7 ms·

Mozilla literally chose the worst possible time to change the Firefox terms. They could be scooping up disgruntled Chrome users, yet all they did was generate

Mozilla literally chose the worst possible time to change the Firefox terms. They could be scooping up disgruntled Chrome users, yet all they did was generate a load of negative noise.

Terr_ 2y ago
Unless it's actually the "best" time, because they didn't want disturbed Firefox users switching the other way...
- benterix 2y ago
  Interesting conspiracy theory, but it would imply they were directly bribed by Google because their normal salary depends on the popularity of Firefox so frankly, it makes little sense.
  - sshine 2y ago
    I hate to break it to you, but their normal salary depends directly more on Google. Google paid Mozilla $600M in 2022 for making Google the default search engine in Firefox. Mozilla is directly bribed by Google.
    - rubslopes 2y ago
      I think OP meant that they only receive the allowance because they are popular enough.
  - tessierashpool9 2y ago
    mozilla is bribed by google on a regular basis and officially at that :)
mmooss 2y ago
[flagged]
koakuma-chan 2y ago
I switched to LibreWolf a few days ago and the UX has been great so far!
- jamesy0ung 2y ago
  Is there a particular reason LibreWolf doesn't have automatic updates? It does seem a little inconvenient. I'm currently using Safari + AdGuard, which updates with the OS and from the App Store.
  - mimasama 2y ago
    In Windows there's an optional updater service you can install at least. But I think the reason for this is that some people want to make 100% sure the browser doesn't make any connections on its own, even if it's simply for checking if there are new updates.
    - anonym29 2y ago
      What remains unclear is why anyone who cares enough about their privacy to use LibreWolf would still be on Windows in the first place. Microsoft is easily ten thousand times worse than Mozilla.
      - koakuma-chan 2y ago
        To play games obviously.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        Wickedflickr 2y ago
        Linux can play most games now, it's quite viable as a gaming OS.
        2y ago
nurettin 2y ago
So many bad news about wasting funds, BS activism, at this point I'm expecting mozilla to go out theranos style.
- darig 2y ago
  [dead]
- scarab92 2y ago
  It's been lost in the weeds since Brendan Eich left.
GeekyBear 2y ago
This policy? > 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. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms... I'm not seeing a real issue here, just FUD. Google is killing the most effective ad blocker for Chrome. That ad blocker still works on Firefox. Why wouldn't users switch?
- mimasama 2y ago
  The issue is that Mozilla Corp has a license over what private videos people upload to their Nextcloud for example, which doesn't make sense because it's not Mozilla themselves processing your input but the locally installed copy of Firefox. Mozilla doesn't need my permission to use my own content I'm about to send online just to provide basic functionality present for decades. The explicit disclaiming of ownership is definitely good (the previous version didn't have that), but it's not enough. Mozilla should just nuke that section completely like they did with the AUP part if they're doing this ToU in good faith.
  - GeekyBear 2y ago
    Given the reality of Google's own TOS, privacy policies and history of privacy violations, I'm not seeing a reason to pass up switching to a browser where the most effective ad blocking will continue to work (even on YouTube).
    - mimasama 2y ago
      Well, I'm addressing the "real issue" part of your comment. Whether people switch over it is their choice (I've already switched to another browser as my primary years ago, and it's not Gecko, Blink, or WebKit). But just because other bad, worse stuff exist doesn't mean Mozilla gets a pass on trying to sneak in a license over people's own content as well as going back on their promise of not selling users' data. Or the history of terrible decisions they made.
j45 2y ago
I thought mozilla reversed course?
- koakuma-chan 2y ago
  They posted an apology but the general consensus in the comment section was that Mozilla is still going to sell your data.
  - j45 2y ago
    ty, appreciate the clarification.
- wtallis 2y ago
  Not really. They responded with a blog post "clarifying" some things but the only thing they actually reversed course on was applying their Acceptable Use Policy to Firefox as a whole. They're still putting a weird copyright license clause in their terms of use which only makes sense for Mozilla-operated cloud services but is written to apply to anything you do with the browser, and their Privacy Notice still enumerates many ways in which they track user data and sell it—to which their only argument is that they shouldn't have to call it "selling data" if they try to anonymize it. They're not going to back down on collecting user data; they will continue with actions that prevent them from legally saying they don't sell user data.
  - j45 2y ago
    ty, appreciate the clarification.
livelikedang 2y ago
[dead]

Mozilla literally chose the worst possible time to change the Firefox terms. They could be scooping up disgruntled Chrome users, yet all they did was generate a load of negative noise.

