this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
1307 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

66584 readers
3868 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  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 An archived version from January 30 says: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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world 260 points 2 weeks ago (24 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.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 69 points 2 weeks 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 141 points 2 weeks ago (4 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 44 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] 4am@lemm.ee 35 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 154 points 2 weeks ago (3 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 34 points 2 weeks 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 (2 replies)
[–] afk_strats@lemmy.world 77 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (37 children)

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

Windows/Linux/MacOS:

Android:

iOS: ??

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

There’s also Servo by the Linux Foundation and Ladybird.

These are actual different browsers and engines all together compared to FF spin-offs.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 16 points 2 weeks ago

I'm still super waiting for Lady Bird. I cannot wait to give it a try, but it's gonna be like 2026 before they start rolling out builds for general use.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 67 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zecg@lemmy.world 61 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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,

Fuck off Mozilla. Maybe don't pay CEOs millions and don't force things like Pocket and LLMs on users if you want to be commercially viable, I'd gladly pay for Firefox that doesn't make me dodge new features and services. But it would be a donation towards development of a browser that is commons, since you have no product to sell, only GPL'd code that's mine as much as yours.

You have NO fucking leverage, Firefox is better than Chrome, but there's projects that will gladly repackage your code with no telemetry whatsoever for any platform while you're brainstorming just the right amount of monetization to prevent the frog from jumping.

It's kind of sad I don't use Chrome and therefore never think of it, while I like and use Firefox and am therefore constantly at odds with Mozilla.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 54 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm about to get my tattoo removed wtf

[–] KrapKake@lemmy.world 37 points 2 weeks ago

Just get "RIP" tattooed under it.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If it's really you...

Wtf?

[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

It is lmfao it was my first one 🥲

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Would you like to see my tattoo of Tom from MySpace I got on my left testicle? Hey man, in 2005 it seemed like MySpace Tom would be in our lives forever. Why WOULDN'T you get his profile picture inked into your body with needles on the most painful part of your body? It made sense in 2005!

But noooooooooo! Facebook had to be a dick. And now whenever I pull my pants down in front of some hot 20 year old with daddy issues, she's like "Is that your uncle or something?"

Meanwhile Tom sold my MySpace for hundreds of millions of dollars, and now does photography of bikini models on his yacht! While I have to explain who Tom is to Gen Z....

sigh

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 50 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] LMurch@thelemmy.club 29 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 42 points 2 weeks ago

That clarification is not making me calm

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 41 points 2 weeks ago

They can't just promise they "never will" and then get rid of it. People who used the service under the original agreement should still be able to claim that benefit since it was promising to never sell it.

[–] nthavoc@lemmy.today 37 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I remember a time when Google wrote "Don't be evil" all over their stuff.....

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 weeks ago

dude i worked in a buncha different college libraries around the time of google's initial ascension. Google slayed. it was awesome, in 2000.

now? google is a drippy search engine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

This is why I am an advocate for publicly-funded Internet, like how people fund NPR and BBC.

I don't blame Firefox because at the end of the day, they are still a business and need to cover the operating cost. I blame the system that we're in and the elites will tell you there is no other alternative.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 35 points 2 weeks ago

Google really needs to be broken up. They've become the Ma Bell of the internet.

[–] kingshrubb@lemmy.ml 34 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)
[–] MrMcGasion@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Glad they clarified. To me the "selling data being defined broadly" argument made sense in the context of Google paying them to be included as a search provider. Because there is an argument that Google paying Firefox, and then the user entering a search and that being sent to Google's servers could be legally seen as Mozilla selling data to Google.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ChonkaLoo@lemmy.zip 33 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I don't like this but it's gonna take more for me to switch. I am very happy with Firefox for my use-case and workflow it works really well. However I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by starting to take away some of the most crucial advantages with Firefox compared to Chrome. I mean if both are awful for privacy then why use Firefox?

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Mind you, this is just step one and other steps WILL follow. Mozilla looked at other enshittified products from large companies that make a lot of money and thought "we could have that too!"

It's a pattern I keep seeing, over and over. This is the end of Firefox as we knew it. I'm sure a good fork, run by a non profit foundation will sprout soon enough, but the name for a privacy browser won't be Firefox no more

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 31 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] NullHippo@lemmy.today 30 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

They're cash strapped and cash strapped companies are the worst when it comes to being trustworthy. That's all the calculus that needs to be done.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Mozilla posted an update:

Update at 10:20 pm ET: Mozilla has since announced a change to the license language to address user complaints. It now says, "You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee 21 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

Gahhhh this is horrible

I spent some time switching to Librewolf this morning but at the end of the day, it having Firefox as the upstream means it’s all fragile and tenuous anyway

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Solventbubbles@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Son of a bitch I just got back into Firefox.

[–] CH3DD4R_G0BL1N@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Get in loser, we’re going to librewolf apparently. Fuck me I’ve reached the age of seeing all the things I like die. I don’t even remember a time I didn’t use Firefox. God damn it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I mean you could argue that them defaulting to Google search is already them selling your data. Google definitely pay them for that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

I moved to LibreWolf a couple of months ago. I'll move further away if I need to.

[–] parmesan@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (5 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.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The problem I have with this is that "anonymized" data in the past has often been trivial to de-anonymize. And if they can remove some promises now, they're going to keep going in that direction. Just like Microsoft telemetry used to be less but is getting worse and worse.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›