this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
25 points (93.1% liked)

Technology

65819 readers
5155 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
 

Hot off the back of its recent leadership rejig, Mozilla has announced users of Firefox will soon be subject to a ‘Terms of Use’ policy — a first for the iconic open source web browser.

This official Terms of Use will, Mozilla argues, offer users ‘more transparency’ over their ‘rights and permissions’ as they use Firefox to browse the information superhighway — as well well as Mozilla’s “rights” to help them do it, as this excerpt makes clear:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet.

When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice (aka privacy policy). This adds a crop of cushy caveats to cover the company’s planned AI chatbot integrations, cloud-based service features, and more ads and sponsored content on Firefox New Tab page.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Get ready for ads as well

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e#commitcomment-153095625

They removed this:


            {

                "@type": "Question",

                "name": "Does Firefox sell your personal data?",

                "acceptedAnswer": {

                    "@type": "Answer",

                    "text": "Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise. "

                }

            },

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Turns out when you gotta choose between going defunct and selling ad space, selling ad space wins.

Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it, and less money to fund it.

The majority cost of Firefox is engineering salaries.

Eventually something has to give, and this is it.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it

Or, hear me out, that former donors don't trust them anymore!

But also that a lot of people don't want to donate, basically when they could only donate an immeasurably small amount, to a company whose CEO gets an unimaginably huge pay, that could be used for significantly boosting development.
Personally that's a big reason I rather want to support smaller projects, or even that of size like Bitwarden.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cough cough, that's true the biggest cost is salary 17,097,933. But 10 millions are paid to C-Suite and 4mil to contractors who do the job. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/b200-mozilla-foundation-form-990-public-disclosure-ty23.pdf Just look into the books.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah but the line between them and google is not there anymore in that case

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The only acceptable privacy policy for a browser is "we won't fucking look into anything, take anything, nor send anything anywhere you didn't actually wish to send explicitly".

Firefox have an extension system. If mozilla wants to bloat it, they should do it via extension, so that they're not bloating the actually useful part. As it is, all they're doing is forcing more work on people to manage forks to remove all the shit every time they push a release.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh, that last paragraph doesn't give me hope at all. Fucking AI chatbots.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The actual addition to the terms is essentially this:

  1. If you choose to use the optional AI chatbot sidebar feature, you're subject to the ToS and Privacy Policy of the provider you use, just as if you'd gone to their site and used it directly. This is obvious.
  2. Mozilla will collect light data on usage, such as how frequently people use the feature overall, and how long the strings of text are that are being pasted in. That's basically it.

The way this article describes it as "cushy caveats" is completely misleading. It's quite literally just "If you use a feature that integrates with third party services, you're relying on and providing data to those services, also we want to know if the feature is actually being used and how much."

[–] Viri4thus@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (22 children)

The problem is the inclusion of the feature to begin with. It should be an opt in add install.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Privacy policies should legally be called surveillance policies.

[–] visor841@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Or "Invasion of Privacy" Policy

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I feel like everything is getting corroded, the capitalists are wearing down everything

[–] msgraves@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

ladybird can't come fast enough

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Ladybird has a platinum sponsorship on their homepage from Shopify so not a good look already.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 1 week ago

Building a browser from scratch is going to cost well over a million dollars in development costs. I don't think they'd be able to achieve it without sponsors.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wtf is happening, why is now even Firefox going off the rails?

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is this because some middle manager at Mozilla has to pretend to be productive?

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

No it’s because Firefox isn’t profitable and to try to survive in its current form they have to do something.

It might be more productive to die and live on as an open source effort. I personally doubt there’s enough open source engagement to keep Firefox current and competitive but it’s of course an alternative Mozilla in its current form is unable to consider.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Mozilla is a nonprofit (or it at least it should be, technically it's a for profit corporation that's wholly owned by a nonprofit foundation, shady asf).

They shouldn't be trying to make a profit, they should make enough money to pay their programmers to maintain the browser.

They should not be dumping money into more executive hires and AI bullshit like they are doing.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

they have to dip something for sure. THEY HAVE TO REDUCE THE CEO PAY BY MEASLY 20% AND FUND DEVELOPMENT FROM THAT!!!

or by even more.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Damn we really can't have anything nice.

[–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

I moved on to Waterfox, is this a good move?

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

sometimes bound to give, if firefox isnt taking in money from having no ads, to having ads. they are going to need tons of ads, and the ability to sell your browser info for money, much like chrome is doing. surprised its taken this long to finally say "private donations isnt enough"

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

The great part of open source is forking.

And forking it will, Firefox will be forked with a version of a different name that doesn't have this shit, and then the name Firefox will fade into history as a once great product that formed the basis of a different grey product.

Fork you, Mozilla

[–] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I've been willingly enabling data collection features for Mozilla but I guess that time is revolute, they don't feel trustworthy anymore.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›