4 ms·

I think that people should look at what happened recently and realize that absolute nothing noteworthy happened. And Firefox is still the only browser engine w

I think that people should look at what happened recently and realize that absolute nothing noteworthy happened. And Firefox is still the only browser engine with support for uBlock Origin, on Android too.

anonym29 2y ago
Whoa, slow down there. You can't just go around asking people to read first-party sources and think critically on their own about an issue without getting their opinion from their feed or influencer of choice. That's an unreasonable and insane expectation! /s
- immibis 2y ago
  The first-party source is Mozilla themselves skirting around saying, but very heavily implying they are now selling unspecified data about me to unspecified actors, in a legally binding way, then walking it back with a pinky promise that is not legally binding, so doesn't actually mean anything. Have you read the first-party sources?
  - anonym29 2y ago
    The narrative you gave above is by definition not a first party source. Here's a first party source explaining your misunderstanding of the situation: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms... And here's another credible source explaining Mozilla's mistake in making this decision based on language that was only present in a draft version of the CCPA, as opposed to the final version, but which also made it to Wikipedia: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43276624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43276624 Most of the conversation on this topic never moved past the first misunderstanding, just a bunch of irrational kvetching at Mozilla by people who read an (incorrect) summary of the situation.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Why do you trust everything the allegedly bad guys say? By reading it and thinking critically as you said we all should, I can easily see that they are following the pattern that many bad guys follow: write some legalese allowing them to do bad stuff, then write some non-binding non-legalese saying they won't. Then only point at the latter to silence complaints. And then, the next step in the pattern is to actually do the bad stuff, while continuing to point at the non-binding non-legalese. Whereas you seem to be taking what they said at face value, which is not critical thinking.
      - bad_user 2y ago
        Not much changed on Mozilla's side, only the law (e.g., CCPA, GDPR), because technically speaking (as far as CCPA is concerned), Firefox has already been “selling” users' data. Furthermore, at this point, that legalese talks about features that the user expects. Otherwise, in the EU, Firefox would be forced to ask for explicit consent. GDPR is so strong that when Firefox will actually sell your data, you'll know it because in the EU it will have to tell users exactly how or why. Note that Mozilla was already hit with a privacy complaint in the EU due to PPA [1] because it's opt-out instead of opt-in. Whether they'll be found guilty by EU's DPAs, it really depends on whether they actually anonymize that data, as they claim to do, or not. Note here that the GDPR doesn't accept pseudo-anonymization as being valid anonymization. Of course, it may take a while to find the outcome of such complaints, just note that as far as the GDPR is concerned, that Privacy Policy of theirs doesn't count for squat. It really doesn't matter what they claim in their Privacy Policy, unless they are lying, i.e., if they actually “sell the data” of users in a way that users don't expect as part of the service, then the GDPR asks for explicit consent (opt-in). Technically speaking, they've already sold user data since 2006 because they've been installing Google's Search as the default, used, for example, for search suggestions. So everything you type in that address bar, goes to Google, and they get paid for it. Of course, search suggestions are part of the service that the user expects, but note that the user's search history can also be used for user profiling by Google. So as far as the CCPA is concerned, that's selling user data. And, very importantly, Firefox has been funded by ad-tech since 2006, much like all Chromiums and even Safari. What's actually new is that Mozilla wants to diversify. Which is good, as the Search deal is in jeopardy and those hundreds of millions of $ they need to fund the browser aren't going to come from donations. So they would like an alternative to cut the middleman, i.e., Google. If that alternative is also privacy preserving and at the very least opt-out (though I'd prefer opt-in), then that's even better than the status quo. People unhappy with this deal are people that hate advertising, or any reasonable monetization strategy, as if a viable browser with an independent engine could be funded via the donations of people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium. --- TLDR: 1. Nothing actually changed, and that Privacy Policy doesn't count for squat. 2. Results matter, not words, results such as that wonderful offline translation feature, which is a great showcase of privacy preserving AI tech that only Mozilla pulled ;-) PS: Isn't it odd that whenever the underdogs get boycotted, the winners are always the Big Tech solutions that are far worse in every aspect? [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/25/mozilla-hit-with-privacy-complaint-in-eu-over-firefox-tracking-tech/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/25/mozilla-hit-with-privacy-c...

