5 ms·

As a Firefox user: if I want a VPN I'll use an actual VPN. Focus on making a great browser, and not all this distraction. Also, "free": "If you're not paying f

As a Firefox user: if I want a VPN I'll use an actual VPN. Focus on making a great browser, and not all this distraction. Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"

piperswe 7mo ago
Mozilla only makes the integration between the browser and the VPN, not the VPN network itself - Mozilla VPN is white label Mullvad.
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  That's an existing product that may or may not be related. Unless you know something the article doesn't?
- usr1106 7mo ago
  According to https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/03/firefox-adding-a-free-vpn https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/03/firefox-adding-a-free-vp... Mullvad might not be used for the free service. Whether that's correct or incorrect extrapolation we will see...
  - lxgr 7mo ago
    I just tried it. It seems to be based on MASQUE and provided by (at least) Fastly.
crummy 7mo ago
> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" This must apply to Firefox itself, right?
- chii 7mo ago
  of course it does. Why do you think google buys the rights to firefox's search bar (as a default setting)?
  - hvb2 7mo ago
    That's not remotely the same? A default setting that can easily be changed for a feature the vendor didn't have a solution for? To give you an example. Try to use Google Search without sending your data to Google. You cannot use the product without it, you cannot opt out. Firefox, you can use just fine with Google not being your search engine.
    - chii 7mo ago
      Why isn't it the same? The fact that it is possible to change that default means google simply pays less for it than they otherwise would if it wasn't changeable. It's not a binary toggle - firefox is selling you as a source of revenue for themselves. They're just not making it as extreme as it is possible to be - in the hopes that you don't switch away. You can compare same situation with safari in iOS. Except google pays a lot more, since you cannot switch away in iOS as easily, and culturally there's more reluctance compared to firefox users. This makes google pay more for iOS traffic, as those users are worth more.
      - glenstein 7mo ago
        The problem is that this is equivocating between "selling your data" and setting Google as the default search. The former implies Firefox is harvesting your telemetry and personally identifying you and selling it off to the highest bidder. The latter is setting Google search as an optional default, where any telemetry is part of customary interactions with Google search rather than anything specific that Firefox is doing. The sense in which you are the product on Firefox is that they want to maintain a large enough user base that search licensing is valuable enough to sell to Google.
      - hvb2 7mo ago
        > Why isn't it the same? The fact that it is possible to change that default means google simply pays less for it than they otherwise would if it wasn't changeable. Because I can change that default and still use the thing. That's how it's very different. Typically when people say that when something is free you are the product. They mean that it's free because your data is being sold, implying that without telemetry it wouldn't be free. That's not the case here as far as I know
nl 7mo ago
> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" This is such a un-nuanced take. In this case Firefox's route-to-market is the product. It's a distribution channel where some people who receive the free version will upgrade. Free tiers for products where some will pay to upgrade seems like a reasonable compromise, but it does depend on how the deal is structured. If Mullvad pays Firefox for the free users then Firefox's incentives are aligned with its users. If Mullvad pays per conversion then it's a different story.
- Springtime 7mo ago
  I doubt Mullvad would be doing this if they weren't getting compensated given they've always said (even right now[1]) they don't offer a free tier since they don't believe it makes sense. The other aspect is I expect it would stain the IP pool further. VPN IPs often end up on various blacklists due to abuse and introducing a wave of free users would only make it worse for paying customers. [1] https://mullvad.net/en/pricing https://mullvad.net/en/pricing > Why no free plan? "Free" services nearly always come at some cost, whether that be the time you spend watching an intro ad, the collection of your data, or by limiting the functionality of the service. We don't operate that way – at all.
  - pydry 7mo ago
    It's already pretty bad for mullvad. 3/4 of the websites I visit do bot checks it used to just be a few.
    - ekianjo 7mo ago
      That's true. Definitely getting worse.
    - cffan2 7mo ago
      It's mainly because nearly all VPN providers all use the same shady providers - M247, xtom, fdc, datapacket etc.. Most CDN setups will "challenge" those ASNs. People think Mullvad is special but it's same shit as all the others in most cities/markets, I wish they would use some of their big ad money spend to deleverage from these typical dodgy scam hosting ASNs.
noosphr 7mo ago
Are you the product for Firefox too? VPNs are no longer optional for the current internet. This is as controversial as Firefox speaking ftp.
- nhinck3 7mo ago
