this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
797 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

66067 readers
4735 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
797
Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 week ago by Xatolos@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
182 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

AI Summary:

Overview:

  • Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
  • Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
  • Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
  • Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
  • Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
  • Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then how about putting that in the language? "We don't sell your data, except if you're in California, because they consider x, y and z things we might actually do as selling data."

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Exactly!

Hetzner kind of does this, where there's a separate EULA for US customers that lays out precisely how they're screwing you in that jurisdiction (e.g. forced arbitration). I'm not happy about that, but I appreciate having a separate, region-specific TOS.

If some wording only applies in California, state that. Or if it's due to similar laws elsewhere, then state that. And then detail which features collect data, why, what control you have, and how you can opt-out. Maybe have a separate mini-TOS/EULA for each major component that gets into details.

But just saying "you give us a license to everything you do on Firefox" may appease their legal counsel, but it doesn't appease many of their users, especially since they largely appeal to people who care about privacy.

[–] monogram@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

At this point I care about ownership of what I do on my browser, Chrome under these guidelines is a better alternative (and that’s a low bar)

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

How is chrome better? It's literally run by an ad company, and there's no way they have a better TOS.

[–] monogram@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It’s not it’s just slightly less bad than Firefox on the perspective of ownership,

E.g.: under the new guidelines by Mozilla you’re not allowed to bookmark pornhub

This is thanks to Mozilla’s focus on “privacy respecting “ advertisement and ai, go to any open source conference and you’ll see a list of ai talks by them.

——

Don’t get me wrong I implore anyone to move to any browser that isn’t; Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Opera

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

E.g.: under the new guidelines by Mozilla you’re not allowed to bookmark pornhub

I'm gonna need some evidence for that.

The only thing that's "worse" about Firefox's TOS IMO is that it gives them the right to "sell" your data, which seems to mostly apply to their business deals with advertisers (e.g. Google search and Pocket). Google doesn't need that because they are the advertiser.

With Firefox, you can disable Pocket and change the search engine and you're probably good. With chrome, you can't really get away from it, especially since you can't install an effective ad blocker anymore.

Brave's TOS are better, but I only use them as a backup because I believe strongly in alternative rendering engines. For that reason I still recommend Firefox, though with an asterisk that they should consider a fork if they don't want to disable defaults.