-firefox-and-google-chrome-make-money.asp#citation-11 https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041315/how-m...). It's not really that different from any other adtech company. It's just one degree away, but most of that sweet user data still flows to Google in the end. Sure, they might obscure some of the PII... but so did FLoC, Google's controversial attempt to keep tracking users after third-party cookies. Firefox is just a privacy laundering operation for Google and some smaller advertisers. Then Mozilla uses most of that money on unrelated marketing and virtue signaling, pretending like they're some sort of privacy / civil rights champion, when in reality they're not really very different from any other ad-based browser maker — except that they're horribly inefficient at using their millions. All that money and Firefox has still fallen way behind, all while Mozilla keeps pretending they're some sort of enlightened think tank. Nobody actually pays attention to any of their think-tank related work or their other services. Either as a browser maker or a privacy-oriented nonprofit, they're completely ineffective. If Google stops funding them, they'd shut down overnight, losing 90% of their revenue. And maybe that's a good thing... it's time for a more capable org to take the reins. Mozilla has been a terrible steward, and Firefox went from the thing that saved the internet (from a Microsoft IE monopoly and the super-bloated app suite that Netscape Communicator / Mozilla Suite became) to then crumbling under the poor leadership of its lost decade.
lurk2 2y ago
The one thing I haven't seen in any of these threads is where privacy-conscious users are supposed to go now. Are there any viable alternatives to Firefox?
- solardev 2y ago
  Maybe Orion, if you trust Kagi enough? https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/ It's webkit-based, and you can pay for it ($150 for a lifetime license).
  - lurk2 2y ago
    Proprietary?
    - solardev 2y ago
      Yes. Webkit-based but closed source for now. And terribly unstable... I tried it for an hour just now and it crashed 5-6 times for me, including while I was filling out a bug report, lol.
  - solardev 2y ago
    Actually, I just tried it for a bit, but I can't recommend this right now. It crashed several times in the hour I was using it. Very unstable, along with a host of other bugs. Seems like an early alpha/beta.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  We just had a thread on Ladybird that seemed positive, but I haven't tried it and so don't know what it's like as a browser. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200604
  - solardev 2y ago
    It's in a pre-alpha state and nowhere near ready yet :(
- 2y ago
noisy_boy 2y ago
Don't care, already moved on and happy with Librewolf (https://librewolf.net/ https://librewolf.net/)
_lvbh 2y ago
Submitted and helped with debugging my first bug report to Ladybird browser today. Starting to use it with as many sites as possible. I really hope it can grow to replace Firefox
elchief 2y ago
I cant see Mozilla surviving this. This is something monopolies get away with, not also-rans
cryptonector 2y ago
How many times have we seen this ploy? First you have a nice policy, then you change it to something extreme that causes outrage, then you walk back most of the change saying you had legal or whatever baloney reasons to make the change in the first place and somehow couldn't wordsmith the language well enough the first time. I don't buy it. I hope some day business schools begin teaching that this ploy is a very bad idea. And if this really is the corporate lawyers being greatly insensitive then force PR and others to review every change they make to any policies that could destroy the company.
- chrismorgan 2y ago
  In this instance, they haven’t walked anything back yet: rather, they’re trying to explain why they’ve done what they’ve done, why it isn’t as bad as it looks but is just a matter of others using the wrong definitions… and then demonstrating that it’s them that have the wrong definition after all, and it is exactly as bad as it looks. And that the Mozilla of even ten years ago wouldn’t have been in this bind.
exodust 2y ago
> "...for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox" I'm still confused about the scope of what this means. Is this post I'm writing now considered "content I input in Firefox"? If I upload an image to my own website, is that content I input in Firefox? From my perspective, I'm not submitting anything "to Firefox", I'm submitting the content to remote servers and websites. I don't use Firefox cloud services or bookmarks or Mozilla account or anything. Even my bookmarks, I use raindrop.io at the moment.
dang 2y ago
Recent and related: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 - Feb 2025 (1060 comments)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
brtv 2y ago
> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. Do I understand it correctly that they can now use everything I read or type in the browser as they please, including for AI training? Considering that I do most of my work in webbased enail, issue tracker and other internal tools, this sounds like a direct violation of my NDA.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  Presumably they mean that if you want to post a comment to hacker news you give them the right to do what you want them to do. I'm presuming there's no catchy legal gotcha around the "doing as you request" clause.
  - jimjimwii 2y ago
    That's nice and all, but most people are worried about the other "rights" this would grant them and their partners. (What they can vs what they say they will)
- mmooss 2y ago
  "It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox." > Do I understand it correctly that they can now use everything I read or type in the browser as they please, including for AI training? Have you requested that?
CrimsonRain 2y ago
I've said it countless times. Mozilla is the downfall of Firefox. Get Firefox out of Mozilla and the current administration, what Firefox getting better and better.
iso8859-1 2y ago
Does this new TOS also apply to Firefox as distributed in Linux distributions? Will Debian's default browser get switched out for LibreWolf? https://wiki.debian.org/DefaultWebBrowser https://wiki.debian.org/DefaultWebBrowser
- jimjimwii 2y ago
  I assume not since i never agreed to such a terms and only learned about them yesterday. How on earth did we get to a point of hidden privacy policies on desktop open source software...
xvf33 2y ago
[flagged]
Panzer04 2y ago
Seems a bit weasle-y. How hard is it to be straightforward? I don't mind Firefox doing what it needs to to fund itself. I do mind when it seems like they try to hide what specifically that is. Saying that some places define "sell" as more broad than what you think of is a total cop-out. Just put up a page that describes every single thing that is taken from the browser for revenue purposes. Maybe it's reasonable, maybe it's not, but it seems like everyone is defaulting to unreasonabl, so..
mrwww 2y ago
Safari it is.
mmooss 2y ago
People love to pile on - it's a popular modern social game. But in this case they are damaging something especially valuable, one of the leading privacy and freedom organizations in the world, during a very dangerous time. (And also one that doesn't buy or organize an army of 'grassroots' support.) Cui bono? I think Mozilla has made clear that they use the data for things the user requests. If someone thinks otherwise, please quote the current language (not the language from two days ago). They also are innovators in privacy-preserving advertising. Almost anything else on the web is much worse: it has ads and collects personal data. Not only does Mozilla not collect personal data, if they can create effective privacy-preserving advertising, they could transform privacy (again) by not only sharing this technology but demonstrating to government that the privacy violations are unnecessary for business profitability. Yet people are throwing all that out for the energy and excitement of piling on. That's a really bad choice, as far as I can see. If that's not what's happening, why are almost all posts expressed that way? How about some reasonable, calm discussion?
- mort96 2y ago
  Sorry, but only Mozilla is damaging Mozilla here. Anyone could have predicted that their actions these past days would be devastating to their reputation.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mort96 2y ago
      If you asked some random selection of technical people, "hey if Mozilla just went ahead and made a ToS which gives Mozilla a broad license to anything you enter into Firefox, then removed the text 'Mozilla won't sell your data' from their FAQ pages, how would people react?" I think 99.9% of people would've predicted that the reaction would be negative. These things aren't as impossible to anticipate as you pretend. This backlash is 100% predictable, 100% Mozilla's fault, and 100% deserved.
