4 ms·

"Slipped" by non legalese versed users reading "scary" looking legal boilerplate and totally misunderstanding it.

dietr1ch 2y ago
Legalese heavily errs on asking too much, and maybe the possibility without bad intentions triggered users, maybe, but honestly, there's a bunch of flaws we've seen over time and this was more like the not so little drop that spilled the glass. Instead of privacy, users have been force-fed unwanted "features" that so happen to need external services instead of others like a UI revamp that made Sidebery and Containerise unnecessary. The only recent good feature I recall is the offline translation, prior to that it's gotta be the sync server that you could host yourself, and the reading mode that helps reading the web in its increasingly bloated downfall.
crabique 2y ago
It does not matter, the intent is obvious no matter how they try to spin it, the damage has been done. I am uninstalling Firefox after 16 years of sustained everyday use in dual-browser split setup alongside Safari. I will also make sure everyone I know still using FF gets the note. I am going back to Chromium-based browsers that are openly "sell-your-data" from day 1 and I am willing to accept the Google monopoly if it means that dung beetles like Firefox are not able to prey on loyal supporters by bait-and-switching the ToS whenever they feel like. Hopefully their telemetry shows them a good picture of how their decisions affect their market share. Hell, my 2011 issue about wrong handling of ::first-letter pseudoclass on bugzilla hasn't got a single meaningful update since, but I was willing to sacrifice the standards compliance for the promise of "privacy". There is no more privacy.
- johnea 2y ago
  Your logic is completely incomprehensible. Since Mozilla _may_ sell your data, your going to abandon it for Goggle? Who will _definitely_ sell your data? This is irrational. There is LibreWolf, Brave, Palemoon, just to name a few browsers that have not made the terms of use statements that the Mozilla foundation has just made, and that the goggle corps has made all along. Supporting the "Google monopoly" is not good for user rights. People who don't understand these issues run it because they don't know any better. People who do know better shouldn't use it, at all.

Legalese heavily errs on asking too much, and maybe the possibility without bad intentions triggered users, maybe, but honestly, there's a bunch of flaws we've seen over time and this was more like the not so little drop that spilled the glass. Instead of privacy, users have been force-fed unwanted "features" that so happen to need external services instead of others like a UI revamp that made Sidebery and Containerise unnecessary. The only recent good feature I recall is the offline translation, prior to that it's gotta be the sync server that you could host yourself, and the reading mode that helps reading the web in its increasingly bloated downfall.

crabique 2y ago

It does not matter, the intent is obvious no matter how they try to spin it, the damage has been done. I am uninstalling Firefox after 16 years of sustained everyday use in dual-browser split setup alongside Safari. I will also make sure everyone I know still using FF gets the note. I am going back to Chromium-based browsers that are openly "sell-your-data" from day 1 and I am willing to accept the Google monopoly if it means that dung beetles like Firefox are not able to prey on loyal supporters by bait-and-switching the ToS whenever they feel like. Hopefully their telemetry shows them a good picture of how their decisions affect their market share. Hell, my 2011 issue about wrong handling of ::first-letter pseudoclass on bugzilla hasn't got a single meaningful update since, but I was willing to sacrifice the standards compliance for the promise of "privacy". There is no more privacy.

johnea 2y ago
Your logic is completely incomprehensible. Since Mozilla _may_ sell your data, your going to abandon it for Goggle? Who will _definitely_ sell your data? This is irrational. There is LibreWolf, Brave, Palemoon, just to name a few browsers that have not made the terms of use statements that the Mozilla foundation has just made, and that the goggle corps has made all along. Supporting the "Google monopoly" is not good for user rights. People who don't understand these issues run it because they don't know any better. People who do know better shouldn't use it, at all.