Terr_ 2y ago

Unless it's actually the "best" time, because they didn't want disturbed Firefox users switching the other way...

benterix 2y ago
Interesting conspiracy theory, but it would imply they were directly bribed by Google because their normal salary depends on the popularity of Firefox so frankly, it makes little sense.
- sshine 2y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but their normal salary depends directly more on Google. Google paid Mozilla $600M in 2022 for making Google the default search engine in Firefox. Mozilla is directly bribed by Google.
  - rubslopes 2y ago
    I think OP meant that they only receive the allowance because they are popular enough.
- tessierashpool9 2y ago
  mozilla is bribed by google on a regular basis and officially at that :)

mmooss 2y ago

[flagged]

koakuma-chan 2y ago

I switched to LibreWolf a few days ago and the UX has been great so far!

jamesy0ung 2y ago
Is there a particular reason LibreWolf doesn't have automatic updates? It does seem a little inconvenient. I'm currently using Safari + AdGuard, which updates with the OS and from the App Store.
- mimasama 2y ago
  In Windows there's an optional updater service you can install at least. But I think the reason for this is that some people want to make 100% sure the browser doesn't make any connections on its own, even if it's simply for checking if there are new updates.
  - anonym29 2y ago
    What remains unclear is why anyone who cares enough about their privacy to use LibreWolf would still be on Windows in the first place. Microsoft is easily ten thousand times worse than Mozilla.
    - koakuma-chan 2y ago
      To play games obviously.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Wickedflickr 2y ago
        Linux can play most games now, it's quite viable as a gaming OS.
        2y ago

nurettin 2y ago

So many bad news about wasting funds, BS activism, at this point I'm expecting mozilla to go out theranos style.

darig 2y ago
[dead]
scarab92 2y ago
It's been lost in the weeds since Brendan Eich left.

GeekyBear 2y ago

This policy? > 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. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms... I'm not seeing a real issue here, just FUD. Google is killing the most effective ad blocker for Chrome. That ad blocker still works on Firefox. Why wouldn't users switch?

mimasama 2y ago
The issue is that Mozilla Corp has a license over what private videos people upload to their Nextcloud for example, which doesn't make sense because it's not Mozilla themselves processing your input but the locally installed copy of Firefox. Mozilla doesn't need my permission to use my own content I'm about to send online just to provide basic functionality present for decades. The explicit disclaiming of ownership is definitely good (the previous version didn't have that), but it's not enough. Mozilla should just nuke that section completely like they did with the AUP part if they're doing this ToU in good faith.
- GeekyBear 2y ago
  Given the reality of Google's own TOS, privacy policies and history of privacy violations, I'm not seeing a reason to pass up switching to a browser where the most effective ad blocking will continue to work (even on YouTube).
  - mimasama 2y ago
    Well, I'm addressing the "real issue" part of your comment. Whether people switch over it is their choice (I've already switched to another browser as my primary years ago, and it's not Gecko, Blink, or WebKit). But just because other bad, worse stuff exist doesn't mean Mozilla gets a pass on trying to sneak in a license over people's own content as well as going back on their promise of not selling users' data. Or the history of terrible decisions they made.

j45 2y ago

I thought mozilla reversed course?

koakuma-chan 2y ago
They posted an apology but the general consensus in the comment section was that Mozilla is still going to sell your data.
- j45 2y ago
  ty, appreciate the clarification.
wtallis 2y ago
Not really. They responded with a blog post "clarifying" some things but the only thing they actually reversed course on was applying their Acceptable Use Policy to Firefox as a whole. They're still putting a weird copyright license clause in their terms of use which only makes sense for Mozilla-operated cloud services but is written to apply to anything you do with the browser, and their Privacy Notice still enumerates many ways in which they track user data and sell it—to which their only argument is that they shouldn't have to call it "selling data" if they try to anonymize it. They're not going to back down on collecting user data; they will continue with actions that prevent them from legally saying they don't sell user data.
- j45 2y ago
  ty, appreciate the clarification.

livelikedang 2y ago

[dead]