this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
484 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

63547 readers
2399 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
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days 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. "

                }

            },

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

PAID ONLY BY A RELATED FOR-PROFIT

Conveniently missed note above ☝️

The remainder of the executive team is paid what appears to be a fairly reasonable salary for the industry, low even.

The biggest cost ($6mill) is paid by the for profit Mozilla corporation.

Browser development is crazy hard, and expensive, work. Mozilla has honestly done a TON with the resources at hand. Google over here spending hundreds of millions for Chrome

It just sucks that they are seeing financial pressures that drive them into the profit corner.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 87 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 days ago

Damn we really can't have anything nice.

[–] [email protected] 154 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 210 points 3 days ago (10 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."

[–] [email protected] 84 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 51 points 3 days ago (18 children)

I agree to a point, but I look at this similar to how I'd view any feature in a browser. Sometimes there are features added that I don't use, and thus, I simply won't use them.

This would be a problem for me if it was an "assistant" that automatically popped up over pages I was on to offer "help," but it's not. It's just a sidebar you can click a button in the menu to pop out, or you can never click that button and you'll never have to look at it.

It's not a feature that auto-enables in a way that actually starts sending data to any AI company, it's just an optional interface, that you have to click a specific button to open, that can then interface with a given AI model if you choose to use it. If you don't want to use it, then you ideally won't even see it open during your use of Firefox.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 112 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Privacy policies should legally be called surveillance policies.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago

Or "Invasion of Privacy" Policy

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

lol. Are you for real? You think the Firefox development team can be funded by 20% of the CEO’s salary?!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago

certainly not in itself. but it certainly would help significantly as additional budget. and as I said, the more the better

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Guys Mullvad browser and Librewolf exist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

LibreWolf is annoying in that it doesn't work on my Mac with VPN split tunneling, a seemingly known issue they haven't fixed.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

and then, "uh, we are removing the URL bar in the next version because our statistics say nobody uses it!!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 3 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days 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)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 days ago (2 children)

ladybird can't come fast enough

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 days ago (15 children)

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

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

Overhyped AI is going to fail, and it can't happen soon enough. The Mozilla leadership really needs to pay attention to that reality.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Mozilla leadership needs to be removed

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 3 days ago (10 children)

Well, we had a good run lads, enshitification is here.

Any recommendations for open source alternatives that are convenient and also have an android app supporting ublock origin.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 days ago (6 children)

librewolf on pc and ironfox on android. both forks of firefox.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›