this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
657 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

63313 readers
4495 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
 

Firefox maker Mozilla deleted a promise to never sell its users' personal data and is trying to assure worried users that its approach to privacy hasn't fundamentally changed. Until recently, a Firefox FAQ promised that the browser maker never has and never will sell its users' personal data. An archived version from January 30 says:

Does Firefox sell your personal data?

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.

That promise is removed from the current version. There's also a notable change in a data privacy FAQ that used to say, "Mozilla doesn't sell data about you, and we don't buy data about you."

The data privacy FAQ now explains that Mozilla is no longer making blanket promises about not selling data because some legal jurisdictions define "sale" in a very broad way:

Mozilla doesn't sell data about you (in the way that most people think about "selling data"), and we don't buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of "sale of data" is extremely broad in some places, we've had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

Mozilla didn't say which legal jurisdictions have these broad definitions.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 19 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Mozilla is trying to increase their revenue by doing everything other than improving Firefox

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 40 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

promises don't count if you delete them. everyone knows that

[–] LMurch@thelemmy.club 22 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

"If I put my wedding ring in my pocket, it's not cheating..."

This kind of thinking shouldn't be acceptable from a legal standpoint. Yet the courts do nothing...

[–] grue@lemmy.world 111 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Mozilla needs to understand that I don't want it to have my data to sell or not in the first place.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 hours ago

That's the thing that bothers me about all these companies now. My data is my data, not theirs. They shouldn't even be allowed to collect it, let alone sell it or give it to anyone who wants it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world 171 points 12 hours ago (16 children)

I see it said agian and agian. because its true. Firefox is one of, if not the best of the mainstream browsers. (Not included its many forks) but Mozilla is a horrible caretaker of it. Mozilla does not focus on firefox and they dont care/believe in it nearly as much as its users or devs who fork it.

The motivations of a company are extremely important, and has Mozilla does not care for a lightweight, good, privacy centric browser, the enshitification will and has corrupt firefox.

It's only a matter of time until it is as bad as chromium or flat out joins it.

[–] afronaut@lemmy.cafe 8 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Do Firefox forks allow us to avoid this enshittification or will they also be affected as well?

[–] Lem453@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

Is librewolf a good alternative? Most plugins seem compatible

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 10 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

In theory yes. But remember that Chrome is based on Chromium which is open source. But nobody has stepped up to do a viable hard fork to take power away from Google.

Maintaining a modern browser is a huge undertaking which is why almost nobody except Google, Mozilla, and Apple are really even trying. Even Microsoft threw in the towel.

The more bad stuff is added to Firefox the harder it will be for any forks to keep up removing it while also keeping it up to date. Will anyone step up?

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

Because it hasn't been needed. Alternatives like vivaldi and brave do make some changes to allow you to disable Google services. Ungoogled chromium is also a thing.

For all the hate, Google has mostly done fine beyond a few boneheaded decisions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 7 hours ago

Yes, they allow full avoidance of any potential data collection through the browser, if they remove the collection features.

Mozilla would need to change their licensing terms to prevent forks from being able to remove things like that, and forks could just use the last version of the code before the license change and just backport new features.

Also Firefox is fully open source, unlike chromium which relies on a closed source binary blob in the middle. Some chromium forks have replaced the binary blob with open source code, but the default is for chromium forks to have a nice chunk in them controlled by google that no one can deeply inveatigate what it does. Firefox does not have this issue.

Mozilla can't hide any potential data collection in Firefox due to the full open source nature (unlike chrome forks). They also can't stop fork devs from stripping out any data collection functions. And as of today, they have not introduced any data collection that is not supremely anonymized, and they have not introduced any data collection that cannot be opted out of through the browser settings (and about:config).

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 40 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Considering how critical a browser is these days.

I'm surprised there isn't a very popular Open-Source one that everyone is using.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 77 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

It's because it's hard to maintain a browser. There's lots of protocols and engines and other moving pieces; I remember when web pages would render in Netscape but not Internet Explorer, for example.

We take for granted how seamless and ubiquitous the internet is, but there were lots of headaches as internet devs decided to adopt or include different users (or not).

And now, it would take a lot of effort and market upset to convince the capitalist overlords to include something new in their dev stack. The barrier to entry is monumentally high, so most people don't bother to try inventing something better.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 23 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] 4am@lemm.ee 15 points 6 hours ago

Wasn’t there some stuff about the ladybird devs not too long ago?

I just hope that project doesn’t end up being the Voat or Parler of browsers.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 8 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, I have no doubt you are correct. It's one of those situations that if it were that easy, it would already be done.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] parmesan@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago (7 children)

Am I the only one here who's pretty much okay with this? I do wish they'd clarify exactly what they mean by "Mozilla doesn't sell data about you (in the way that most people think about 'selling data')," but having my anonymized data sold so that Mozilla can continue to operate (combined with Firefox being the best browser I've used in terms of both performance and flexibility - ability to install add-ons from sources outside of the Mozilla store, for example) - seems like a worthy tradeoff to me.

They also have an option to opt-out of data collection, which I do wish was opt-in instead, but with the way every other mainstream browser operates I'm just happy the option is there at all. Let me know if there's something I'm missing here though.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago
[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 52 points 11 hours ago

Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable)

So in other words we sell your data and get paid for it, and some countries won't let us lie about it.

[–] Xanza@lemm.ee -5 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I feel a little vindicated. I started using Firefox basically when it was first released. I migrated away from it after several years because I simply didn't like the direction that Mozilla was taking it. Decades later I see them struggling down the same inevitable path I figured they'd always head down from the beginning.

Firefox bros used to get ultra pissed at me for shitting on their browser because I just knew Mozilla would eventually fuck it all up. And here we are.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] afk_strats@lemmy.world 60 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (31 children)

Oh for fuck's sake! List of Firefox alternatives:

Windows/Linux/MacOS:

Android:

iOS: ??

[–] Cyber@feddit.uk 6 points 7 hours ago

Floorp?

No User Tracking

We don't collect personal information from users. We don't track users. We don't sell user data. We have no affiliation with any advertising companies.

[–] ded@lemy.lol 5 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Librewolf is mostly a autoconfig file for Firefox (which is a Firefox feature).

https://codeberg.org/librewolf/settings/raw/branch/master/librewolf.cfg

I doubt implementation of terms will be optional.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't they be optional? Every other change like this has been before.

[–] ded@lemy.lol 1 points 5 hours ago

Sorry I hope for the best. We're speaking of terms. Terms are legal facts.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›