anonym29 2y ago

Whoa, slow down there. You can't just go around asking people to read first-party sources and think critically on their own about an issue without getting their opinion from their feed or influencer of choice. That's an unreasonable and insane expectation! /s

immibis 2y ago
The first-party source is Mozilla themselves skirting around saying, but very heavily implying they are now selling unspecified data about me to unspecified actors, in a legally binding way, then walking it back with a pinky promise that is not legally binding, so doesn't actually mean anything. Have you read the first-party sources?
- anonym29 2y ago
  The narrative you gave above is by definition not a first party source. Here's a first party source explaining your misunderstanding of the situation: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms... And here's another credible source explaining Mozilla's mistake in making this decision based on language that was only present in a draft version of the CCPA, as opposed to the final version, but which also made it to Wikipedia: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43276624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43276624 Most of the conversation on this topic never moved past the first misunderstanding, just a bunch of irrational kvetching at Mozilla by people who read an (incorrect) summary of the situation.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Why do you trust everything the allegedly bad guys say? By reading it and thinking critically as you said we all should, I can easily see that they are following the pattern that many bad guys follow: write some legalese allowing them to do bad stuff, then write some non-binding non-legalese saying they won't. Then only point at the latter to silence complaints. And then, the next step in the pattern is to actually do the bad stuff, while continuing to point at the non-binding non-legalese. Whereas you seem to be taking what they said at face value, which is not critical thinking.
    - bad_user 2y ago
      Not much changed on Mozilla's side, only the law (e.g., CCPA, GDPR), because technically speaking (as far as CCPA is concerned), Firefox has already been “selling” users' data. Furthermore, at this point, that legalese talks about features that the user expects. Otherwise, in the EU, Firefox would be forced to ask for explicit consent. GDPR is so strong that when Firefox will actually sell your data, you'll know it because in the EU it will have to tell users exactly how or why. Note that Mozilla was already hit with a privacy complaint in the EU due to PPA [1] because it's opt-out instead of opt-in. Whether they'll be found guilty by EU's DPAs, it really depends on whether they actually anonymize that data, as they claim to do, or not. Note here that the GDPR doesn't accept pseudo-anonymization as being valid anonymization. Of course, it may take a while to find the outcome of such complaints, just note that as far as the GDPR is concerned, that Privacy Policy of theirs doesn't count for squat. It really doesn't matter what they claim in their Privacy Policy, unless they are lying, i.e., if they actually “sell the data” of users in a way that users don't expect as part of the service, then the GDPR asks for explicit consent (opt-in). Technically speaking, they've already sold user data since 2006 because they've been installing Google's Search as the default, used, for example, for search suggestions. So everything you type in that address bar, goes to Google, and they get paid for it. Of course, search suggestions are part of the service that the user expects, but note that the user's search history can also be used for user profiling by Google. So as far as the CCPA is concerned, that's selling user data. And, very importantly, Firefox has been funded by ad-tech since 2006, much like all Chromiums and even Safari. What's actually new is that Mozilla wants to diversify. Which is good, as the Search deal is in jeopardy and those hundreds of millions of $ they need to fund the browser aren't going to come from donations. So they would like an alternative to cut the middleman, i.e., Google. If that alternative is also privacy preserving and at the very least opt-out (though I'd prefer opt-in), then that's even better than the status quo. People unhappy with this deal are people that hate advertising, or any reasonable monetization strategy, as if a viable browser with an independent engine could be funded via the donations of people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium. --- TLDR: 1. Nothing actually changed, and that Privacy Policy doesn't count for squat. 2. Results matter, not words, results such as that wonderful offline translation feature, which is a great showcase of privacy preserving AI tech that only Mozilla pulled ;-) PS: Isn't it odd that whenever the underdogs get boycotted, the winners are always the Big Tech solutions that are far worse in every aspect? [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/25/mozilla-hit-with-privacy-complaint-in-eu-over-firefox-tracking-tech/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/25/mozilla-hit-with-privacy-c...