xvilka 2y ago
At this point, I believe, it's important to accelerate development of Servo[1], which not only provides better browser security because of memory safety (getting rid of the stupid mistakes like OOB access or UAF), but is also managed[2] by Linux Foundation Europe[3], which gives more hope from the privacy standpoint. [1] https://github.com/servo/servo https://github.com/servo/servo [2] https://servo.org/about/ https://servo.org/about/ [3] https://linuxfoundation.eu/ https://linuxfoundation.eu/
einpoklum 2y ago
Are we able - with the version of FF currently out - to completely disable all transmission of data to Mozilla? Of course this might change with these announced plans, but I want to know if the current baseline can be safe to use (without patching), or whether it's already rather far-gone.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kristjank 2y ago
They believed we misunderstood and they were very much wrong. We know what you're trying to achieve and we're telling you not to do it. I have already cancelled my existing Mozilla subscriptions and am actively looking towards alternatives that either respect my privacy better (seems like Waterfox or Ladybird are the candidates), or remain as bad for privacy as Mozilla but provide more functionality than Firefox (Vivaldi, Brave).
drpossum 2y ago
"We were actually selling your data according to 'courts' so instead of making good on our promise to literally never do that we just memory-holed it. Not sure what the big deal is please continue to trust us."
sciens3 2y ago
I’ve used Netscape, the Mozilla browser, and then Firefox, so I guess I’m a long-time user. But as of today, I’m no longer using Firefox because of this.
fimdomeio 2y ago
Dear Mozilla, just give an option to pay you money for a browser that does not make any compromise in privacy.
danlitt 2y ago
I get that people are hung up on the "licensing" clause, but for me it is not the most egregious part. They say elsewhere, > 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. This is a direct contradiction of Freedom 0, and is at best a meaningless clause (very bad in a ToS) and at worst a reframing of Firefox to be non-free, either by casting it as a service or something else.
greatgib 2y ago
"we never sell your data" but we actually do it... For me, sharing my data even with "privacy preserving way" is not ok with the spirit I expected from something like Firefox. Even just something like "someone open new tabs 50 times with your advertisement there" or "someone went to your website last Friday" is not ok to share about me and my activity! So sad that corporate assholes took control of the project and try to confuse us with bullshit.
akomtu 2y ago
Some higher ups at Mozilla have realised an opportunity to train an AI on user data. Theft of user data at this unprecedented scale will be covered by the fig leaf of ToS, at least it's their plan. They really belong to prison, but the gov is knee deep in the same business, and so it's not going to do anything about it.
TheChaplain 2y ago
I find it interesting that Mozilla actually believes that everyone of their users are idiots. Going from "We never sell your data" to whatever those weaseling paragraphs attempt to say, is quite obvious that the users are going to be the product. And it would be better if they'd be straight about it. I wish they'd rather say "pay us $100 a year, and you'll get a modern browser on all platform that will stop ads and make tracking difficult".
KingOfCoders 2y ago
Their stance is: "The post office needs an unrestricted license to the content of your letters to transport them". This is beyond ridiculous.
- GrantMoyer 2y ago
  More like Bic needs unrestricted access to your letters so their pen can write them for you.
eitland 2y ago
And the sad outcome is probably more people will go to Chrome, which 1. is already worse wrt privacy 2. if they get monopoly will absolutely destroy the open web (already busy doing what they can already get away with).
badgersnake 2y ago
“You all read it wrong, we’re not evil really. We pinky promise. Don’t look behind the curtain.”
pca006132 2y ago
I'm just curious if it is possible that some former/current employees in Mozilla can just form an org, say they will maintain a fork of Firefox, and accept donation from the users that were pissed and maybe apply for some funding from EU NGI?
GrantMoyer 2y ago
Each update from Mozilla about this issue has Mozilla claiming users are confused (which may be true; I don't follow the larger social media ecosystem), then doubling down on the part I'm personally concerned about. I'm worried that Mozilla is asserting it needs a license for the information input into Firefox for Firefox to do it's job, since that's factually untrue. So either Mozilla is genuinely confused about this point, which I find unlikely, or they have some ulterior motive. I can't say with any confidence what the ulterior motive is, but I can be pretty sure there is one, and that worries me about the future of the browser landscape.
- rafaelgoncalves 2y ago
  totally agree and i have this same feeling. An the fact they provide this "updates" and doubling down the same points is unnerving.
MaxBarraclough 2y ago
> we’ve removed the reference to the Acceptable Use Policy because it seems to be causing more confusion than clarity. Weak sauce. Mozilla ought to be apologising here, not blaming its community for being upset at Mozilla's efforts to impose restrictions on its binaries that are in direct conflict with the core principles of Free and Open Source software. We were discussing this yesterday. [0] It's not 'confusion'. We saw what they were up to, and we weren't happy about it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456
- simpaticoder 2y ago
  This is the upside of doing what I did yesterday, which is to realize Mozilla cannot recover from this, which makes such follow-on mistakes easier to bear. The shock has been absorbed. I have installed a few alternatives and will be deleting FF as soon as possible. I will also continue to advocate for privacy and user-rights preserving software - a set that does not include anything from Mozilla. The bridge is well-and-truly burned. They had a 2% marketshare based on goodwill with privacy rights geeks, and managed to destroy it overnight. There is no recovery for them.
cybwraith 2y ago
Its been a nice 25 years, Mozilla browser(s). So long, just another old guard leaving for new pastures here.
256_ 2y ago
I see a bunch of people saying that Firefox "needs to make money" or something to that effect, like they've never heard of free software. When Flash was killed, enthusiasts re-implemented it entirely from scratch. I'm sure if Mozilla exploded today people would take the source code and continue maintaining Firefox. I'm aware maintaining a browser is complicated, but maintaining an operating system is even more-so, and that never stopped GNU.
r2b2 2y ago
Firefox should make it clear that Firefox (browser) will not collect, transmit, nor sell user data beyond what is technically required for interaction between the browser and other computers over networks. Anything less and people stop using Firefox. If other Mozilla services need broader terms, those should be separate.
Boldened15 2y ago
Curious what people would see as the longterm future of Firefox in the ideal world. Just being privacy focused isn't enough especially for the layperson, it needs some actual benefits like being faster or at least as fast, plus mindshare from developers... but it seems impossible to compete with Google's resources on any of that. Even if Firefox committed the resources to come ahead for a moment Google could just match it easily, in addition to building better dev tooling, etc. That being said I'm surprised they dropped the Servo project, it seemed like a step in the right direction? I actually think working adblockers is a great pitch, not sure what sites specifically the Manifest v2 version of uBlock Origin doesn't work on, but "download Firefox to watch ad-free YouTube" is a great pitch to convince people to use it. Sucks that Apple limited custom browser engines on iOS to just the EU, otherwise Mozilla could focus on full-fledged extension parity on iOS and the pitch would be to get sync + ad-free.
- martinsnow 2y ago
  I applaud Firefox for lower memory usage but it constantly shits the bed when resuming a new instance with previous tabs. If a tab crashes the whole thing crashes for me and the dev tools are really behind chrome for front end dev. I would also like if they would support input=type number ffs
ramon156 2y ago
Getting upset is viable, but whats your alternative? Chrome? Who already openly sells your data?
pabs3 2y ago
Dear Mozilla: maybe stop collecting user data, then the legal definition of "sell" will be irrelevant to you.

