this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025

119 points (93.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

37573 readers

1402 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

119

Why's everyone freaking out about Firefox Terms of Service? Isn't it Open Source? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 12 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I don't understand how they are supposed to "sell your data" if you just never use a Mozilla account and uncheck all the telemetry. Its not like they can secretly steal your data, since its Open Source.

It seems to me like just more FUD that Google is spreading to undermine our trust in free software.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] swordgeek 5 points 33 minutes ago

Something else that needs to be understood about Mozilla: Money!

The Foundation was formed in 2003. Mitchell Baker, the first CEO, stepped aside in 2008 but stayed on as Chairperson of the foundation.

In 2018, she got nearly $2.5million in compensation as foundation chair.
In 2019 that rose to $3million
In 2020, she returned as CEO and received over $3million in salary.
In 2021 her salary was over $5.5million.
In 2022 it reached nearly $7million.
In 2023 it was $6million again.

Think about that for a second. Mozilla's market share has been struggling, and their financials have been weak; but their lead person pulled in over $26 million dollars over a handful of years.

This entire activity has been a long game to extract 'maximum shareholder value' into Baker's pockets.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I would like to point out that they are free to modify the source code before building the binary they distribute. Being open source does not mean protection from secretly stealing data.

With chrome it is obvious because the closed part is called chrome and the open is chromium. But it is certainly possible to not make "stealing" magic on top public.

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

This is mitigated by "reproducible builds"

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

Does Firefox do reproducible builds? This bug report makes me think it doesn't (at least for Linux): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=885777

But maybe they do for Windows/Apple/Android?

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

Not sure. But you can change that, if not

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You're right that being opensource doesn't mean the binaries don't include extra stuff.

However, are you seriously suggesting no one would notice Firefox transmitting telemetry? Seems unlikely.

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

As someone else said, reproducible builds is a great mitigating factor for this secret changes. Firefox does have telemetry, but is very transparent and lets you turn it all off (as far as I can tell anyway). Don't want ads? Easy. Don't want Mozilla services? Simple.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Mozilla is changing the license used for the Firefox executable/binary. The TOS will be the governing license over Firefox, the branded browser executable. It will no longer be open source, as defined by the Open Source Initiative, as users are no longer free to use the software however they want. Firefox will now be source available.

The source code for the browser, is (at least as of this comment) FOSS under the MPL2 license. People are free to recompile the browser under a different name (e.g. Librewolf, Waterfox, etc.).

This is not FUD. I read through the new TOS, Acceptable Use Policy, and Privacy Policy. Since the browser executable was governed under the MPL2, there was little concern from the open source community. I made my judgement from those documents alone.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Ughh, don't make me switch my browser again...

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

LibreWolf my dude. Everything still works as if in FireFox.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

That's only works so long as Firefox stays alive and in development.

LibreWolf relies on Firefox being funded, if Firefox dies then LibreWolf also dies. Tens of millions of dollars go into engineering salaries to keep Firefox up-to-date on web standards, features, and performance. LibreWolf benefits from this.

[–] swordgeek 1 points 1 hour ago

I found it ironically frustrating that converting from Firefox to LibreWolf is harder than from literally any other browser, because there's no import mechanism.

It wouldn't be that hard to make a standalone tool to import bookmarks, passwords, and config settings, and would make LibreWolf a seamless transition for Firefox users. Instead, it's a frustrating process in re-creating years of tweaks.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago

I think the painful reality is, is that the availability of good honest, privacy focused browsers are narrowing. Mozilla just had to go and make it harder. I'm personally using LibreWolf myself.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

There was a post made my Mozilla years ago (I'm too lazy to find it). It was in the shadow of Chrome getting more scummy. Anyway, paraphrasing horribly, the idea was that the humble web browser was starting to become an increasingly personal decision. It represents you in ways that many people may not fully appreciate, comprehend, or understand. Your browser history tells people what you like, what you are afraid of. Increasingly, it tells corporations and governments who you talk to, where you're going, and what you're up to.

It's why it's important for a browser to be built for people, not for corporations.

It's so sad to see how far Mozilla has gone from that stance.

So I get how challenging and annoying changing a browser is because in many ways, it's you. It's who you are. But, like in life, sometimes we must choose to leave the friends who bring us down. It hurts, it sucks. But it's the way of life.

I've spent a good part of this morning switching things over to Waterfox. It's not perfect. There are gaps and for some reason, I can port over Chrome and Edge profiles but NOT firefox profiles. But sometimes a fresh start is good too.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Ironically, I just made [email protected] last night, haha.

