4 ms·

Reading the comments, I see a lot of hate for Firefox. What is the explanation for this (other than people not trying Firefox and assuming it's inferior)?

by bgnn 1y ago

jacquesm 1y ago
I love Firefox, I've bee using it for as long as it exists and Netscape before that. It's Mozilla I have a problem with. Mozilla has allowed itself to become controlled opposition rather than the aggressive underdog that it should be. Lots of the money they take in that could go to improving Firefox is spent on stuff I could not care less about. There is no way to earmark funds sent to Mozilla as 'browser only'.
- WhrRTheBaboons 1y ago
  Ultimately the issue is allowing Google to skirt around anti-monopoly rules by throwing money at Mozilla. Can't really blame the latter for cashing in when the rules fail at enforcing a competitive environment. Hate the game, not the player, basically.
hashstring 1y ago
Also their browser security always seems to lag behind…
haloboy777 1y ago
I love using firefox. Mozilla has lost all the trust I had in them. The biggest blow for me was them shutting down pocket.
qilo 1y ago
Mozilla sells user data to third parties. Their statement: 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.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612
- Anamon 1y ago
  I wouldn't say that this implies they really are selling user data. By that definiton of sale, I can understand why their lawyers would consider it almost impossible to fully comply with. I totally understand why the Act would use such vague wording and cast such a wide net, considering the underhanded actions of ad companies. But I also understand no longer feeling comfortable guaranteeing that nothing that could reasonably be argued to fall under this definiton would ever happen. Heck, I think some lawyers might argue that even just sending an anonymous GET request to any web server would qualify (disclosing personal information to a third party). Seems like the only way to stay fully compliant is to ship a browser with only an offline mode, haha.

Reading the comments, I see a lot of hate for Firefox. What is the explanation for this (other than people not trying Firefox and assuming it's inferior)?

by bgnn 1y ago

Reading the comments, I see a lot of hate for Firefox. What is the explanation for this (other than people not trying Firefox and assuming it's inferior)?

jacquesm 1y ago

I love Firefox, I've bee using it for as long as it exists and Netscape before that. It's Mozilla I have a problem with. Mozilla has allowed itself to become controlled opposition rather than the aggressive underdog that it should be. Lots of the money they take in that could go to improving Firefox is spent on stuff I could not care less about. There is no way to earmark funds sent to Mozilla as 'browser only'.

WhrRTheBaboons 1y ago
Ultimately the issue is allowing Google to skirt around anti-monopoly rules by throwing money at Mozilla. Can't really blame the latter for cashing in when the rules fail at enforcing a competitive environment. Hate the game, not the player, basically.

hashstring 1y ago

Also their browser security always seems to lag behind…

haloboy777 1y ago

I love using firefox. Mozilla has lost all the trust I had in them. The biggest blow for me was them shutting down pocket.

qilo 1y ago

Mozilla sells user data to third parties. Their statement: 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.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612

Anamon 1y ago
I wouldn't say that this implies they really are selling user data. By that definiton of sale, I can understand why their lawyers would consider it almost impossible to fully comply with. I totally understand why the Act would use such vague wording and cast such a wide net, considering the underhanded actions of ad companies. But I also understand no longer feeling comfortable guaranteeing that nothing that could reasonably be argued to fall under this definiton would ever happen. Heck, I think some lawyers might argue that even just sending an anonymous GET request to any web server would qualify (disclosing personal information to a third party). Seems like the only way to stay fully compliant is to ship a browser with only an offline mode, haha.