this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
546 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

63614 readers
2787 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
 

AI Summary:

Overview:

  • Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
  • Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
  • Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
  • Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
  • Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
  • Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LittleRatInALittleHat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

A FOSS browser has and never will require collecting user data.

This should not happen at all.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 47 minutes ago

Certain features certainly could be considered as doing that, such as:

  • Firefox sync
  • crash reporting
  • add-on store

I certainly want those. And then there are others that I don't want:

  • Pocket
  • telemetry
  • studies
  • AI

My understanding is that this change is primarily motivated by a recent/upcoming law change in California that has a pretty broad definition of "selling user data" and this is less likely to be a fundamental change in how Mozilla operates. However, let's see what they come back with.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 19 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Too late, I switched to Floorp.

Because of privacy stuff? No. Because of repeated drama? Yes.

I don't have time for this stuff. I don't have time to track every minute twist of the knife that Google's funding drives Mozilla to embark on.

I'm bored of using software and watching it go through "death by a thousand minor dramas"

So now I use a web browser that has a name so stupid I don't even recommend it to other people. Brilliant.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 hours ago

Floorp isn't recommended for its privacy features anyway, it's recommended by users for the amount of customization you can do. It's got some features that Firefox has that I don't want to do without.

[–] twoface@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Even if the name sounds stupid, you should still recommend it to other people :D

Have been doing so for a few months and haven't had any negative feedback.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Floorp is a new Firefox based browser from Japan with excellent privacy & flexibility.

💀

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

The magic of forking!

[–] zecg@lemmy.world 57 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I didn't sell your shit, I collected it and shared it to keep myself comercially viable.

Surprise Mechanics 🤗

[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 151 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 54 points 14 hours ago (9 children)

"I am doing things that are not selling your data which some people consider to be selling your data"

Why is he so cryptic? Neil, why don't you tell me what those things are and let me be the judge?

[–] hansolo@lemm.ee 2 points 4 hours ago

"ChatGPT, I need your help. Please pretend to be a lawyer that recently suffered a severe concussion and write me something I can post online that will male this situation slightly weirder."

[–] PixelPinecone@lemmy.today 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I’m pretty sure this person is making a joke using a fake exaggerated “answer” from a corporation to highlight the absurdity of their double speak. I doubt something this insane would come from an actual spokesperson.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm getting that now too. I don't know the players in Mozilla. The quote without context made me think this was one of those Mozilla execs.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 46 points 11 hours ago

Louis Rossmann had a good video about this. Basically, California passed a law that changed what "selling your data" means, and it goes way beyond what I consider "selling your data." There's an argument here than Mozilla is largely just trying to comply with the law. Whether that's accurate remains to be seen though.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 19 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Some jurisdictions classify "sale" as broadly as "transfer of data to any other company, for a 'benefit' of any kind" Benefit could even be non-monetary in terms of money being transferred for the data, it could be something as broadly as "the browser generally improving using that data and thus being more likely to generate revenue."

To avoid frivolous lawsuits, Mozilla had to update their terms to clarify this in order to keep up with newer laws.

[–] mle86@feddit.org 19 points 9 hours ago

I think this is a reasonable explanation.

But I also believe a large part of the firefox user base does not want any data about them collected by their browser, no matter if it is for commercial purposes or simply analytics / telemetry. Which is why the original statement "we will never sell any of your data" was just good enough for them, and anything mozilla is now saying is basically not good enough, no matter how much they clarify it to mean "not selling in the colloquial sense"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] doctortofu@reddthat.com 188 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

That's good and I'm genuinely glad they're trying to clarify it, but it proves yet again that their top management is out of touch with reality and their users: somebody (most likely more than one person actually) had to sign off on these changes and the message they sent out - this whole thing could have been avoided if they understood their users better (and/or if they actually cared nore about what users think).

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Google funding allows them to be big and inefficient, which means a lot of tops paid well and thinking themselves fashionable FOSS leader people or something.

They can live without it. They'll have to cut most of the organization and return to being an open project developing a web browser.

That doesn't sound cool for people not doing useful work. Like me, I'll get to my shit instead of typing comments.

load more comments
view more: next ›