596 points by ReadCarlBarks 2y ago

Is Google paying Mozilla to sabotage themselves? Stay in business, so monopoly arguments can be brushed aside. But slowly erode privacy on the internet. And slowly lose user base.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 2y ago
They just lost a monopoly case because they paid Mozilla all that money, this theory has always made little sense and sticking to it now makes even less.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  In fact, one could argue that Google losing its case is what caused this. Google provided a substantial amount of revenue to Mozilla. With that now gone, new ways(TM) to get money are needed.
  - Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
    They really don’t need more revenue. They are nominally a not-for-profit and in 2023, they had 250 million cash and a billion more in investments. They’ve taken billions of dollars from Google since 2005, and now they’re turning their back on user privacy.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      They spend well over 200 million a year in software development, and they've made those investments presumably expecting this revenue issue. Building a browser is expensive, that's why there's only two of them. Even Microsoft considered it too expensive to continue.
      - Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
        I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser. However, Microsoft’s mission is profits for shareholders so their calculus ought to be different than Mozilla’s. It makes sense for a profit-seeking entity to surrender if they don’t see a path for a return on the investment, not so for Mozilla.
        boomboomsubban 2y ago
        >I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser. Then why post strong comments about how much funding Mozilla needs? The calculus is very different. IE could be developed at a 100% loss for the company if it still otherwise helped Microsoft, which is what happened. Chrome operates similarly. Firefox needs to generate enough money to sustain itself indefinitely. So when there are signs their main source of funding may vanish, they need to keep a war chest together and have investments to weather any oncoming storm. Otherwise they just collapse.
        Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
        Because they’ve had twenty years to figure out how to generate sustainable revenue while being propped up by Google. Mozilla got themselves into this situation, why should their users overlook the removal of the only real advantage of Firefox? They _should_ collapse if the only way for them to continue is to abandon their mission. That much revenue from a single source was always a significant vulnerability, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address. Poor leadership and wasteful spending is the problem, not revenue.
        boomboomsubban 2y ago
        >, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address. My recollection is of leadership repeatedly trying to address it, generally for the community to get furious at them and say they shouldn't remotely think of anything except Firefox. If you're full of methods for Firefox to magically generate several hundred million dollars a year, I believe they're still looking for a new CEO. Be warned though, if you take any of that money for yourself the community will eternally scorn you.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  that's true, but now google will appeal it and with the new regime in place they will withdraw the case and give google a win.
asddubs 2y ago
they also couldn't have timed this better with the manifestv3 thing
slig 2y ago
Yes, of course. If Mozilla decided to do what other user here suggested (`spend $15M on a team of 20+ highly competent full time developers for Firefox, put $450M into a trust to fund future development`) I doubt that the 500M/year would continue flowing.

blibble 2y ago

and they continue to dig themselves a bigger hole "we are selling your data, not necessarily anonymised, even though a month ago we had a text on our website said we NEVER would"

move-on-by 2y ago

> The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” THANK YOU California for this definition of selling data, which is accurate, and representative of what people think of when discussions of selling data come up. > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners Ok, so that’s pretty straightforward. According to CA and other states Mozilla is collecting and selling your data. Which is exactly what everyone is upset about and means exactly what everyone thought it meant.

alabastervlog 2y ago
> in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.” JFC, it's funny they try to call this out as some kind of a "weird" definition when that's just... what selling is.
- hedora 2y ago
  Usually, when I point out that Google sells your data and there’s no possible way to actually opt out, someone replies to say that’s not true, then defines “sell” in some way that most people would disagree with.
- WD-42 2y ago
  I actually laughed out loud at this. “We can’t say we don’t sell your data because some places have definitions of “sell” that are legally difficult to interpret, for example”: <completely unambiguous definition of selling follows>
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    That was in California. Presumably, it's worded somewhat differently, and with different intent, elsewhere. 50 states, plus Federal laws, and all the other countries of the world and internal jurisdictions is how many possible variations? And before you say "Yeah, but they all mean mostly the same thing", remember it's lawyers we're dealing with, who will happily charge large sums of money arguing over misplaced punctuation and legislators who will happily take bribes from those same lawyers.

hysan 2y ago

This pretty much confirms that this is what everyone thought the change was about. So we get clarity, but no actual change in course from Mozilla. Good. We now know very clearly where Mozilla and Firefox stand on privacy.

KennyBlanken 2y ago
Yup. This is almost a year exactly after they announced a "pivot" to "privacy." At least the most useless, overpaid person in SV is finally gone and no longer collecting her $7M salary. Not like money has ever been a problem at Mozilla - they're sitting on over $1.5B in assets, $500M or so in cash alone. That's despite a plunging market share...
wesapien 2y ago
If one opted out of all the possible data collection and privacy related options, are they still able to collect your data? If yes, how does it work? Is this called client-side scanning?
- st3fan 2y ago
  Yes. Any software you installed including your operating system can turn evil and copy anything off your drive. This doomsday scenario thinking really doesn’t help the discussion.
- userbinator 2y ago
  Companies have been long concerned about exfiltration of data and ran MITM proxies to stop it, which ironically has been the target of propaganda about "privacy" by the browser makers. Every home network needs a MITM proxy too.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
    "Every home network needs a MITM proxy too." I have been running one for long time now. I depend on it so much that I cannot imagine using the internet without it. It is much smaller and easier to compile than a graphical browser. Others will have different opinions but I personally remain skeptical that TLS provides internet users with more value than it provides so-called "tech" companies that profit from data collection, surveillance and online advertising services, and the CDNs that collaborate with them. While it can be used to protect a computer owner's sensitive data from eavesdroppers as it transits across the open internet, e.g., during "e-commerce", in practice TLS is used to conceal data exfiltration from the computer owner for commercial purposes by so-called "tech" companies. Not to mention the issue of "Certificate Authorities". IMO, this is analogous to the situation with Javascript. It has the potential to provide value to www users, e.g., as a language computer owners can use to extend and control a graphical browser,^1 but in practice it provides the most value to so-called tech "companies" that are using it to control _someone else's_ browser to allow unauthorised and/or concealed data collection and surveillance. 1. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bambax/hntitles/refs/heads/master/hntitles.user.js https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bambax/hntitles/refs/heads...

