this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
435 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

63313 readers
4541 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  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
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 18 points 10 hours ago

Damn we really can't have anything nice.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Guys Mullvad browser and Librewolf exist.

[–] Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 hours ago

Zen Browser too

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 14 hours ago

they're firefox forks and ubo comes automatically installed with them.

[–] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I have librewolf, don't use it much. Is it functionally the same as FF? In terms of plug-in and website compatibility.

Most consumer sites are optimized for chrome and even safari, firefox & Edge (Obviously) face issues with scripts and plug-ins.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

It's basically the same, but the devil is in the detail. DRM disabled from the get go, which is a show stopper for some sites (say, netflix). Some sites will bork themselve on the strange user-agent. Some advanced privacy features are quite hard to disable willingly, which may or may not be a good thing if you actually have to get things done on sites that breaks.

One would argue that sites that breaks when privacy features are enforced are not worth it, but you don't always have a choice in that regard.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 79 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 14 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

hey, why is this significant? I can guess what features these are linked to, but is there any significance to the email address-like formats?

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

They are the demanded features-as-extension, shipped by default. They do that since they got rid of XUL i think?

About the @, no clue.

[–] yourFanatic@sh.itjust.works 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Is Waterfox a good alternative?

[–] shortrounddev@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Waterfox's creator, while not being HOSTILE to privacy, has said in the past that making the most private browser in the world is not the goal of the project. The goal is a more customizable browser for power users

[–] msgraves@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

ladybird can't come fast enough

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 6 points 12 hours ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 34 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 19 points 18 hours ago (1 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 27 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 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.

[–] ExFed@lemm.ee 13 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Being a "non-profit" doesn't mean the company "shouldn't make profit" ... It means that the owners/investors don't earn anything extra based on profit. The organization itself still needs to be financially sustainable.

As shady as Mozilla is, they're competing against a functional monopoly, so the playing field is hardly fair.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

As shady as Mozilla is, they’re competing against a functional monopoly

yeah this is a part we need to recognize. right now there are essentially three browsers. Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. Every other browser is some derivative of one of these- mostly Chromium.

Google can change some small detail about how they render HTML or a small part of their JS engine and that has global effects all over the internet. Without a Firefox to compete, they will implement policies to hurt the consumer. People think just because Chromium is open source that this mitigates the risk.

Google's V8 javascript engine does not only power all Chrome and chrome-derivatives, it also powers nodeJS and therefore vast swathes of server-side javascript as well.

it's actually difficult to understate how much raw power Google has in determining what you see on the internet and how you see it

we desperately need Firefox. I really hope that an open source alternative could be viable but it's been decades and we haven't had a real browser pop into existence. will the death of Firefox mean something else comes out? Or will the death of Firefox be the last nail in the coffin for a free internet?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 36 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] PullPantsUnsworn@lemmy.ml 14 points 22 hours ago

Same here. Just turned off all data collection checkboxes. Fuck Mozilla!

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 29 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] smeg@infosec.pub 7 points 16 hours ago

The writing was on the wall when the Mozilla Corporation was setup under the Foundation. A bunch of SF venture capital types have places on the board, and are in operational leadership, and are slowly transforming Mozilla into a shitty for-profit tech venture. Ads, data collection, subscription services, and a chat bot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 day ago (9 children)

So now what the hell do we have to use to not be spied upon?

[–] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (4 children)

Well I suppose LibreWolf (or some other de-branded Firefox) will become more mainstream. Similar to what chromium is to chrome 🤷

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 106 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Privacy policies should legally be called surveillance policies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org 65 points 1 day ago

Good thing LibreWolf and other forks exist, including hard forks like the Goanna browsers.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 143 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 200 points 1 day ago (28 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."

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 7 points 20 hours ago (10 children)

can a chromium fork reasonably be maintained with adblock support?

[–] TK420@lemmy.world 15 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

That would be getting right back in bed with Google, gross.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scholar@lemmy.world 20 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This new policy doesn't apply to Firefox forks so you're better off with one of those

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 8 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (3 children)

so in a similar vein: can the community reasonably maintain an up-to-date and secure gecko-based browser we can universally move to instead of firefox? can we make google back the fuck off while we do so? because thats what seems to be the way, with how things are going down.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] theherk@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

This comment under the article gave me a chuckle.

load more comments
view more: next ›