Mozilla is removing "Does Firefox sell your personal data?" in anticpation of ToS change : firefox

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I never donated to Mozilla so can't really complain. At the same time I'm 17yo so never had much chance of being financially sustainable to afford any monthly subscriptions/donations.

I'm using Orion on my Mac at the moment and Firefox on my Arch laptop + Fennec on my GrapheneOS phone (need the extensions that are not supported on Vanadium).

Even if Orion is not open-source, Kagi is really making good software so I think I'm gonna pay for it so it lasts during time. Is there a way to verify they're not selling data?

https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/faq.html#privacy

They're going to open-source someday I think, I really need to start helping them financially because I like what they make.

Might be an alternative for Mac users.

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

Is there a way to verify they're not selling data?

Your privacy FAQ link says they do not send telemetry back -- that claim could be tested by using network inspection tools like Wireshark if you know what you're doing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 17 hours ago

Oh fuch!

[–] [email protected] 92 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

They add this line earlier in the code:

Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. 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.

Seriously, do better and stop needlessly shaming Mozilla.

[edit] Read the replies to my message. There is good insight. Im probably very wrong here. Leaving my comment intact for context.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Did you read anything else in that PR? Explain why every other mention of them never selling your data has been marked as obsolete come 25th of April? Changing things like

Super free, actually. No hidden costs or anything. You don’t pay anything to use it, and we don’t sell your personal data.

to

Super free, actually. No hidden costs or anything. You don’t pay anything to use it.

# Obsolete string (expires 25-04-2025)
nope-never-have = Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. { -brand-name-firefox } products are designed to protect your privacy. <a href="{ $url }">That’s a promise.</a>

So much for that promise. Companies aren't your friend.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

This should very much be illegal. Companies should be held to the promises they make on their websites, it can't be as easy as deleting it and pretending it never happened.

Also, "You don’t pay anything to use it" is still a false statement. You're not paying money, but being tracked and sold means giving up something more valuable than money - information and potentially influence about who you are as a person - in exchange for access to a service.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago

All of this sucks, but I'm going to specifically complain that the first edit just makes no sense. The old terms say "Super free, actually" and then explain how super free is different from free. The edited version just defines super free the same way every normal human defines free: "You don't pay anything to use it." What's super about using words for their intended meaning?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Companies aren't your friend.

I know Mozilla has been under fire for not being truly non-profit, but it is a corp fully owned by a non-profit. Are there any billionaires in Mozilla?

Also (completely basing on your comment btw, "every other mention"), if there is still one mention of it in the ToS the policy doesn't seem to have really changed? Just a change in emphasis.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The current CEO is an Airbnb shill. Further, OpenAI is a non-profit, so I don't really see what difference that makes. If the ToU isn't changing, then why is there a flag labelled tou-changed? Further, like I said, all the other mentions are being scrubbed, doesn't that just further indicate that they are in fact changing it?

Read the PR, the proof is right there.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

    {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
      <p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. 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.</p>
    {% else %}
      <p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. 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.</p>
    {% endif %}

Top paragraph is what they're changing it to (behind a feature flag) and bottom is what it currently is. i.e. they are REMOVING the bit you marked in bold in your quote when the new ToS is active.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (5 children)

My dude, its being changed to add an additional paragraph. It is not being removed.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago

That particular snippet is being changed so there's a conditional for testing -- if you toggle to show how it will be when the new ToS is active, it shows the version of the paragraph WITHOUT "Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data." otherwise it shows the old text (i.e. exact same text in the paragraph in red).

Also, note the references to # Obsolete string (expires 25-04-2025) where selling personal data is mentioned elsewhere -- and the entirely removed FAQ entry!

This is serious.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

The diff shows that the single paragraph has been replaced with an if/else clause. If switch('firefox-tou') evaluates to true, then the paragraph without the "We don't sell access to your data" is rendered, if it evaluates to false, then the same paragraph with that particular sentence remains intact. Ergo, they've not added an extra paragraph.

Whoever posted this probably extrapolated that it's likely that Mozilla will change their Terms of Use, because that's 100% what this looks like. They'll probably announce their new ToU and flip a switch in the back-end and then when we navigate to this particular page we'll see the paragraph that doesn't have the "we won't sell your data" instead.

TLDR; Mozilla is gearing up to sell your data. Get mad. Seriously, get mad because that's fucking unacceptable.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's not an additional paragraph. It's a condition that changes whether "firefox-tou" is set to render the page.

I'm guessing "firefox-tou" is used for the Firefox browser ToS. So all other services of Mozilla still use the "we don't sell your data", but Firefox itself will have that line removed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Both paragraphs specifically state Firefox. Not other Mozilla services.

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

Good point. Although I'm mostly interested in what "firefox-tou" means here, as that is actually what needs to be set. For non coders it can be understood as: "remove the sentence if it's the firefox terms-of-use (tou)".

[–] otter 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Seems like there's two versions of the paragraph now, what's the firefox-tou bit about?

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

Feature flag -- toggle the change on and off for testing. If you go over to the linked PR (#16018), the description under testing is:

Create switch FIREFOX_TOU locally

Turn it off/on to review the changes

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

My dude, there is no "extra" paragraph in there. There is a conditional statement that says:

if (this_flag_is_set) {
  // [show this paragraph where we remove any mention of us not selling your data]
} else {
  // [show this paragraph where we mention that we don't sell your data]
}

So it's an "either/or," not a "plus."

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

what the fuck is that last review comment?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Misogyny. A tech-industry staple.

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

What did it say?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (7 children)

it was removed? thank fuck. it was something like

surprised it took them this long. ruin everything they touch.

the slur was...

"front holes"

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Never heard that one before. Not sure I would have even known what it meant since everyone has holes on the front.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

it is one of the most dehumanizing things i've ever read, and yeah it didn't click immediately for me either. i had to think about the context first.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It’s wild they would do this since there are forks that are already so good. It won’t take much enshittification for me to drop Firefox altogether.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The forks only keep existing thanks to Mozilla development, they can't actually maintain a browser engine, just tidy up a bit around the edges. If people drop Firefox altogether and it dies, so do the forks. Not saying that it's wrong to do that. But it makes me worried for the future.

load more comments (5 replies)

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

Example? I'm already using Mull on my phone. What should I be using on desktop?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

Mull has been discontinued.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Hey, just so you know, Mull development alongside DivestOS development has been halted indefinitely like a month or two ago.

I switched from Mull to Ironfox not too long ago. You can add their repository to your F-Droid client and get the fork and its updates from there.

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

LibreWolf and Waterfox are both great for Windows, Linux, or MacOS.

Fennec is worth a try on Android.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So, librewolf?

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

Too bad there's no android build for librewolf

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

https://f-droid.org/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/

Might be relevant to you, this is what I use!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, but it's not the same... Still it's better than anything else currently so that's what I've been using

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

Woof woof!

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

the universe is upside f***ing down..............

which is really bad because there isn't any universal up-down..................................

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

So they are gonna sell access to my data. Hmm. I guess I have to go elsewhere. Guess I have to read up on librewolf now.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

They edited it to confirm they don't do that, actually

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

Where is the edit?

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

The post links to an edit they made of a page on their GitHub

load more comments (2 replies)