0manrho 2y ago

> in the way that most people think about “selling data” I quite frankly am opposed to any entity selling my data, in any way, for any reason, without my explicit consent because it implies you were taking my data in the first place, which is the core issue. It's my data. Not yours. Taking it (eg, telemetry) is what I object to. You selling it, I further object to. Stop. Without exception. To both. Period. The how and why of it does not matter. Worried about the breadth of the law opening you up to liability? Then stop chasing enshittification for your own gain. Don't collect the data in the first place. Its that easy.

hiccuphippo 2y ago
Not to mention the little market share they have is from people who are actively trying to avoid bullshit like that.

issafram 2y ago

this didn't make things better

Shank 2y ago

> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. I really struggle to understand what legal team believes this language is necessary in downloaded software. There is a lot of precedent for this kind of language in online hosted services, but not downloaded software. > This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. Yes, it’s a license. Nothing changes. There is no ambiguity about ownership in a perpetual nonexclusive worldwide license, but this doesn’t explain why this license is suddenly necessary now and wasn’t before. Clearly the legal team at Mozilla is struggling with multiple issues in this update. Why are these changes being made now, and what is driving them? Others have discussed the data sale issue, but I don’t see a reasonable explanation for the license issue, and the changing text doesn’t inspire confidence.

MatthiasPortzel 2y ago
> I really struggle to understand what legal team believes this language is necessary in downloaded software. Exactly. Even if nothing is changing at Mozilla, their legal team has invented a new interpretation of copyright law. That’s a huge deal from a legal perspective—Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc need to be rushing to add corresponding terms to their applications. Mozilla PR is dropping the ball completely by trying to sweep this under the rug as ‘standard legal boilerplate’ because it’s not a clause in any other application I’ve ever seen. Since I use FireFox at work, I don’t even have permission to give Mozilla a license to the content I create on the clock, so I will be switching browsers.
- nativeit 2y ago
  Not for nothing, it is standard legal boilerplate. I just checked two randomly selected terms of service--one for ReadAI, the other for Google--and they both include a very similar clause with those exact parameters. That said, I'm not suggesting Mozilla isn't also being wildly hypocritical in their behavior, and hamfisted in their PR.
  - gtirloni 2y ago

betaby 2y ago

Time to move on. Mozilla lost latest pieces of relevancy. Apparently, half a billion dollars per year can't get a modern browser nowadays. At least in Mozilla case.

tofof 2y ago

While this is confirming that Mozilla is already outright selling data, it at least DOES provide clarity on the issues around the acceptible use policy. That language had been so broad that it forbade most use of the browser. For example, "send unsolicited communications" so no filing a bug report. "Deceive, mislead" so no playing Among Us. "Sell, purchase, or advertise illegal or controlled products or services" so no online refils of your antimigraine medication lasmiditan or your epilepsy medication (pregabalin) which are schedule V. "Collect or harvest personally identifiable information without permission. This includes, but is not limited to, account names and email addresses" so no browsing any forum where a username is displayed to you. And of course "access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence" that rules out watching the nightly news, stream PG-13 and R movies, to watch classic Looney Tunes cartoons, to play Fortnight, and on and on.

matkoniecz 2y ago
> "send unsolicited communications" so no filing a bug report why you think that filing bug reports in place inviting bug reports is "unsolicited communication"?

comex 2y ago

> Whenever we share data with our partners, we put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share is stripped of potentially identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP). But if the data was fully stripped of potentially identifying information, then it should not count as "personal information" under the California Consumer Privacy Act, therefore it should not trigger the "sale of personal information" requirement, regardless of how it's transmitted or what kind of compensation is involved. The CCPA defines "personal information" as follows: > “Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. (It also includes a list of examples [1], but the examples are conditional on the same "linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household" requirement.) So, which is it? Is the data deidentified or is it not? Is Mozilla just trying to reduce risk in case someone argues their deidentification isn't good enough? If so, I'd call that a cowardly move. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB874 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
I dunno, if legal recommends wording for your TOS you should probably listen to them.
- winwang 2y ago
  Then comes the question: would it also obviously expand their domain of allowable actions to trespass on their users? Since that is a resounding "yes" and they also have the extremely obvious finance incentive to do so...
- rendaw 2y ago
  Yes, so you claim you can do whatever you want with everything you can get your hands on and then social media blows up because it's batshit insane, but don't worry because you're _legally in the clear_. You're acting like they didn't have the 2nd option of just not selling the data so the current wording is accurate...

vitehozonage 2y ago

>there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar Mozilla should commit to stop doing anything like that. Then we can have a nice clear Terms of Use that promises to not sell data. I think that would alleviate community concerns.

Silhouette 2y ago

I'm sad and disappointed that simply charging a fair price in return for offering something of value - with no other strings attached - has become so out of fashion in tech world. Almost everyone running tech businesses seems to assume that subscriptions or data capitalism are the only way to make any money these days. But I have paid for good software in the past and I know plenty of indie developers who still sell software like a product and do OK with that model. Copies of great software like Firefox could surely be sold - for actual money - to the kind of people who value its independence, privacy, and user focus. Offer free security updates for some reasonable period similar to an LTS release. The web moves fast enough that a lot of people will want to buy upgrades quite regularly anyway just for the new features. Firefox appears to have close to 200M active users based on Mozilla's published data at https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity. If they could get 1/20 of those users to pay them an average of $10 per year - that's less than one month of a standard subscription to a major streaming service in most Western countries - then that's $100M/year in revenues. Based on the public financial statements that's on the same scale as their subscription and advertising revenue and their annual spend on development activities. Another possibility might be to hide some of the developer resources behind some token paywall. Almost everyone I know who works in web dev uses MDN regularly. Firefox dev tools have a lot of useful things about them. Then maybe you can even keep the main browser free and get some revenue from devs - who are mostly going to file it as a business expense anyway and whose employers benefit greatly from the continued existence and maintenance of these resources. Sure everyone would complain - just as everyone complains about paying a few bucks for a good text or graphics editor they use for hundreds or thousands of hours per year to make 1000x the asking price. But the value is obviously there to many people. I think a lot of Firefox users in particular would probably respect the transparent attempt to keep the lights on without compromising on the USPs that make Firefox attractive to those users in the first place.

ranger_danger 2y ago
I think if they believed there would be enough people to justify charging for the software to make that model work, they would do it. But I don't think it's actually viable, I think the number of people that would pay for firefox is much lower than you think. Consider how many other similarly popular software programs charge small fees for their app... I can't even think of a single one. And you can only really charge for binaries, because as soon as one person gets the source, they can distribute it, and then they (or others) can make their own (free) binaries, and then why would anyone pay money anymore.