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

Is there one for LibreWolf ?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Subbed! And made the first post!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Why this not librewolf

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

Because I am but one man. 😂

Waterfox was what I noticed first. If waterfox didn't work out, it's next. Followed by ladybird.

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

How can Firefox not be open source if its sources are under the MPL2 ?
It has always been the case that Firefox is a trademark and you can't distribute it under that name. However if the code is open source the project is too.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

I'm a software developer, and understand the technicalities and options available to me. I am capable of forking Firefox and make myself a custom build with anything I don't like stripped out. (Capable of, not wanting to.)

They removed "We don't sell your data and we never will" from their FAQ and they added "We may sell your data" to the ToS.

I am unhappy about this change. It is a clear sign that the people in charge of Firefox want to sell user data, and that the irrecoverable enshittification path has been chosen. It means that at some point in the next few years, I can't trust Firefox' with my privacy. And they sure as fuck don't have anything else going for them: The browser eats memory and freezes my camera during video conferencing, and is plain not supported in some of the software I use at work.

The rationale is probably something entirely reasonable, like "While we do not intend to sell user data, the phrasing was too vague and not helpful. What is selling, and what is user data, really?" An organization with strong privacy values would be so far from anything "bad" that the phrasing as it was would not be a problem for them.

It's irrelevant that right now privacy settings and xyz and telmentry is clear and opt in etc. Because the point is that they are gearing up to change that. The settings will be less clear, user data will be separated into shit like "operability assistance", "personal information", "experience improvement metrics" with some of it enabled by default because, etc.

[–] swordgeek 1 points 1 hour ago

They removed “We don’t sell your data and we never will” from their FAQ and they added “We may sell your data” to the ToS.

"Never" has a very clear and definite meaning. By undoing "never," I feel like the Mozilla foundation is inviting a class-action lawsuit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

"and we never will"

this should imply something that cant be changed. Such empty words should no longer be even considered no matter who says them, unless its paired with enforceable punishment for breaking the word

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (6 children)

The rationalization they have given is that legally, they may have been seeking data all along, as some jurisdictions define it extremely loosely.

For example, if you use their translation feature, they are sending the page your looking at (data) to a third party, which provides a benefit to Mozilla. Thats technically a sale in some laws, but most would agree that is acceptable given the user asked for it to happen.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

I'm overall concerned with Mozilla, but not sure this is malicious yet. But definitely needs to be closely scrutinized.

[–] swordgeek 1 points 59 minutes ago

The rationalization they have given...

Anything you say after this point is irrelevant. (Nothing personal, though.)

As soon as a company has to rationalise their legal back-pedalling, it is explicit evidence that they are intending to do wrong.

This will not end well.

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

Something to note, however, is that the new terms apply to the browser as a whole. If it was due to some of the opt-in services the browser includes (sync, account, translation, etc.), they could have specified the terms apply to those services instead.

Agree this isn't necessarily malicious yet, but it definitely is not beneficial to users.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I love how California basically defines a sale as "exchanging things for money" and Firefox is like, "its such a craaazy world we can't even agree on the definition of exchanging things for money out here! Some call it a 'sale' apparently, so if we're gonna exchange your data for money I guess we have to call it a 'sale'... Stupid California, changing things to mean what they've always meant"

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

Its even more broad than that, because its any exchange of data for valuable consideration. No money has to change hands, but if it benefits FF, its a sale. And the benefit could simply be "if we do this we will function correctly as a browser".

[–] swordgeek 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Here's the crux of the problem.

Mozilla went from "explicitly not malicious" to "probably not malicious yet."

What's next?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago

Yup. And it doesn't help that they have been throwing away good will for a while now, with their crypto/AI/etc bandwagon jumping. They are still the least worst option, as I dont trust the forks either, but its getting hard to trust them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The privacy centric way for Mozilla to have address this would have been to:

acknowledge laws in certain countries have changed
Due to those new laws, the definition of "sell" has changed and Firefox may no longer be in compliance with their desire to keep your data private
Commit their desire to take the necessary steps to keep new versions of Firefox in line with their original vision
update the "we will not sell" definition to within the jurisdiction of the United States, or indicate that the definition of sell may be different in different jurisdictions
make the necessary extensions to jurisdictions where they were "selling" user data, self reporting where necessary

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

Yup, its been terribly handled. Dunno if it was driven by a panicy lawyer, but those steps would have been much better. At a minimum, that blog post should have come first.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The current intention may not be malicious, but it leaves the way open for changes that are to slip in. If they were worried about services like translation being concidered 'sales', which is a reasonable concern, they should have split them out of the core browser into an extension and put the 'might sell your data' licence on that.