  Yes? I mean it's very provable that they sell access to your data and your eyeballs other companies.
- philipallstar 7mo ago
  Speaking ftp is a dev cost, not an ongoing infrastructure cost.
aurareturn 7mo ago
Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" HN is "free" too. :)
- mentalgear 7mo ago
  At least free to data mine by everyone (as far as I know).
- stephenr 7mo ago
  that isn't the gotcha you think it is. Y combinator absolutely profits from encouraging group think and positive attitudes about things they're involved in. How else would you get a large part of the tech world to somehow believe that suckling on the teat of Venture capital until that elusive "exit" is the holy grail of business models?
  - aurareturn 7mo ago
    Regardless of how you think HN makes the service free, I'm pointing out to the OP that he is using a service that is free and he is the product. It seems like he is ok with this concept. So why wouldn't he be ok with he Mozilla free VPN concept.
    - stephenr 7mo ago
      How you are "valuable" as the product is absolutely a relevant distinction to make. When the valuable part is data collection, you don't get a choice in how your user data is sold. When the valuable part is influencing opinions, you do get a choice in what you believe.
- aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
  > > Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" > HN is "free" too. :) Indeed: you deliver valuable information about market trends, market sentiments, technology, ... to SV startups and investors. Additionally, Hacker News is basically a marketing expense of YC.
gzread 7mo ago
I think a VPN is a great add-on for Firefox and way for Mozilla to monetize itself, but I'm surprised it's free. Perhaps it's a free trial like Proton?
- freehorse 7mo ago
  Proton also has a free tier.
sunaookami 7mo ago
Do you live in 2010? Whether you pay for a service or not is irrelevant to selling your data nowadays.
kotaKat 7mo ago
Can we go back to making all this garbage, I don’t know, a browser extension or something? All of this crap that everyone keeps pulling into their browsers needs to be ripped back out and made a plugin or an extension. Stop shoving it in the core damn browser. I didn’t need the waste of space and I’m never going to touch it.
- philipallstar 7mo ago
  Why would a VPN be a good browser extension?
  - kotaKat 7mo ago
    Why does the VPN need to be integrated into the browser itself?
    - philipallstar 7mo ago
      I don't think it should. You think it should be a browser extension. I don't think it should either be integrated or a browser extension.
      - fortyseven 7mo ago
        I think we can interpret "browser extension" as a catch-all for "not directly built into the browser", in whatever form that takes.
      - kotaKat 7mo ago
        Quite frankly I don't think it should be either. I'm sick of browsers trying to sidestep my operating system's networking stack (be it forcing their own DNS implementations for 'security' or now this BS).
        ranger_danger 7mo ago
        There are other usecases that don't affect you which are very handy for others, such as testing site access from different countries with per-tab geo settings from a VPN extension.
Krssst 7mo ago
Browser integration means one does not need to enable the VPN system-wide as do most VPN applications. Useful if you want to switch region quickly without the OS and many apps now thinking you're in a different country and starting behaving as such.
Nathanba 7mo ago
I'd love to have a free VPN directly integrated into the browser, it's not a distraction. It's a developer tool for website developers.
- snarf_br 7mo ago
  It's a distraction.
- 1317 7mo ago
  it's nice but i don't see why it has to be made and ran by the browser maker itself
- alternatex 7mo ago
  Vivaldi integrates Proton VPN into theirs. I think it's pretty useful.
Poudlardo 7mo ago
Could be useful to quick check simple things such i18n or default behavior of a website. But for actual use, I will wait for the technical "trade-offs" as mentioned in the article.
2OEH8eoCRo0 7mo ago
Why is this always upvoted to the top? You realize that if they focus on only making a browser they'll run out of money?
mhitza 7mo ago
This feature actually sounds like something that is aligned to Mozilla's mission of an open internet (paraphrasing). Now, from where this cost is going to be recouped, how seamless the integration will be (in-browser translation is useful but the UX is not good enough), or if their VPN exit points aren't flagged to death as bad IPs; will remain to be seen. The other thing about this feature, is that it will prove interesting in France and the UK; where it could be seen as a circumvention technique of the currently in place age restriction laws. And at the very least, it will bring those topics back into discussion.
- pipes 7mo ago
  Uk gov already talking about age verification (my read: identify verification) for VPN services. Grim. I'm guessing they'd block Firefox if they don't comply.
  - LoganDark 7mo ago
    > (my read: identify verification) My read: Identity theft
grounder 7mo ago
Now we're the product whether we pay for something or not.
lxgr 7mo ago
As another Firefox user, I much prefer modern browser-centric solutions like iCloud Relay over VPNs, which seems like the wrong layer for what I'm using them for both in terms of implementation complexity and achievable privacy. Happy to see that this solution is apparently using MASQUE, which is what iCloud Private Relay is also based on!