GNOMES 2y ago

I thought the initial wording/hype was around poorly phrased lawyer speak for "you give FF permission to interact (post/get requests) with a web page as a browser. Don't sue us". The whole some may consider it "legally selling your data" proves this is not just a Terms of Use change in good faith.

layer8 2y ago
Read again, they are addressing two unrelated wording changes in two separate documents.

hajile 2y ago

In what countries is this FAQ (removed in their PR) not seen as a legally-binding contract with all current Firefox users? It seems like a very clear contractual obligation in the US. { "@type": "Question", "name": "Does Firefox sell your personal data?", 1 "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "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. " 9+ } },

mod50ack 2y ago
Contracts in the US require consideration. A promise made in exchange for nothing is not a contract because there's no consideration.
- hajile 2y ago
  That contract is made in exchange for your willingness to use their product and your willingness to use Mozilla is what gets them big contracts from companies like Google.
cmcaleer 2y ago
I don’t think there is a contract here in most parts of the world. But maybe there’s an argument to be made for promissory estoppel e.g. by a company who moved from IE to Firefox based on these promises and spent $x moving to Firefox and now have to spend $x moving to something else in response to new information? In reality there’ll probably be nothing from this, though I’d love to see companies get punished for walking back statements like these.

teshaq 2y ago

While I agree with folks that this is a step backwards in privacy, I think it’s a good exercise to zoom out and understand Firefox’s position. The browser market is highly competitive, and Mozilla’s competitors have orders of magnitude more resources at their disposal. As we all know Firefox’s market share has been dropping over the past years and unfortunately the revenue supporting all of Mozilla comes predominantly from their Google deal (which itself has been risked by the ongoing case against Google) Unfortunately as well - unfortunate for Mozilla, but fortunate for its mission and users :) - the Mozilla corporation is wholly owned by the foundation, so there is no easy way to raise funds (donations amount to so little compared to its Google revenue). Given no access to traditional fundraising, Mozilla has limited options on sustaining its business. All this is to say, Mozilla seems to be trying to diversify its revenue hard, and its previous on-brand attempts (Firefox OS, VPN, etc) haven’t yielded the return they expected from them, so I’m not surprised Mozilla is trying to make money off of ads and selling data. I disable data collection, though if it came to it, I trust Mozilla a tad bit more than its competitors to protect my data - initiatives like ohttp give me a sign that at least they’re trying

ndriscoll 2y ago
Mozilla were pulling in ~$500M/year on those search deals. So on year one, spend $15M on a team of 20+ highly competent full time developers for Firefox, put $450M into a trust to fund future development, and find something to waste $35M on. Then for the next 15 years, find something to waste $500M on. The amount of money they've squandered is mind-boggling. If their goal had been to develop Firefox/Thunderbird/Mozilla Suite, and they had focused on how to sustainably do that, they never would've needed to diversify income sources.
- NullPrefix 2y ago
  >spend $15M on a team of 20+ highly competent full time developers Implies that the browser is the mission, not some social cause is the mission
  - rolobio 2y ago

rbc 2y ago

Maybe this will provide some momentum to SeaMonkey or other browsers?

techjamie 2y ago

I use Firefox Nightly on Android, and originally had location sharing on for the handful of websites where I'm fine with sharing it. But today, my phone notified me that Nightly updated what it does with location data on the play store to include using location for marketing or advertising purposes. Changed it to ask every time instantly, and I'm not going to be giving Mozilla nearly as much trust ever again.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ants_everywhere 2y ago

It may be relevant that Mozilla recently acquired a Meta-created ad tracking company and is now awash with Meta ad execs. [0] It may also be relevant that Meta is recently upsetting people in Europe for tracking and targeting people in spite of Europe's data protection rules [1]. My guess (and this is just speculation at this point) is that Meta and Mozilla think they're being clever and getting away with some "private" ad tracking and are underestimating how much damage they're doing to Mozilla's reputation. I doubt the Anonym tech has been built into Firefox yet, but it's clear that the corporate strategic direction is to bet on some concept of "acceptable ads" like Google did in the 90s. [0] https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-a-privacy-tech-startup-founded-by-two-top-former-meta-execs/ https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/mozilla-acquires-anonym-... [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/digital-rights-activists-file-complaints-europe-over-metas-targeted-ads-2025-02-27/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/digital-rights-activists-...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Facebook is sort of tech’s Enron / McDonnell Douglas.
nerdponx 2y ago
> "private" ad tracking My guess is that they're aiming to pivot to become a Brave competitor, and either find a new (profitable) niche in the market, or just ride the business down to collapse. Don't forget that private, hard-to-access data is now doubly valuable as AI training data.
_aavaa_ 2y ago
Ahh, the Unity game engine special.
cmcaleer 2y ago
Mozilla mentioned their viability in this statement, but one has to wonder how much more viable they’d be had they not wasted tens of millions of dollars on acquisitions such as this, Pocket, and of course their former CEO’s salary. I would happily donate to a company that focussed on just making Firefox and Thunderbird, but the reason why I don’t and probably will not donate to Mozilla ever again is that I have no idea what hare-brained acquisition they’ll do next. Their mission and plan for the future is so incomprehensible that it’s probably just easier to assume actual malice.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Hard uninstall. Can’t believe I’m mainling Kagi’s Orion browser. Yet here we are.

