Mozilla shots foot in {current_year}
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
553 points (98.1% liked)
Privacy
1112 readers
895 users here now
Protect your privacy in the digital world
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
- No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
- Stay on topic.
- Don't promote proprietary software.
- No crypto, blockchain, etc.
- No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)
- If in doubt, read rule 1
Related communities:
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
It's pretty funny, because Firefox was like the best browser of the late 2000s, until sometime around 2011 they became adware for a decade just to make a comeback as a privacy focused browser again. So it's not like this hasn't happened before. I always wondered peoples newfound enthusiasm TBH.
Edit: I swear this happened when they switched to the rapid release cycles and FF went from version 6 to 20 in a few months and at one point it became super slow and came with unwanted ad extensions. It's almost like the internet was scrubbed of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history#Rapid_releases
This seems out of context. The same git commit that removes the paragraph OP pointed out also adds the following text:
"We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too."
To me that seems more like a re-wording than a fundamental change.
Edit: I somewhat misread the commit, as @olexander@lemmy.world pointed out below.
That is not true.
The text you quoted is behind a feature-flag. When the the firefox-tou is enabled the words about not selling data are removed.
Huh, you're absolutely right, I haven't noticed that. Now, to be fair the text without the text isn't that much different but it does exclude the explicit promise not to sell data. The text shown without the flag set – and is currently shown on the Firefox website – states:
"... we believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too."
So the sentence "Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data." Is missing. So yeah, i agree, not great. But we'll see what actually happens.
To be clear, my intention isn't to defend Mozzila, for example I really don't like their privacy policy allows them to "collect technical and interaction data, such as the position, size, views and clicks on New Tab content or ads, to understand how people are interacting with our content and to personalize future content, including sponsored content." I just don't like drawing wide-sweeping conclusions based on things like wording changes.
We don't sell it it's just me and my 999+ close friends looking over it
Also seems like typical Lunduke trying to make something out of nothing. Dude loves to fearmonger, especially about Mozilla. I'm not saying Mozilla hasn't done things I dislike, but Lunduke has had it out for them since Brendan Eich stepped down over his opposition to gay rights.
On a Lemmy I'm always the person who thinks people are overreacting or exaggerating. But this really does seem like the end of firefox as a privacy champion (which, apart from being nonprofit, was my only real reason for using it). I think I will make a donation to ladybird.
Another thing: their acceptable use policy straight up forbids viewing pornography or graphic violence. No nuance or exceptions.
their acceptable use policy straight up forbids viewing pornography or graphic violence
That's one thing I'm unsure about, because at the very top of the acceptable use policy it says that those points apply to Mozilla services - is Firefox a service, or does it only apply to online services that are built into Firefox?
I still don't like it if it's overreaching, but I could understand if they don't want, say, porn on some sharing features where they might be hosting something.
Where can I find this acceptable use policy?
Edit: found it but it was not mentioned in the new TOS. Does this only apply to Mozillas other services like sync and stuff?
Another thing: their acceptable use policy straight up forbids viewing pornography or graphic violence. No nuance or exceptions.
I might have violated that, but then again I didn't read the TOS.
Your TOS can't stop me, I can't read!
Sigh...
Goddamnit
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villian.
Isn't there some legal precedent for them having used the word "never"?
Legally if you stay on a version prior to the license change they can’t sell your data
That makes sense, thanks.
So if you don’t want to use a chromium based browser but also care about privacy, you’re now fucked?
Firefox is open-source. Certainly, you're out of options in terms of "name-brand" browsers, but there's a number of Firefox forks. On desktop, LibreWolf is the closest thing to mainline and on Android, IronFox is the equivalent.
If you want something more than just "Firefox minus the branding and tracking", some of the deeper forks are Zen Browser and Floorp.
Do any of these also have an Android equivalent? I liked being able to browse on my phone and continue on my desktop and vice versa.
There's no technical reason why you need to be using the same-named fork on desktop and Android; they will all communicate via Firefox Sync. e.g. I'm running LibreWolf (desktop) and IronFox (Android) with my data synced, but you could just as easily sync Zen Browser (desktop) and Fennec F-Droid (Android), etc.
That said, if you want to get both browsers from the same team/with the same branding, I think Waterfox is probably your best bet. It doesn't have quite as strong a privacy focus as LibreWolf/IronFox, which both ship with very strict privacy-focussed defaults, which many users will likely roll back. For example, the default setting in LibreWolf is to delete all history and cookies on exit. Even so, Waterfox is more privacy-focussed than upstream Firefox and has released a statement on the Mozilla license changes if you want to get a feel for their perspective.
Awesome,thank you for the info!
If they use Firefox sync, you are most likely only protected by the Firefox terms for anything synchronised
load more comments
(4 replies)
If you don't want to use Gecko nor Chromium, I am aware of the following alternatives:
WebKit
Though associated with Apple and Safari, WebKit (@webkit@front-end.social) has its origins in KDE and its Konqueror browser. KDE developed its own web engine called KHTML, which was forked into WebKit. It's therefore fully open source, despite the Apple connection.
On Linux you can use WebKit in GNOME Web (formerly Epiphany) or Konqueror. If you're on Mac, Safari is probably your best bet. Windows users appear to be out of luck.
Servo
Servo (@servo@floss.social) is a brand new Rust-based engine which was originally developed by Mozilla, but which was abandoned by them like good things often are. Thankfully the Linux foundation took over developments. It's still in development, but from their download page you can take it for a spin within seconds on all three major operating systems. It's looking pretty good.
They maintain a list of things made with Servo. The most promising project so far appears to be a browser named Verso.
Ladybird
Ladybird is another development to follow. Unlike WebKit and Servo, Ladybird is being developed as a web browser in its own right, but this browser will come with a completely original rendering engine. It aims to have an alpha released next year, and is largely written in C++.
Funnily enough WebKit was Chromium's original engine.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(20 replies)
We need an eu browser. The governent for example should only use software that is verifiably secure.
I'd agree with that if it weren't for multiple EU goverments including mine (Germany) trying to undermine encryption and security at every opportunity possible, despite getting told off by courts more than once.
Imo the question is how a non profit can be set up to reliably follow their goals in the longterm. And my fear is that ultimately it is always down to the personnel selection, which you can't lock in.
Mozilla FakeSpot promises that the following "is Sold and/or Shared [with] Advertising partners":
- "browsing history, search history"
- "Geolocation data"
- "a profile about a consumer"
Instead of aligning FakeSpot (which they bought in 2023) with their pro-privacy stance, it seems they are realigning their stance with their actual activity.
Brownie points for being honest, I guess.
view more: next ›