As a Firefox user: if I want a VPN I'll use an actual VPN. Focus on making a great browser, and not all this distraction. Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold"

piperswe 7mo ago

Mozilla only makes the integration between the browser and the VPN, not the VPN network itself - Mozilla VPN is white label Mullvad.

Dylan16807 7mo ago
That's an existing product that may or may not be related. Unless you know something the article doesn't?
usr1106 7mo ago
According to https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/03/firefox-adding-a-free-vpn https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/03/firefox-adding-a-free-vp... Mullvad might not be used for the free service. Whether that's correct or incorrect extrapolation we will see...
- lxgr 7mo ago
  I just tried it. It seems to be based on MASQUE and provided by (at least) Fastly.

crummy 7mo ago

> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" This must apply to Firefox itself, right?

chii 7mo ago
of course it does. Why do you think google buys the rights to firefox's search bar (as a default setting)?
- hvb2 7mo ago
  That's not remotely the same? A default setting that can easily be changed for a feature the vendor didn't have a solution for? To give you an example. Try to use Google Search without sending your data to Google. You cannot use the product without it, you cannot opt out. Firefox, you can use just fine with Google not being your search engine.
  - chii 7mo ago
    Why isn't it the same? The fact that it is possible to change that default means google simply pays less for it than they otherwise would if it wasn't changeable. It's not a binary toggle - firefox is selling you as a source of revenue for themselves. They're just not making it as extreme as it is possible to be - in the hopes that you don't switch away. You can compare same situation with safari in iOS. Except google pays a lot more, since you cannot switch away in iOS as easily, and culturally there's more reluctance compared to firefox users. This makes google pay more for iOS traffic, as those users are worth more.
    - glenstein 7mo ago
      The problem is that this is equivocating between "selling your data" and setting Google as the default search. The former implies Firefox is harvesting your telemetry and personally identifying you and selling it off to the highest bidder. The latter is setting Google search as an optional default, where any telemetry is part of customary interactions with Google search rather than anything specific that Firefox is doing. The sense in which you are the product on Firefox is that they want to maintain a large enough user base that search licensing is valuable enough to sell to Google.
    - hvb2 7mo ago
      > Why isn't it the same? The fact that it is possible to change that default means google simply pays less for it than they otherwise would if it wasn't changeable. Because I can change that default and still use the thing. That's how it's very different. Typically when people say that when something is free you are the product. They mean that it's free because your data is being sold, implying that without telemetry it wouldn't be free. That's not the case here as far as I know

nl 7mo ago

> "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" This is such a un-nuanced take. In this case Firefox's route-to-market is the product. It's a distribution channel where some people who receive the free version will upgrade. Free tiers for products where some will pay to upgrade seems like a reasonable compromise, but it does depend on how the deal is structured. If Mullvad pays Firefox for the free users then Firefox's incentives are aligned with its users. If Mullvad pays per conversion then it's a different story.

Springtime 7mo ago
I doubt Mullvad would be doing this if they weren't getting compensated given they've always said (even right now[1]) they don't offer a free tier since they don't believe it makes sense. The other aspect is I expect it would stain the IP pool further. VPN IPs often end up on various blacklists due to abuse and introducing a wave of free users would only make it worse for paying customers. [1] https://mullvad.net/en/pricing https://mullvad.net/en/pricing > Why no free plan? "Free" services nearly always come at some cost, whether that be the time you spend watching an intro ad, the collection of your data, or by limiting the functionality of the service. We don't operate that way – at all.
- pydry 7mo ago
  It's already pretty bad for mullvad. 3/4 of the websites I visit do bot checks it used to just be a few.
  - ekianjo 7mo ago
    That's true. Definitely getting worse.
  - cffan2 7mo ago
    It's mainly because nearly all VPN providers all use the same shady providers - M247, xtom, fdc, datapacket etc.. Most CDN setups will "challenge" those ASNs. People think Mullvad is special but it's same shit as all the others in most cities/markets, I wish they would use some of their big ad money spend to deleverage from these typical dodgy scam hosting ASNs.

noosphr 7mo ago

Are you the product for Firefox too? VPNs are no longer optional for the current internet. This is as controversial as Firefox speaking ftp.

nhinck3 7mo ago
Yes? I mean it's very provable that they sell access to your data and your eyeballs other companies.
philipallstar 7mo ago
Speaking ftp is a dev cost, not an ongoing infrastructure cost.