wyclif 2y ago
I think you made the right decision. Becoming an active Orion user will help the browser ecosystem improve, while Firefox is clearly a dead end.
ajdude 2y ago
I made the same decision earlier today. Migrating to Orion as we speak... It's frustrating because I've used Firefox since 2006 and have stuck by them and defended their decisions for decades. I still won't touch anything chrome-based, but Mozilla has sold out their customers and I cannot deal with that.
tuananh 2y ago
is it open-source? doesn't look like it. if it's not, why are you putting trust on them more than firefox?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > why are you putting trust on them more than firefox? Literally this article. I care about my privacy more than open source. And I care about honesty above both. If open source can’t deliver, so be it.
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    Waterfox or Librewolf aren’t viable alternatives?
    - mmphosis 2y ago
      The reports about this Terms of Use for Firefox pushed me to build from source and run LibreWolf. In the past, I have not been able to successfully build FireFox. Today was a breakthrough for me as I was able to successfully build and run LibreWolf. Things I like so far: open ... "about:telemetry" Blocked Page Your organization has blocked access to this page or website. Lots of sane defaults that actually respect privacy and security. uBlock Origin is installed by default. No information is sent back to Mozilla.

koolala 2y ago

How do you turn off getting your search history sold? You can turn off seeing the suggestions. Can you request they don't sell it though? The company they sell your search profile to could then sell that to someone else.

mmooss 2y ago
Where does it say your search history could be sold? They say they will use your data only to do things you request - probably you aren't requesting that.
- koolala 2y ago
  "there are a number of places where we collect and share data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar" These are the places they say they sell user data to be commercialy viable. Search history data is the most valuable data they could steal. Selling it for suggestions turns giving it away to companies into a feature. You can turn off 'showing' the suggestions but the feature could still be active.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > "there are a number of places where we collect and share data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar" That doesn't say search history is sold. And elsewhere they say the provide sponsored suggestions without any data leaving your computer.

diggernet 2y ago

> You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. You don't need a license for data you never see. When I use Firefox to type a comment on HN, that comment goes from me to HN. It doesn't go to Mozilla. Mozilla does not need a license. (And no, Firefox doesn't need a license either, because licenses are granted to people and organizations, not software.) The only possible reason for Mozilla to need a license to the data I type into Firefox is if Mozilla intends to have Firefox send that data to them.

usr1106 2y ago
Right. Some people want Sync, Pocket, oneline translation, etc. Others like me just want a browser. There should be a simple option to choose between a browser and some multifunction beast that some people and even more managers at Mozilla are dreaming of.
- diggernet 2y ago
  Those things are Mozilla services. If they spoke of operating Mozilla services and data you input into Mozilla services, it'd be fine and expected. But instead they speak of operating Firefox and data input into Firefox, which is much more broad, and just happens to give them coverage for all kinds of data collection and abuse. The fact they've issued this update and not clarified the scope as Mozilla services is disturbing.
  - usr1106 2y ago
    Thanks for the terminology clarification. So ideally the services would be used by an extension that users are offered to download. Next best would be a simple choice do you want any services or not. If yes, all of them or customize.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I thought they removed the reference to Firefox?

wilkystyle 2y ago

From the page: > TL;DR Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”) Three paragraphs later: > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. Sharing our data with advertisers in return for money is exactly the way most people think about "selling data".

user3939382 2y ago

Fixed headline: Mozilla adds insult to injury by trying to PR-talk their way out of their Judas-level piece of shit license change

dietr1ch 2y ago

BS we're sorry you noticed announcement. There's a few ff forks that may work for you. So far I'm quite happy with Librewolf since I migrated this morning, there's other forks that also cover Android, but there's more privacy-related research to do there as alternatives like Waterfox have past drama. You can delete your Mozilla account here if you want to send a strong signal that privacy matters, - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-delete-my-firefox-account https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-delete-my-fire... --- I'm quite concerned about the web becoming closed at this point. Bigger websites are mostly walled gardens, there's an increasingly big amount of generated crap (even before LLMs), and on top of that Chromium is the new IE, which on it's own a bit better than before since the core is open, but still a bad cherry on top, especially since the Ad push from Google. I don't want `chrome://settings/adPrivacy` on my browser as the optimal amount of ads and tracking is zero.

userbinator 2y ago
and on top of that Chromium is the new IE, which on it's own a bit better than before since the core is open The original IE was closed source, yet it wasn't anything more than just a browser, and people trusted MS on that.
- dietr1ch 2y ago
  True, now browsers are all about for-profit surveillance.

sabareesh 2y ago

Hate to say it but seems Safari might be the alternative. Only missing piece is ublock origin

Vegenoid 2y ago
Unfortunately, I don't believe there are any adblockers on Safari that are very effective. I'd love to be proven wrong.
- monkeyshelli 2y ago
  I moved from Wipr to this, have been pleasantly surprised. https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock https://github.com/0xCUB3/wBlock
  - Aaron2222 2y ago
    There's also this[0] that was posted here yesterday. Haven't tried it myself, I've personally found Wipr/1Blocker to be sufficient. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406

solardev 2y ago

TLDR Firefox has been selling your data all along in exchange for ad money, but now state laws with more teeth forced them to come clean about this behavior.

chrismorgan 2y ago
I wouldn’t put it as all along; it’s only been in the last few years.
mmooss 2y ago
Could you quote where it says that?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- solardev 2y ago
  Sure. It's the part right after the horizontal rule line. > The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” [is the transfer] of a consumer’s personal information [from one business to another in exchange for something of value]. > [...] > In order to make Firefox commercially viable, there are a number of places where we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar. This is them saying "it's not that we've suddenly become more evil... we've been doing this for a while... we gotta make money somehow, and advertising and sharing your data is how we do that, but now state privacy laws make us have to be clearer about it". Firefox gets almost all of its money from Google Search sponsorships and other ads. (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041315/how-mozilla-firefox-and-google-chrome-make-money.asp#citation-11 https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041315/how-m...). It's not really that different from any other adtech company. It's just one degree away, but most of that sweet user data still flows to Google in the end. Sure, they might obscure some of the PII... but so did FLoC, Google's controversial attempt to keep tracking users after third-party cookies. Firefox is just a privacy laundering operation for Google and some smaller advertisers. Then Mozilla uses most of that money on unrelated marketing and virtue signaling, pretending like they're some sort of privacy / civil rights champion, when in reality they're not really very different from any other ad-based browser maker — except that they're horribly inefficient at using their millions. All that money and Firefox has still fallen way behind, all while Mozilla keeps pretending they're some sort of enlightened think tank. Nobody actually pays attention to any of their think-tank related work or their other services. Either as a browser maker or a privacy-oriented nonprofit, they're completely ineffective. If Google stops funding them, they'd shut down overnight, losing 90% of their revenue. And maybe that's a good thing... it's time for a more capable org to take the reins. Mozilla has been a terrible steward, and Firefox went from the thing that saved the internet (from a Microsoft IE monopoly and the super-bloated app suite that Netscape Communicator / Mozilla Suite became) to then crumbling under the poor leadership of its lost decade.

lurk2 2y ago

The one thing I haven't seen in any of these threads is where privacy-conscious users are supposed to go now. Are there any viable alternatives to Firefox?