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

Yeah, its definitely wide open for abuse now. But the California law also seems way too vague as well. What about DNS lookup? That takes a users input and transfers it to someone else, is that a "sale"? Can hardly start separating that out of the browser? Http requests? Its all users initiated, but is it a "sale" in California? Not a lawyer, haven't a clue.

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

DNS is fine as the exchange has to be for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration” to be considered a sale. The issue seems to be that Mozilla were profiting off of things like adverts placed on the new tab page, and possibly from the translation service too.

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

I'm not a lawyer, but "other valuable consideration" seems very broad. For DNS, getting the returned IP address is valuable. Ditto for http, getting the returned webpage is valuable?

I only suggested the translation thing because it (imo) fell under a "transfer of data for value provided", which makes it a sale?

[–] [email protected] 82 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

We're all keyboard warriors with opinions.

I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but I honestly feel like right now it is a nothingburger.

Will I continue to keep an eye on the things they do? Yes. Does their CEOs work history bother me? Yes. Will I keep using it and just keep tabs on settings and extensions? Yes.

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

Maybe. Not everyone is just going to ignore this, though.

I waffle between Firefox and other browsers, depending on how tolerant I'm feeling. Not using Firefox is more work. Sometimes I'll spend a week or two with Firefox up, but normally, I'm in Luakit.But when I hit that web site that just doesn't work with WebKit, I hop over to FF for it. Now, with this, I'll probably start jumping to Nyxt which - while also WebKit - seems for some reason to work with more sites. Nyxt is faster, too; luakit is really slow and has a persistent scrolling bug that drives me nuts. But Nyxt hard-hangs multiple times during each hour of its, requiring a kill -9 and restart, so ... Luakit.

Like I said. It's harder to not use Firefox. But this change in policy is enough to make me change my habits and use something else when I have issues with Luakit. Or surf. Or vimb. Or whatever I'm fancying this month. Problem is, they're mostly WebKit, and while in grateful for it, it struggles with many web sites - and especially the JS heavy ones.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 47 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is that a reduction in trust correlates to a reduction in users. A reduction in Firefox increases Chromium’s dominance on the web, which is a near monopoly already. A monopoly on web renderers in turn is bad for open web standards.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

People worried about Mozilla surely won't migrate to chrome, will they?

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

Nobody can fucking win with either option anymore.

So you're disgruntled with Mozilla now, so you hop to Chrome. But you learn that Chrome has neutered the way you were once able to have dodged ads. Whoops! Now that's a problem, in addition to knowing how data-hungry Google has been for a while.

What're you left with? Edge? Edge has recently announced that it too neutered ad-blockers and it's not open source and they're just as data-hungry because now you're dealing with Microsoft.

So now Firefox, Edge and Chrome are all off the table now because they all went the route of enshittification.

Opera? Can't trust opera because of it's ties to a chinese company so that's either here or there. Chromium? Back to dealing with Google again! Brave? The CEO is an asshat, targeted ads, cryptobullshit .etc

All that we're realistically down to is just Firefox forks. IceDragon, Weasel, LibreWolf and all of them. Plenty of options but updates and development varies.

What choice....

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

Nah. There's loads of great privacy browsers based on Firefox

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago

Of course they would. Not everyone reasonable of course, but people are terribly stupid by default, even if they somehow stumbled into Firefox for some reason before.

There are people that say stuff like "better the devil you know" or "if I compromise privacy either way, might as well use the more supported browser" or whatever rationalizations people come up with.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

Why not? Or at least if people are choosing a browser they might not see the benefits of Firefox and just see that chromium is more spread and thus more compatible and "user friendly" (whatever that means). If Firefox isn't better than chrome, why not switch over to the bigger one...(?)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 hours ago

It's been a few steps in a concerning direction by them recently. As of right now, it's still OK to use IMO but I'm sincerely hoping this is the extent of it, or even that they row back some of the recent changes.

However, I still want it to exist because its the only viable alternative at the moment to Google's dominance. Yes there are plenty of forks (two of which I use) but they still rely on Firefox as the core product. I don't think any are hard forks (or am I wrong?). I'm very uncomfortable at the thought of using a browser thats based on Chromium and/or unable to run the full version of UBO or have Containerised tabs.

load more comments