aurareturn 7mo ago

Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" HN is "free" too. :)

mentalgear 7mo ago
At least free to data mine by everyone (as far as I know).
stephenr 7mo ago
that isn't the gotcha you think it is. Y combinator absolutely profits from encouraging group think and positive attitudes about things they're involved in. How else would you get a large part of the tech world to somehow believe that suckling on the teat of Venture capital until that elusive "exit" is the holy grail of business models?
- aurareturn 7mo ago
  Regardless of how you think HN makes the service free, I'm pointing out to the OP that he is using a service that is free and he is the product. It seems like he is ok with this concept. So why wouldn't he be ok with he Mozilla free VPN concept.
  - stephenr 7mo ago
    How you are "valuable" as the product is absolutely a relevant distinction to make. When the valuable part is data collection, you don't get a choice in how your user data is sold. When the valuable part is influencing opinions, you do get a choice in what you believe.
aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
> > Also, "free": "If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold" > HN is "free" too. :) Indeed: you deliver valuable information about market trends, market sentiments, technology, ... to SV startups and investors. Additionally, Hacker News is basically a marketing expense of YC.

gzread 7mo ago

I think a VPN is a great add-on for Firefox and way for Mozilla to monetize itself, but I'm surprised it's free. Perhaps it's a free trial like Proton?

freehorse 7mo ago
Proton also has a free tier.

sunaookami 7mo ago

Do you live in 2010? Whether you pay for a service or not is irrelevant to selling your data nowadays.

kotaKat 7mo ago

Can we go back to making all this garbage, I don’t know, a browser extension or something? All of this crap that everyone keeps pulling into their browsers needs to be ripped back out and made a plugin or an extension. Stop shoving it in the core damn browser. I didn’t need the waste of space and I’m never going to touch it.

philipallstar 7mo ago
Why would a VPN be a good browser extension?
- kotaKat 7mo ago
  Why does the VPN need to be integrated into the browser itself?
  - philipallstar 7mo ago
    I don't think it should. You think it should be a browser extension. I don't think it should either be integrated or a browser extension.
    - fortyseven 7mo ago
      I think we can interpret "browser extension" as a catch-all for "not directly built into the browser", in whatever form that takes.
    - kotaKat 7mo ago
      Quite frankly I don't think it should be either. I'm sick of browsers trying to sidestep my operating system's networking stack (be it forcing their own DNS implementations for 'security' or now this BS).
      - ranger_danger 7mo ago
        There are other usecases that don't affect you which are very handy for others, such as testing site access from different countries with per-tab geo settings from a VPN extension.

Krssst 7mo ago

Browser integration means one does not need to enable the VPN system-wide as do most VPN applications. Useful if you want to switch region quickly without the OS and many apps now thinking you're in a different country and starting behaving as such.

Nathanba 7mo ago

I'd love to have a free VPN directly integrated into the browser, it's not a distraction. It's a developer tool for website developers.

snarf_br 7mo ago
It's a distraction.
1317 7mo ago
it's nice but i don't see why it has to be made and ran by the browser maker itself
alternatex 7mo ago
Vivaldi integrates Proton VPN into theirs. I think it's pretty useful.

Poudlardo 7mo ago

Could be useful to quick check simple things such i18n or default behavior of a website. But for actual use, I will wait for the technical "trade-offs" as mentioned in the article.

2OEH8eoCRo0 7mo ago

Why is this always upvoted to the top? You realize that if they focus on only making a browser they'll run out of money?

mhitza 7mo ago

This feature actually sounds like something that is aligned to Mozilla's mission of an open internet (paraphrasing). Now, from where this cost is going to be recouped, how seamless the integration will be (in-browser translation is useful but the UX is not good enough), or if their VPN exit points aren't flagged to death as bad IPs; will remain to be seen. The other thing about this feature, is that it will prove interesting in France and the UK; where it could be seen as a circumvention technique of the currently in place age restriction laws. And at the very least, it will bring those topics back into discussion.

pipes 7mo ago
Uk gov already talking about age verification (my read: identify verification) for VPN services. Grim. I'm guessing they'd block Firefox if they don't comply.
- LoganDark 7mo ago
  > (my read: identify verification) My read: Identity theft

grounder 7mo ago

Now we're the product whether we pay for something or not.

lxgr 7mo ago

As another Firefox user, I much prefer modern browser-centric solutions like iCloud Relay over VPNs, which seems like the wrong layer for what I'm using them for both in terms of implementation complexity and achievable privacy. Happy to see that this solution is apparently using MASQUE, which is what iCloud Private Relay is also based on!