solardev 2y ago
Maybe Orion, if you trust Kagi enough? https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/ It's webkit-based, and you can pay for it ($150 for a lifetime license).
- lurk2 2y ago
  Proprietary?
  - solardev 2y ago
    Yes. Webkit-based but closed source for now. And terribly unstable... I tried it for an hour just now and it crashed 5-6 times for me, including while I was filling out a bug report, lol.
- solardev 2y ago
  Actually, I just tried it for a bit, but I can't recommend this right now. It crashed several times in the hour I was using it. Very unstable, along with a host of other bugs. Seems like an early alpha/beta.
JadeNB 2y ago
We just had a thread on Ladybird that seemed positive, but I haven't tried it and so don't know what it's like as a browser. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200604
- solardev 2y ago
  It's in a pre-alpha state and nowhere near ready yet :(
2y ago

noisy_boy 2y ago

Don't care, already moved on and happy with Librewolf (https://librewolf.net/ https://librewolf.net/)

_lvbh 2y ago

Submitted and helped with debugging my first bug report to Ladybird browser today. Starting to use it with as many sites as possible. I really hope it can grow to replace Firefox

elchief 2y ago

I cant see Mozilla surviving this. This is something monopolies get away with, not also-rans

cryptonector 2y ago

How many times have we seen this ploy? First you have a nice policy, then you change it to something extreme that causes outrage, then you walk back most of the change saying you had legal or whatever baloney reasons to make the change in the first place and somehow couldn't wordsmith the language well enough the first time. I don't buy it. I hope some day business schools begin teaching that this ploy is a very bad idea. And if this really is the corporate lawyers being greatly insensitive then force PR and others to review every change they make to any policies that could destroy the company.

chrismorgan 2y ago
In this instance, they haven’t walked anything back yet: rather, they’re trying to explain why they’ve done what they’ve done, why it isn’t as bad as it looks but is just a matter of others using the wrong definitions… and then demonstrating that it’s them that have the wrong definition after all, and it is exactly as bad as it looks. And that the Mozilla of even ten years ago wouldn’t have been in this bind.

exodust 2y ago

> "...for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox" I'm still confused about the scope of what this means. Is this post I'm writing now considered "content I input in Firefox"? If I upload an image to my own website, is that content I input in Firefox? From my perspective, I'm not submitting anything "to Firefox", I'm submitting the content to remote servers and websites. I don't use Firefox cloud services or bookmarks or Mozilla account or anything. Even my bookmarks, I use raindrop.io at the moment.

dang 2y ago

Recent and related: Introducing a terms of use and updated privacy notice for Firefox - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 - Feb 2025 (1060 comments)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

brtv 2y ago

> It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. Do I understand it correctly that they can now use everything I read or type in the browser as they please, including for AI training? Considering that I do most of my work in webbased enail, issue tracker and other internal tools, this sounds like a direct violation of my NDA.

Panzer04 2y ago
Presumably they mean that if you want to post a comment to hacker news you give them the right to do what you want them to do. I'm presuming there's no catchy legal gotcha around the "doing as you request" clause.
- jimjimwii 2y ago
  That's nice and all, but most people are worried about the other "rights" this would grant them and their partners. (What they can vs what they say they will)
mmooss 2y ago
"It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox." > Do I understand it correctly that they can now use everything I read or type in the browser as they please, including for AI training? Have you requested that?

CrimsonRain 2y ago

I've said it countless times. Mozilla is the downfall of Firefox. Get Firefox out of Mozilla and the current administration, what Firefox getting better and better.

iso8859-1 2y ago

Does this new TOS also apply to Firefox as distributed in Linux distributions? Will Debian's default browser get switched out for LibreWolf? https://wiki.debian.org/DefaultWebBrowser https://wiki.debian.org/DefaultWebBrowser

jimjimwii 2y ago
I assume not since i never agreed to such a terms and only learned about them yesterday. How on earth did we get to a point of hidden privacy policies on desktop open source software...

xvf33 2y ago

[flagged]

Panzer04 2y ago

Seems a bit weasle-y. How hard is it to be straightforward? I don't mind Firefox doing what it needs to to fund itself. I do mind when it seems like they try to hide what specifically that is. Saying that some places define "sell" as more broad than what you think of is a total cop-out. Just put up a page that describes every single thing that is taken from the browser for revenue purposes. Maybe it's reasonable, maybe it's not, but it seems like everyone is defaulting to unreasonabl, so..

mrwww 2y ago

Safari it is.

mmooss 2y ago

People love to pile on - it's a popular modern social game. But in this case they are damaging something especially valuable, one of the leading privacy and freedom organizations in the world, during a very dangerous time. (And also one that doesn't buy or organize an army of 'grassroots' support.) Cui bono? I think Mozilla has made clear that they use the data for things the user requests. If someone thinks otherwise, please quote the current language (not the language from two days ago). They also are innovators in privacy-preserving advertising. Almost anything else on the web is much worse: it has ads and collects personal data. Not only does Mozilla not collect personal data, if they can create effective privacy-preserving advertising, they could transform privacy (again) by not only sharing this technology but demonstrating to government that the privacy violations are unnecessary for business profitability. Yet people are throwing all that out for the energy and excitement of piling on. That's a really bad choice, as far as I can see. If that's not what's happening, why are almost all posts expressed that way? How about some reasonable, calm discussion?

mort96 2y ago
Sorry, but only Mozilla is damaging Mozilla here. Anyone could have predicted that their actions these past days would be devastating to their reputation.
- mmooss 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mort96 2y ago
    If you asked some random selection of technical people, "hey if Mozilla just went ahead and made a ToS which gives Mozilla a broad license to anything you enter into Firefox, then removed the text 'Mozilla won't sell your data' from their FAQ pages, how would people react?" I think 99.9% of people would've predicted that the reaction would be negative. These things aren't as impossible to anticipate as you pretend. This backlash is 100% predictable, 100% Mozilla's fault, and 100% deserved.

xvilka 2y ago

At this point, I believe, it's important to accelerate development of Servo[1], which not only provides better browser security because of memory safety (getting rid of the stupid mistakes like OOB access or UAF), but is also managed[2] by Linux Foundation Europe[3], which gives more hope from the privacy standpoint. [1] https://github.com/servo/servo https://github.com/servo/servo [2] https://servo.org/about/ https://servo.org/about/ [3] https://linuxfoundation.eu/ https://linuxfoundation.eu/

einpoklum 2y ago

Are we able - with the version of FF currently out - to completely disable all transmission of data to Mozilla? Of course this might change with these announced plans, but I want to know if the current baseline can be safe to use (without patching), or whether it's already rather far-gone.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kristjank 2y ago

They believed we misunderstood and they were very much wrong. We know what you're trying to achieve and we're telling you not to do it. I have already cancelled my existing Mozilla subscriptions and am actively looking towards alternatives that either respect my privacy better (seems like Waterfox or Ladybird are the candidates), or remain as bad for privacy as Mozilla but provide more functionality than Firefox (Vivaldi, Brave).

drpossum 2y ago

"We were actually selling your data according to 'courts' so instead of making good on our promise to literally never do that we just memory-holed it. Not sure what the big deal is please continue to trust us."

sciens3 2y ago

I’ve used Netscape, the Mozilla browser, and then Firefox, so I guess I’m a long-time user. But as of today, I’m no longer using Firefox because of this.

fimdomeio 2y ago

Dear Mozilla, just give an option to pay you money for a browser that does not make any compromise in privacy.

danlitt 2y ago

I get that people are hung up on the "licensing" clause, but for me it is not the most egregious part. They say elsewhere, > 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. This is a direct contradiction of Freedom 0, and is at best a meaningless clause (very bad in a ToS) and at worst a reframing of Firefox to be non-free, either by casting it as a service or something else.

greatgib 2y ago

"we never sell your data" but we actually do it... For me, sharing my data even with "privacy preserving way" is not ok with the spirit I expected from something like Firefox. Even just something like "someone open new tabs 50 times with your advertisement there" or "someone went to your website last Friday" is not ok to share about me and my activity! So sad that corporate assholes took control of the project and try to confuse us with bullshit.

akomtu 2y ago

Some higher ups at Mozilla have realised an opportunity to train an AI on user data. Theft of user data at this unprecedented scale will be covered by the fig leaf of ToS, at least it's their plan. They really belong to prison, but the gov is knee deep in the same business, and so it's not going to do anything about it.

TheChaplain 2y ago

I find it interesting that Mozilla actually believes that everyone of their users are idiots. Going from "We never sell your data" to whatever those weaseling paragraphs attempt to say, is quite obvious that the users are going to be the product. And it would be better if they'd be straight about it. I wish they'd rather say "pay us $100 a year, and you'll get a modern browser on all platform that will stop ads and make tracking difficult".

KingOfCoders 2y ago

Their stance is: "The post office needs an unrestricted license to the content of your letters to transport them". This is beyond ridiculous.

GrantMoyer 2y ago
More like Bic needs unrestricted access to your letters so their pen can write them for you.

eitland 2y ago

And the sad outcome is probably more people will go to Chrome, which 1. is already worse wrt privacy 2. if they get monopoly will absolutely destroy the open web (already busy doing what they can already get away with).

badgersnake 2y ago

“You all read it wrong, we’re not evil really. We pinky promise. Don’t look behind the curtain.”

pca006132 2y ago

I'm just curious if it is possible that some former/current employees in Mozilla can just form an org, say they will maintain a fork of Firefox, and accept donation from the users that were pissed and maybe apply for some funding from EU NGI?

GrantMoyer 2y ago

Each update from Mozilla about this issue has Mozilla claiming users are confused (which may be true; I don't follow the larger social media ecosystem), then doubling down on the part I'm personally concerned about. I'm worried that Mozilla is asserting it needs a license for the information input into Firefox for Firefox to do it's job, since that's factually untrue. So either Mozilla is genuinely confused about this point, which I find unlikely, or they have some ulterior motive. I can't say with any confidence what the ulterior motive is, but I can be pretty sure there is one, and that worries me about the future of the browser landscape.

rafaelgoncalves 2y ago
totally agree and i have this same feeling. An the fact they provide this "updates" and doubling down the same points is unnerving.

MaxBarraclough 2y ago

> we’ve removed the reference to the Acceptable Use Policy because it seems to be causing more confusion than clarity. Weak sauce. Mozilla ought to be apologising here, not blaming its community for being upset at Mozilla's efforts to impose restrictions on its binaries that are in direct conflict with the core principles of Free and Open Source software. We were discussing this yesterday. [0] It's not 'confusion'. We saw what they were up to, and we weren't happy about it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43207456

simpaticoder 2y ago
This is the upside of doing what I did yesterday, which is to realize Mozilla cannot recover from this, which makes such follow-on mistakes easier to bear. The shock has been absorbed. I have installed a few alternatives and will be deleting FF as soon as possible. I will also continue to advocate for privacy and user-rights preserving software - a set that does not include anything from Mozilla. The bridge is well-and-truly burned. They had a 2% marketshare based on goodwill with privacy rights geeks, and managed to destroy it overnight. There is no recovery for them.

cybwraith 2y ago

Its been a nice 25 years, Mozilla browser(s). So long, just another old guard leaving for new pastures here.

256_ 2y ago

I see a bunch of people saying that Firefox "needs to make money" or something to that effect, like they've never heard of free software. When Flash was killed, enthusiasts re-implemented it entirely from scratch. I'm sure if Mozilla exploded today people would take the source code and continue maintaining Firefox. I'm aware maintaining a browser is complicated, but maintaining an operating system is even more-so, and that never stopped GNU.

r2b2 2y ago

Firefox should make it clear that Firefox (browser) will not collect, transmit, nor sell user data beyond what is technically required for interaction between the browser and other computers over networks. Anything less and people stop using Firefox. If other Mozilla services need broader terms, those should be separate.

Boldened15 2y ago

Curious what people would see as the longterm future of Firefox in the ideal world. Just being privacy focused isn't enough especially for the layperson, it needs some actual benefits like being faster or at least as fast, plus mindshare from developers... but it seems impossible to compete with Google's resources on any of that. Even if Firefox committed the resources to come ahead for a moment Google could just match it easily, in addition to building better dev tooling, etc. That being said I'm surprised they dropped the Servo project, it seemed like a step in the right direction? I actually think working adblockers is a great pitch, not sure what sites specifically the Manifest v2 version of uBlock Origin doesn't work on, but "download Firefox to watch ad-free YouTube" is a great pitch to convince people to use it. Sucks that Apple limited custom browser engines on iOS to just the EU, otherwise Mozilla could focus on full-fledged extension parity on iOS and the pitch would be to get sync + ad-free.

martinsnow 2y ago
I applaud Firefox for lower memory usage but it constantly shits the bed when resuming a new instance with previous tabs. If a tab crashes the whole thing crashes for me and the dev tools are really behind chrome for front end dev. I would also like if they would support input=type number ffs

ramon156 2y ago

Getting upset is viable, but whats your alternative? Chrome? Who already openly sells your data?

pabs3 2y ago

Dear Mozilla: maybe stop collecting user data, then the legal definition of "sell" will be irrelevant to you.